House of Commons
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
We have been in discussions with the EU since the publishing of the EU’s proposals on 13 October in response to our Command Paper from July. We are seeking to understand the detail of some of the headline claims that the EU has made on issues such as sanitary and phytosanitary measures and customs checks. We continue to work closely with the EU and are hopeful that we will be able to bridge any gaps between our positions.
Carol Monaghan
The law firm Carson McDowell has said that not one business has raised concerns about the European Court of Justice or its role as the court of ultimate appeal under the Northern Ireland protocol, so why are the UK Government prioritising a Brexit purity issue as their key demand in negotiations with the EU when it is completely immaterial to businesses in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
Actually, a whole range of businesses and business groups, as they are working through the detail of the EU’s proposals, have concerns about whether they cover enough to deal with the issues in Northern Ireland. That is why it is important that we have these negotiations. For us, it is also important, and ultimately important for business, to ensure that the mechanism to deal with any issues is one that is licensed there and more traditional in international agreements and transactions. The role of the ECJ, as we have seen already this year, does not provide that, and ultimately, therefore, does not provide stability for Northern Ireland businesses or indeed the political structure of Stormont. It is therefore important that we make sure that that is resolved to have a proper working solution.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Why has Brussels seen the legal text on the changes that the Government want to make to the protocol but the democratic leaders of Northern Ireland are still completely in the dark? Will the Secretary of State urgently share that text with them?
Brandon Lewis
This is a legal text we have shared with the EU, as we did with the papers we published earlier this year, which sadly we did not have too much feedback from the EU about. This is about engaging with the EU in a confidential manner to allow the space for these private negotiations and discussions to go ahead. It is right that we do that and do those negotiations in a proper, business-like way.
Louise Haigh
It is quite important that we have feedback from Northern Ireland as well. Not only will the Secretary of State not share that text with those I mentioned, but politicians, communities and businesses in Northern Ireland are completely excluded from the negotiations. Does he accept that it is not sustainable for a Secretary of State to say to the people of Northern Ireland, “We have decided what is best for you—take it or leave it”? Will he therefore move the talks to Belfast and give Northern Ireland’s politicians a seat at the table?
Brandon Lewis
I am happy to let the hon. Lady know that the reality of what is happening is quite different from what she outlined. The politicians in Northern Ireland are involved, and not just here in this House: only yesterday Lord Frost and I engaged with both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as we are doing on a regular, pretty much weekly, basis. We have also engaged with businesses all the way through, via the Business Engagement Forum—indeed, I met business representatives on Friday last week—so that they, and civic society, are fully involved with feeding into the negotiations, which of course, absolutely, are quite rightly between the UK Government and the EU.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to see the removal of the Irish sea border on the movement of goods within the UK internal market between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that tinkering around the edges of the protocol without removing these unnecessary checks and impediments to trade within the United Kingdom is totally unacceptable?
Brandon Lewis
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. This is a point about consistency. We need to ensure that we have that free movement of goods—that goods are moving from Great Britain across to Northern Ireland for use and consumption in Northern Ireland—recognising also that we have a responsibility about goods moving into the EU. We are determined to deliver that. Sadly, the Opposition have been quite clear previously that they are happy to see a border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are absolutely categorical about the fact that we want to ensure that goods can move freely and goods that are being consumed and used by the people of Northern Ireland can reach them in good order and in good time, as they should do and as we are determined to see happen.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he also agree that in addition to resolving the trading issues and removing the Irish sea border, he and the Government need to pursue the full restoration of article 6 of the Acts of Union, which makes it very clear that there should be no barriers to trade within the United Kingdom and that there should be respect to the principle of consent, which is at the heart of the Belfast agreement?
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman will, I know, be aware that this issue is subject to legal proceedings, so I hope he will excuse me being relatively brief in my reply. I reiterate our commitment in the Command Paper that we need to remove the burden on trade and goods with the UK and to ensure that businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland can continue to have full and normal access to goods from the rest of the UK. It is also worth colleagues across this House remembering that not only does New Decade, New Approach ensure that we have that full internal market in the UK, but the protocol that was agreed, in its principles, is very clear that it would not only not disrupt the everyday lives of people in their communities in Northern Ireland, as is currently a problem, but will respect the internal market of the United Kingdom. We are determined to deliver on that objective.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Lord Frost recently said that there could be “no role” for the European Court of Justice in arbitrating disputes around the protocol. If that genuinely now represents the view of the UK Government, in contrast to when they negotiated and signed that protocol, can the Secretary of State tell the House how he would prefer to see disputes arising from the protocol arbitrated and settled? If he cannot share the text with politicians in Northern Ireland or in this House, can he at least give us a clue about what the outline of such a solution might be?
Brandon Lewis
As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, there are different mechanisms for arbitration where there are disagreements between parties about things that have been agreed in international arrangements, including the withdrawal agreement itself. Those are working very well. What we have seen this year is how the EU has used the ECJ, even with the infraction proceedings around the processes we had to take forward in March to ensure that we could continue to get goods to Northern Ireland. It shows a very one-sided approach to this matter. It does not work, including for the stability for the Northern Ireland, and it is right we correct that. We have outlined that in the Command Paper, and that is part of the negotiations we will be having with the EU.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
I meet regularly with Cabinet colleagues to discuss Northern Ireland-related matters, including issues surrounding the Northern Ireland protocol, where it is vital that we find more productive and sustainable arrangements to deliver more effectively on the protocol’s objectives. It is worth remembering that it is clear that the protocol should protect the integral place of Northern Ireland in the UK’s internal market, minimise the impact on the lives of citizens, maintain the necessary conditions for north/south co-operation, and, importantly, protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its strands.
Andrew Jones
There are high volumes of trade between businesses in Northern Ireland and Yorkshire, including in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Many different business sectors are involved, but food and drink is particularly prominent, and I have had concerning reports of excess bureaucracy affecting trade. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that business and trade flows as smoothly as possible?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an important point that has been echoed by the business community, the hospitality industry and the food and drink industry in Northern Ireland, even just late last week. It is something we need to resolve. That is why it is important we continue the work, as part of the discussions we are having with the EU, to deliver on what we set out in our July Command Paper as a way to resolve the issues over the protocol.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Northern Ireland protocol is still causing significant damage in Northern Ireland and great anger for those who are impacted by it. Whether Ministers want to believe it or not, we are heading towards a constitutional crisis in Northern Ireland if the issue is not resolved. Does the Minister accept that the only reason we have checks and a debate about the European Court of Justice having a role in Northern Ireland is because Northern Ireland is now subject to EU law? Unless that issue is dealt with, the Northern Ireland protocol problems will not be resolved.
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, further highlighting the issues around the European Court of Justice. At present, we have a system where EU laws are imposed on Northern Ireland without the consent of anyone in Northern Ireland—he is absolutely right. The challenges and disputes about these laws are also settled in the Court, only one of the two signatory parties to the protocol, and that obviously came before the wider trade agreement. The CJEU sits at the apex of the system. In addition to causing an imbalance in the equilibrium of east-west and north-south arrangements, we believe the oversight is not necessary. To preserve the structure and the gains that we have seen through the peace process of 23 years in Northern Ireland, we believe they must be replaced by something much more in keeping with the intentions of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and traditional international trade agreements.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
The Government will bring forward legislation to address the Northern Ireland legacy issues very soon, focusing on information recovery and reconciliation.
Simon Jupp
East Devon is home to many veterans who proudly served their country, risking everything while following orders. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in his forthcoming legislation, we will stand by our promise to end vexatious claims against those who served in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
The Government are absolutely committed to fulfilling their manifesto commitments to provide certainty to the many veterans who served courageously to defend the rule of law during the long years of the troubles. I can give my hon. Friend and his constituents the reassurance that we will deliver on our manifesto pledge, but we are also clear that this is about ensuring that we are addressing the needs of victims and veterans at the same time.
Dan Jarvis
I offer my sympathies to the families of Dennis Hutchings and John Pat Cunningham during what must be an incredibly difficult period for them. The last time I raised the forthcoming Bill, I was told that veterans were being consulted. The Secretary of State will therefore be aware that a range of views are held, including in Northern Ireland where many oppose a blanket amnesty. Will he commit to continued close engagement with veterans to fully understand the views of those who served?
Brandon Lewis
I join the hon. Gentleman in offering my condolences and thoughts to those families. As in the rest of our engagement, we have heard a range of views from across the community, particularly on that side of the discussion from the veterans community. We are considering that carefully.
We have always been clear that dealing with the past in Northern Ireland must equally address the needs of victims and veterans. I am happy to restate the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman previously and say that we will continue to engage closely with veterans groups across Great Britain and Northern Ireland as we seek to bring in legislation to address those important, complex and sensitive issues.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
After more than four years, two general election manifestos and a hand-signed promise in The Sun newspaper from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State has delivered nothing. My question is very straightforward: “Where is your Bill, Brandon?”
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has campaigned on the issue for a long time and he has been forthright in his determination to deliver for the veterans community. We set out our Command Paper in July just before the summer recess. As we said we would, we have been engaging with interested parties in the past couple of months, including not just the veterans community but victims, civic society and, more widely, the political parties in Northern Ireland. As we said in the Command Paper, we are still focused on delivering legislation to the House this autumn.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State tell the House clearly which of the groups representing the families of victims that he has met have agreed with his proposals?
Brandon Lewis
As I said when I launched the Command Paper, we appreciate that it is a very sensitive and complex issue that will affect a huge range of people. We have had wide engagement across victims groups and with victims who are not represented by groups. We are taking on that feedback at the moment and we will come forward with proposals very soon.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
My constituent Edward Vaughan-Jones’ brother Robert, 2 Para, died at Warrenpoint in 1979. Some 42 years later, the family’s wounds have not healed due to repeated investigations and a lack of conclusion. Can my right hon. Friend outline when Mr Vaughan-Jones will receive a conclusive report on his brother’s death so that he can finally have some sense of closure?
Brandon Lewis
My deepest sympathies are with Mr Vaughan-Jones and the many other families who have waited far too long to get answers about the circumstances of their loved ones’ deaths. We are determined that part of the process of information recovery will mean that families get the answers that they have not had. They have waited far too long and we need to resolve that issue soon.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
Many of the same supply chain issues experienced in Northern Ireland are seen across the United Kingdom. We are seeing a shortage of HGV drivers across all supply chains. The Government have introduced a range of solutions to ease the pressures across the UK. We are separately in intensive discussions with the European Union to find solutions to the current issues that are being caused by how the protocol is being applied. The haulage sector has been impacted and we continue to engage with it to understand the issues it is facing to ensure that the work we do with the EU gets a resolution that works for it.
Patricia Gibson
Logistics UK, which represents 400 haulage operators in Northern Ireland and is responsible for 90% of goods transferred across the Irish sea, welcomed the EU’s proposals to improve the Northern Ireland protocol as a “leap of faith” and a positive step. Why have the UK Government refused to accept those proposals and instead insisted on sinking the negotiations with ideological demands rather than practical considerations?
Brandon Lewis
Again, I am afraid that I need to correct the hon. Lady’s misunderstanding of the situation. I met representatives of the haulage association on Friday who are clear that having looked at the details of the EU proposal, it does not work and it is not enough. They are much more focused on what we outlined in the Command Paper. We need to resolve those issues and I hope that, in the conversation with the EU—it has moved, which we welcome—we will get enough movement to deal with the issues that have been raised by the haulage industry, even those raised on Friday of last week.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Conor Burns)
The Prime Minister has been very clear that our levelling-up ambitions are not about points on a compass but about people and communities throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. We are delivering for Northern Ireland through our plan for jobs, our £600 million city and growth deal programme, and through the new deal for Northern Ireland, which will fund the promotion of Northern Ireland trade and investment globally.
James Daly
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that, for all the Government’s support for enterprise, innovation and new investment in Northern Ireland, they must not be frustrated and deterred by a second, unnecessary layer of bureaucracy?
Conor Burns
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely the legitimate interest of the United Kingdom Government to deliver prosperity and opportunity for every part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and we will work in partnership with others, including the Northern Ireland Executive, to do just that.
Marco Longhi
I welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box. Does he agree that the £400 million that we are committing to implement the Northern Ireland new deal will not only boost economic growth and competitiveness but, taken with other recent investment, represents the largest boost from a UK Government in decades?
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On top of the £400 new deal funding there is a swathe of other funding totalling just over £1 billion to small businesses and communities, delivering trader support new technology and the PEACE PLUS programme. This is the largest investment by any Government in Northern Ireland in decades, and it is warmly welcomed by businesses and communities in Northern Ireland.
Rob Roberts
The Liverpool city region and Northern Ireland broadly share the same population of just over 1.5 million. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, just as Liverpool can benefit from all the economic benefits of a freeport zone, there is no reason why we cannot extend that across the whole of Northern Ireland—and, indeed, across the whole of north Wales—so that we are not just limited to 45 km, and the whole of the UK can benefit from this excellent economic plan?
Conor Burns
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that freeports are a vital tool in the armoury to boost prosperity, trade and investment, and to attract global investment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are working closely with the Executive and others to find the right freeport model that will deliver for Northern Ireland.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The primary responsibility for job creation in Northern Ireland lies with the Executive, not the UK Government, so how can the Government justify their approach to the shared prosperity fund, which takes away the spending power that the Executive previously had in relation to EU structural funds, and centralises that, stopping the Executive doing any joined-up investment in skills and job creation?
Conor Burns
The primary responsibility for job creation is private sector business. It is entrepreneurs; it is people who create products and sell them to customers. What we are doing is making sure that businesses in Northern Ireland, as across the rest of the United Kingdom, have the tools to create the jobs and to create wealth and prosperity across the whole of Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister will know that sport is an economic driver. He will also know of the bid for the world rally championship to take place in Northern Ireland next year. What encouragement can the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office give to ensure that that is a successful, proactive event that will lead to spin-offs and job creation?
Conor Burns
The hon. Gentleman is a huge champion of that project. We are well aware of the proposals that are being worked up, and I understand that the Executive and Tourism Northern Ireland are looking at them. If they come forward with proposals that work they will find a willing partner in the Northern Ireland Office. I will not commit to how many wheels or what part of the vehicles we will pay for, but we will step up to help to make this project a reality.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The director of a Northern Irish retail consortium has said that Northern Ireland has a unique opportunity to become a hub of investment, because it remains within the EU single market. To have access to the EU single market is a boon for Northern Ireland, and UK Ministers who have previously defended the protocol have stated that it is a boon. Why do the UK Government deny such a best-of-both-worlds situation for Scotland, where the people also voted to remain?
Conor Burns
The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, Lord Frost and others have made it clear that we need to refine how systems are working in Northern Ireland. It is not working as we want it to work. It is impeding businesses, and it is disrupting communities and trade. That is why the Government at all levels are busily engaged in finding a solution that works for Northern Ireland. I am not sure that I am going to take any lectures from the Scottish National party about holding our United Kingdom together.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Simon Hoare.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend and Dorset colleague the Minister of State to his place. I am sure he will agree that political stability is a key element in creating jobs and attracting investment. Will he do all he can to ensure we have a fully functioning Stormont, working hard to improve the economic situation in Northern Ireland?
Conor Burns
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and that is why the Secretary of State and I were both at this Dispatch Box yesterday for Report and Third Reading of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill, a vital tool agreed under New Decade, New Approach to provide enhanced stability to the institutions in Northern Ireland, but ultimately it is for the parties in Northern Ireland to work together to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Conor Burns)
We are moving to a high-wage, high-skilled economy and the Government are encouraging all sectors to rely increasingly on workers from the United Kingdom, but we have listened to the concerns of the sector and 5,500 poultry workers are now eligible to enter the UK for work, on top of the 800 butchers who were already eligible to enter the UK for six months under the skilled worker route.
Mr Perkins
It is all very well saying they are eligible to come in, but the industry is telling us that its ability to deliver the food needed, particularly for Christmas, is deeply jeopardised by the Government’s failure on both migration and skills to ensure the workers we need in our food processing industry are here. How can a Government who so passionately advocate for Brexit be so ill-prepared to deliver it?
Conor Burns
When people voted to leave the European Union, they wanted us to level up the United Kingdom and increase wages for the workforce—including, by the way, the 60% of the hon. Gentleman’s Chesterfield constituents who voted to leave the EU. We are taking the opportunities of that and I wish he would join me in promoting Northern Ireland’s vibrant agri and food sector, including companies such as Kennedy Bacon and Ballylisk Dairies, which I have visited in the last couple of weeks and are excited by the opportunities.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
For many years, agriculture in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK has been very dependent on overseas workers, even before the high levels of EU migration of recent years, so will the Minister do everything he can to make sure agriculture in Northern Ireland can still access the overseas and seasonal workers who are so crucial to making sure our food supply is resilient?
Conor Burns
My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State speaks with great authority on these matters. There has been extensive engagement with the sector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I had engagements around the Balmoral Show recently. We have both visited businesses in this sector and are listening carefully to their concerns.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
I continue to work closely with the whole of the Executive and the political party leaders on the issues that matter most to the people of Northern Ireland. Obviously, the promise of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement for devolved government locally accountable to the people of Northern Ireland must never be forgotten and is hugely important in making sure we deliver on the promise of a stable and genuinely co-operative Executive, built on respectful relationships and trust. That is where stability comes from and that is what I hope to see continue in Northern Ireland.
Liz Twist
Threats to collapse the Assembly hang over Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State is sleepwalking towards a political crisis. Key safeguards have still not reached the statute book 22 months on. Northern Ireland simply cannot afford this, so will the Secretary of State fast track the legislation through the House of Lords and commit to passing it in the coming weeks so there is at least a caretaker Executive in place?
Brandon Lewis
It was disappointing in the summer when one of the political parties tried to bring down Stormont with various threats about what it was going to do. At the moment it is important that we see stability at Stormont. We had the legislation yesterday in the Chamber and I am sad the hon. Lady was unable to join us on something she clearly cares about. It is important that we see stability there, working with all the parties and making sure they are delivering on what the people of Northern Ireland care about. That has to be the main focus and the legislation going through the House at the moment will help with that, but the way we keep stability at Stormont is around not legislation in Westminster but the political parties at Stormont focusing on working together to reform education, healthcare and the other issues that matter for the people in Northern Ireland.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Conor Burns)
The Government are making good progress across their commitments under New Decade, New Approach. As the hon. Gentleman will know, only yesterday, the Secretary of State and I were delivering on the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill from the Dispatch Box while he was enjoying his love-in with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley).
Colum Eastwood
I am glad to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. One of the commitments that he did not mention was this Government’s commitment to bring in a package of legislation around language and culture. When are they going to do it?
Conor Burns
The commitment of the Government to bring forward that package remains undimmed. I would not want to deny the hon. Gentleman his anticipation and excitement by revealing exactly when, but he will not have long to wait.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
On another important commitment, on abortion, we are clear that the cycle of inaction must end and we welcome the Secretary of State’s determination on this, but it is a serious matter that the legal obligations are still being ignored. Will the Minister confirm the report today in The Guardian that he intends to instruct trusts to commission services? Will that require primary legislation? When will he act?
Conor Burns
As the hon. Lady will know, the Secretary of State is leading on this, and I am sure he would be delighted to talk to her.
Mr Speaker
I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings for both Prime Minister’s questions and the Budget statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be available to watch on parliament.tv—[Interruption.] I think it is important that people listen to this, so I will say again that the British Sign Language interpretation for Prime Minister’s questions and the Budget statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, during which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor updated the Cabinet on how the Government’s plan for jobs is working, with higher wages, higher skills and rising productivity. He will make a statement to the House shortly setting out how we will build a new age of optimism. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Dr Hudson
I very much welcome the A66 northern trans-Pennine project from Penrith to Scotch Corner. That £1 billion investment will improve safety and congestion and help to level up our region, supporting jobs, essential services and tourism, but we have to get the project right. Will my right hon. Friend ask his Department for Transport, Ministry of Defence and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to work together pragmatically and reasonably with suggested route amendments to ensure that local communities such as Warcop, Musgrave and Sandford are not left blighted by the current plans?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that the development that he refers to is part of an infrastructure revolution that I think will transform the country, but he is also right that we should consider local feedback from stakeholders and the community when finalising the design, and so we will.
Mr Speaker
Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition is isolating, so I call Ed Miliband to ask the questions on behalf of the Opposition.
Mr Speaker
Order. I presume you all want to get on to the Budget; all you are doing is delaying it. Ed Miliband!
Edward Miliband
I want to reassure both sides of the House: it is one time only that I am back. [Laughter.]
We all need the vital COP26 summit in Glasgow to deliver next week, because failing to limit global warming to 1.5° will have devastating consequences for our planet. That goal is shared across the House. Does the Prime Minister agree that, to keep the goal of 1.5° alive, we need to roughly halve global emissions in this decisive decade?
The Prime Minister
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. I think the whole House extends its sympathies to the Leader of the Opposition. I hope he returns soon.
It is, of course, correct that COP26 is both unbelievably important for our planet but also very difficult. It is in the balance. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is right in what he says about the need to keep 1.5° alive. It depends on what happens this decade and it depends on the commitments that are made. All I will say is that, under the UK presidency-designate of COP26, very substantial commitments have already been achieved. We have moved from only 30% of the global economy committed to net zero by the middle of the century to now 80%. Every day, as I talk to international leaders, we hear further commitments to make those solid commitments that the world will need. Whether it is enough, I am afraid it is too early to say.
Edward Miliband
I applaud the efforts of the UK presidency under the COP26 President-designate, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). However, I want to direct the Prime Minister’s attention to the issue of this decade. I will come to net zero targets for the middle of the century in a moment, but yesterday he will know that a very important report came out from the United Nations, the United Nations Environment Programme “Emissions Gap” report. On the eve of COP, it warned that far from halving global emissions this decade, we are on course to reduce them by only about 7.5%. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge, because this is crucial for what happens at Glasgow and after Glasgow, how far away we are from the action required in this 10-year period?
The Prime Minister
Indeed I do, but what I think the House should also recognise is how far we have moved in the space of a few years since the Paris COP summit of 2015, where, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will remember, the world agreed to net zero by 2100, by the end of the century, and agreed to try to restrain global warming by 4°. We are now trying to keep alive the prospect of restricting that growth to 1.5°. Every day, countries are coming through with solid commitments on stopping the output of coal-fired power stations, reducing their use of internal combustion engines, planting millions of trees and investing hundreds of billions of pounds in the developing world. Those are solid commitments. Whether they will be enough, I am afraid it is still too early to say.
Edward Miliband
I will just correct the Prime Minister on one point: it was the second half of the century that was set out in Paris, not 2100 for net zero. Here is the problem on the question of net zero targets for the middle of the century: it is easy to make promises for 30 years’ time; it is much more difficult to act now. Australia recently announced a 2050 net zero target, but its 2030 target would head the world towards approximately 4° of global warming. Can I urge him not to shift the goalposts when it comes to Glasgow? It is about the emergency we face this decade. It is about the nationally determined contributions this decade. Please keep the focus on 2030, not 2050 and beyond.
The Prime Minister
The focus is certainly on 2030. We have 122 nationally determined contributions already, and 17 out of 20 G20 countries have made NDCs. The commitments are coming through. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to keep the pressure up. What you cannot do is go in advance of what is truly practicable for the world economy and for what people can do. The Government will go as fast as we possibly can. Labour’s plans, which I think he endorsed, were condemned by the GMB union—its paymasters—for meaning that it would be confiscating people’s cars by 2030 and that families would be allowed only one aeroplane flight every five years.
Edward Miliband
Let me tell the Prime Minister that what this summit needs is statesmanship, not partisanship, which is what we have just heard from him. He should not be trying to score party political points on such an important issue facing our country and our world. That is never the way I did PMQs. [Laughter.] Let me ask him about the crucial issue of climate finance for developing countries. The reason the Paris summit succeeded was that there was a coalition of vulnerable countries and developed countries that put pressure on all the big emitters, including China and India. The problem is that the world has not delivered on the $100 billion of finance promised more than a decade ago in Copenhagen. The plan is to deliver it maybe in 2023. But I want to ask him about his actions. Has it not made it much harder to deliver on that promise that we are the only G7 country to cut the aid budget in the run-up to this crucial summit?
The Prime Minister
I thought we were not going to have any partisan points. That did not last long. Actually, one of the first things I did as Prime Minister was go out to my first United Nations General Assembly as Prime Minister and announce a huge £11.6 billion commitment from the UK to help the developed world to tackle climate change. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, yes, of course it is true— [Interruption.] We have not cut that; we have not cut that, Mr Speaker. We are keeping that investment.
Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that this country is working flat out to ensure that we do reach the £100 billion commitment from the whole of the world. We are seeing the money come in from the United States, from the Italians, from the French and from the European Union, and it is quite right that it should. We have a way to go. Whether we will get there or not, I cannot say—it is in the balance—but the challenge is there for the leaders of the developed world. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they need to rise to it.
Edward Miliband
It is one thing for the Prime Minister not to know what is in the Paris agreement, but another for him not to know what is in his own Budget. He has cut the aid budget; of course he has cut the aid budget. He has abandoned the bipartisan belief in the aid budget across both these Houses, but it is not just on aid where the Government face both ways. They have a trade deal with Australia where they have allowed the Australians to drop their temperature commitments. They are telling others to power past coal while flirting with a new coal mine, and they are saying that we have to move beyond fossil fuels but open the new Cambo oilfield. Is not the truth that the Prime Minister has undermined his own COP presidency by saying one thing and doing another?
The Prime Minister
No, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, and I think he should withdraw what he has just said about the £11.6 billion, because we remain absolutely committed to the £11.6 billion that we are investing to tackle climate change around the world. That is absolutely rock solid.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about Australia. I talked to the Prime Minister of Australia only recently, and Australia has just, with great difficulty, made the commitment to get to net zero by 2050. It is a great thing. I talked yesterday to our Indonesian friends. For instance, Joko Widodo, a good friend of this country, has agreed on coal to bring forward the abolition of coal use in Indonesia to 2040—a fantastic effort by the Indonesians. I talked to President Putin—I think it was yesterday—and he confirmed his determination to get to net zero by the middle of the century. That is what the UK is doing: working with countries around the world to get the outcome we want. It is still too early to say whether that will succeed. It is in the balance.
Edward Miliband
The thing the Prime Minister has underestimated throughout these last two years is the fact that COP26 is not a glorified photo opportunity; it is a fragile and complex negotiation. The problem is that the Prime Minister’s boosterism will not cut carbon emissions in half. Photo opportunities will not cut carbon emissions in half. I say to the Prime Minister that in these final days before COP26, we need more than warm words. Above all, Glasgow has to be a summit of climate delivery, not climate delay.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about cutting CO2 in half. Well, that is virtually what this country—this Government—has done. Since 1990, we have cut CO2 by 44% and the economy has grown by 78%. That is our approach—a sensible, pragmatic Conservative approach that cuts CO2, that tackles climate change and that delivers high-wage, high-skilled jobs across this country. Our net zero plan will deliver 440,000 jobs. That is what the people of this country want to see, and that is what they are seeing. They are seeing wages up, they are seeing growth up, they are seeing productivity up under this Government. If we had left it to the Leader of the Opposition, who is sadly not in his place, we would still be in lockdown. That is a point that the right hon. Gentleman might bring to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition, wherever he is currently self-isolating.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about Wolverhampton; that is why we are working flat out to ensure that young people in Wolverhampton benefit from the kickstart scheme, and we are working with City of Wolverhampton Council to ensure that young people get bespoke support for their return to work.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of the entire House will be with Walter Smith—the legend that was the Rangers, Dundee United and Scotland manager—who sadly passed away yesterday. Many of us will not forget the day he led us to victory over France at Hampden.
Naturally, most of today’s focus and attention will turn to the Chancellor’s Budget after Prime Minister’s questions, but before we turn to domestic matters, I think that it is right and important to raise the dire humanitarian situation that is developing in Afghanistan. The World Food Programme estimates that more than half the population—about 22.8 million people—face acute food insecurity, and 3.2 million children under five could suffer acute malnutrition.
Given the history of the past 20 years, it should be obvious that we have a deep responsibility to the country and its people. They are dying, and they need our help. It has only been two months since the allied forces relinquished control of the country, so can the Prime Minister update us on what exactly his Government are doing to end the famine in Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue that I know is on the mind of many people in this House and across the country. We are proud of what we have done to welcome people from Afghanistan, but we must do everything we can also to mitigate the consequences, for the people of Afghanistan, of the Taliban takeover.
What we did, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, was double our aid commitment for this year to £286 million. We are working with the UN agencies and other non-governmental organisations to do everything we can to help the people of Afghanistan. What we cannot do at the moment is write a completely blank cheque to the Taliban Government or the Taliban authorities. We need to ensure that that country does not slip back into being a haven for terrorism and a narco-state.
Ian Blackford
The fact is that there is a humanitarian crisis and people are in need today. There was nothing there about tangible actions that the Government are taking on the ground now.
The situation is getting worse by the day. In August, the allies ran away from their responsibilities in Afghanistan, and now it very much feels as if this Government are washing their hands of the legacy that they left behind. Not only are the Afghan people being failed on humanitarian aid, but promises made to them on resettlement are being broken. When the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme was announced on 18 August, the Government talked about resettling
“up to 20,000 over the coming years”,
but, more than two months on, we have heard nothing. The Afghan people are being left with no updates and with vague targets.
Can the Prime Minister finally tell us when the resettlement scheme will open? Can he guarantee that 20,000 Afghans will be resettled? When exactly is the deadline for that to happen?
The Prime Minister
We made a commitment to resettle 20,000 Afghans in addition to those whom we brought out under Operation Pitting, which I think most fair-minded people in this country would think was a pretty remarkable feat by UK armed services. Many of those 15,000 are already being integrated into the UK, into schools and into communities, and we will help them in any way we can.
I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in his characterisation of the stance that the UK has taken towards Afghanistan and the changes there. We continue to engage. We engage with the Taliban; this country was one of the first to reach out and begin a dialogue. What we are insisting on—
Ian Blackford
What about the resettlement scheme? Answer the question!
The Prime Minister
Just to get to the right hon. Gentleman’s point—while he rather uncivilly calls out—what we are insisting on is safe passage for those who wish to come and settle in this country, for people to whom we owe an obligation, and that is what we are doing.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My only question is, why is it only National Cheese Toastie Day? Why is it not International Cheese Toastie Day? I hope very much that among its many other achievements, the COP26 summit will bring the entire global community to a better understanding of the Wyke Farms carbon-neutral cheese toastie.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Prime Minister will be aware of the harm that the Northern Ireland protocol is doing to the political and economic stability of Northern Ireland and the very delicate constitutional balance created by the Belfast or Good Friday agreement. In the Command Paper published by the Government in July, they committed themselves to addressing these issues, and recognised that the protocol was simply not sustainable. Does the Prime Minister accept that the conditions now exist to trigger article 16 of the protocol in the event that the current negotiations with the European Union fail to arrive at an acceptable outcome?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is completely right, I am sad to say. We are working hard to secure an agreement by negotiation, but we need to see real progress, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the real-life issues on the ground in Northern Ireland have not gone away. As we have been saying for some months, if we cannot see progress—rapid progress—in the way that we spelt out in our Command Paper, I think it will be clear to everybody that the conditions for invoking article 16 have already been met.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend—indeed, the whole House—will be hearing more about the spending for health in just a few moments, but I can tell him that we have received 120 applications for the biggest hospital building programme in a generation, and that his application will certainly be among those that will receive our most urgent consideration.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The reports of spiking are extremely disturbing, and as the hon. Lady knows, it is already a criminal offence. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked the police to update her on exactly what details they have and what is happening. She wants to give them the space, for the time being, to conduct their inquiries into what is going on, but I would ask everybody with information about such incidents to come forward and contact their local police.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
With COP26 imminent, I would like to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the good work that is being done in Morecambe on the Eden Project. Wes Johnson at Morecambe and Lancaster College has put forward a programme to teach youngsters in Morecambe the international Eden ethos, in order to, shall we say, propagate the goodwill around the world. I would like to invite the Prime Minister to come to the Morecambe riviera to see the Eden Project site at his earliest convenience.
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to respond in the affirmative to my hon. Friend, because the last time he asked me about this it was to ensure that we got an Eden Project in Morecambe. It sounds from what he is saying that we are making progress in that direction, and that is thrilling.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but the reality is that of course we monitor all the data very carefully every day. We see nothing to suggest that we need to deviate from the plan we have set out that began with the road map in February, that we are sticking to, and that has given business and this country the ability to get on and achieve the unlockings that we have seen and indeed the fastest economic growth in the G7.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
My constituent Sophia Dady has composed a song about the positive action we can each take to combat climate change, which emphasises the need to “clean, repair and protect”. Will the Prime Minister join me in encouraging all UK schools to follow the lead of Fairfield Prep School in Loughborough and other schools across the world from Hawaii to Norway in raising awareness of this important issue through learning the song?
The Prime Minister
Well, yes—do I have to learn the song? I will do my best. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the work of her constituents and her constituents’ school. It is absolutely vital that we not only recycle where sensible but cut down on the use of plastics.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
All our donations are registered in the normal way. I would just remind the hon. Lady that the Labour party’s paymasters, the GMB, think that Labour’s policies mean that no families would be able to take more than one flight every five years and that they would have their cars confiscated.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
This week is UK Wind Week, and later this afternoon I will be welcoming some young people from my constituency who see their futures in the renewable energy sector that has done so much to level up the Grimsby, Cleethorpes and north-east Lincolnshire area. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the Government will continue to invest in the skills and development of our young people in order to benefit the renewable energy sector?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and I think the whole House should be proud of the fact that the UK still produces more offshore wind—[Interruption.] Not hot air, but energy for the people of this country. It is clean, green energy produced off Cleethorpes in the North sea, and we are going to be massively increasing the volume of that output.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the high energy costs for energy-intensive industries, and that is why we have abated them with about £2 billion since 2013. The answer is to do what we are doing, which is to make up the long-term baseload needs of this economy by investing in nuclear, as I am afraid Labour failed to do in its 13 lost years, and in renewables.
Ways and Means
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Financial Statement
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make his Budget statement, it is my duty to take the unusual step of saying a few words.
As Chairman of Ways and Means, the House knows I chair and have responsibility for the House’s proceedings on the Budget. I share the concern of many Members of this House about the apparent pre-briefing of Budget material to the media before any announcement has been made in this House. I understand the Chancellor’s position, and it is well understood that, for a number of years, elements of the Budget have been pre-briefed to the media on an embargoed basis to aid their coverage, but such pre-briefing, where the embargo makes it clear that the material can be used only after the Chancellor has addressed this House, is rather different from what we have apparently experienced this year, which is the briefing to the media of details of the Budget statement for publication before the statement is delivered.
As Mr Speaker has said, and as all Ministers know, important policy announcements should be made first to Parliament. [Hon. Members: “Resign!”] There should not be shouts of “Resign” from Opposition Members. That is not what we are talking about. We are just talking about courtesy to this House.
Given my responsibilities to the House with regard to the Budget, I must put on record my support for Mr Speaker’s stance on this issue and express a firm hope, which I believe is felt on all sides of the House, that we do not find ourselves in this position again at future Budgets. Chancellor, we are all very much looking forward to hearing the remainder of your announcement, which you are about to make to us. [Hon. Members: “We’ve already heard it!”] Oh no you haven’t. The Chancellor has still to give us the important parts of his Budget.
I remind hon. Members that copies of the Budget resolutions will be available from the Vote Office in Members’ Lobby after the Chancellor’s statement and, of course, online. I also remind hon. Members that we will have good behaviour over the next hour or so. Interventions are not taken during the Chancellor’s statement, nor during the replies on behalf of the Opposition and the SNP.
We will now put aside all the matters we have just addressed and concentrate. I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make his Budget statement.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have heard your words and those of Mr Speaker. I have the greatest respect for you both and want to assure you that I have listened very carefully to what you have said. May I also send my best wishes to the Leader of the Opposition? I know that the whole House will join me in doing that.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me turn to today’s Budget. Employment is up, investment is growing, public services are improving, the public finances are stabilising and wages are rising. Today’s Budget delivers a stronger economy for the British people: stronger growth, with the UK recovering faster than our major competitors; stronger public finances, with our debt under control; and stronger employment, with fewer people out of work and more people in work. Growth is up, jobs are up and debt is down. Let there be no doubt: our plan is working.
This Budget is about what this Government are about: investment in a more innovative, high-skilled economy, because that is the only sustainable path to individual prosperity; world-class public services, because they are the common goods from which we all benefit; backing business, because our future cannot be built by the Government alone but must come from the imagination and drive of our entrepreneurs; help for working families with the cost of living, because we will always give people the support they need and the tools to build a better life for themselves; and levelling up, because for too long—far too long—the location of your birth has determined too much of your future, and because the awesome power of opportunity should not be available only to a wealthy few but be the birthright of every child in an independent and prosperous United Kingdom.
Today’s Budget does not draw a line under covid; we have challenging months ahead, and I encourage everyone eligible to get their booster jabs as soon as possible. But today’s Budget does begin the work of preparing for a new economy post covid: the Prime Minister’s economy of higher wages, higher skills and rising productivity, and of strong public services, vibrant communities and safer streets—an economy fit for a new age of optimism, where the only limit to our potential is the effort we are prepared to put in and the sacrifices we are prepared to make. That is the stronger economy of the future, and this Budget is the foundation.
The House will recognise the challenging backdrop of rising inflation. Let me begin by carefully explaining what is happening in our economy and why. Inflation in September was 3.1% and is likely to rise further, with the Office for Budget Responsibility expecting the consumer prices index to average 4% over the next year. The majority of this rise in inflation can be explained by two global forces. First, as economies around the world reopen, demand for goods has increased more quickly than supply chains can meet. Having been shut down for almost a year, it takes time for factories to scale up production, for container ships to move goods to where demand is and for businesses to hire the people they need.
Secondly, global demand for energy has surged at a time when supplies have already been disrupted, putting a strain on prices. In the year to September, the global wholesale price of oil, coal and gas combined has more than doubled.
The pressures caused by supply chains and energy prices will take months to ease. It would be irresponsible for anyone to pretend that we can solve this overnight. I am in regular communication with Finance Ministers around the world and it is clear that these are shared global problems, neither unique to the UK nor possible for us to address on our own. But where the Government can ease these pressures, we will act. To address the driver shortage, the Transport Secretary is introducing temporary visas, tackling testing backlogs and changing cabotage requirements, and is today announcing new funding to improve lorry park facilities. We have already suspended the HGV levy until August, and I can do more today, extending it for a further year until 2023 and freezing vehicle excise duty for heavy goods vehicles.
To help with the cost of living, we have introduced a new £500 million household support fund, and today’s Budget will support working families further.
On our fiscal policy, we will meet our commitments on public services and capital investment, but we will do so keeping in mind the need to control inflation.
Finally, I have written to the Governor of the Bank of England today to reaffirm the Bank’s remit to achieve low and stable inflation. People should be reassured: it has a strong track record in doing so.
I understand that people are concerned about global inflation, but they have a Government here at home ready and willing to act. In a period of global uncertainty, we need to work hard to maintain a strong economy and be responsible with the public finances, and that is what we are doing. I am grateful to the OBR for its work, and I am pleased to say that it now expects our recovery to be quicker. Thanks to this Government’s actions, it forecasts the economy to return to its pre-covid level at the turn of the year—earlier than it thought in March.
Growth this year is revised up from 4% to 6.5%. The OBR then expects the economy to grow by 6% in 2022, and 2.1 %, 1.3% and 1.6% over the next three years. In July last year, at the height of the pandemic, unemployment was expected to peak at 12%.
Today, the OBR expects unemployment to peak at just 5.2%. That means more than 2 million fewer people out of work than previously feared. Wages are rising: compared with those in February 2020, they have grown in real terms by almost 3.5%. I can confirm for the House that the OBR’s forecast for business investment has been revised up over the next five years.
Because of the actions that we took to support our economy, we have been more successful than previously feared in preventing the long-term economic damage of covid.
The OBR has today revised down its scarring assumption from 3% to 2%. In the depths of the worst economic crisis on record, we set out a plan for jobs. It is a plan that was backed by business groups and trade bodies; a plan that has helped millions of people and saved millions of jobs; and a plan that the OBR has today described as “remarkably successful”. Today’s forecasts confirm beyond doubt that our plan for jobs is working.
Disruption in the global economy highlights the importance of strong public finances. Coronavirus left us with borrowing higher than at any time since the second world war. As the Prime Minister reminded us in his conference speech: higher borrowing today is just higher interest rates and even higher taxes tomorrow. We need to strengthen our public finances so that when the next crisis comes, we have the fiscal space to act. Today I am publishing a new charter for budget responsibility. The charter sets out two fiscal rules that will keep this Government on the path of discipline and responsibility. First, underlying public sector net debt, excluding the impact of the Bank of England, must, as a percentage of GDP, be falling. Secondly, in normal times the state should only borrow to invest in our future growth and prosperity. Everyday spending must be paid for through taxation. Both rules must be met by the third year of every forecast period, giving us the flexibility to respond to crises while credibly keeping the public finances under control. These rules are supplemented by targets to spend up to 3% of GDP on capital investment and to keep welfare spending on a sustainable path.
The House will be asked to vote on our charter, giving Members a simple choice—to abandon our fiscal anchor and leave our economy adrift with reckless unfunded pledges, or to vote for what we on the Government side of the House know is the right course: sound public finances and a stronger economy for the British people.
Important as the charter is, our credibility comes as much from what we do as what we say, so I am pleased to tell the House that, because our plan is delivering a stronger economy and because we have taken tough but responsible decisions on the public finances, the OBR reports today that all our fiscal rules have been met. Underlying debt is forecast to be 85.2% of GDP this year, then 85.4% in 2022-23, before peaking at 85.7% in 2023-24. It then falls in the final three years of the forecast, from 85.1% to 83.3%. Borrowing as a percentage of GDP is forecast to fall in every single year, from 7.9% this year to 3.3% next year, then 2.4%, 1.7%, 1.7% and 1.5% in the following years. Borrowing down, debt down: proving once again it is the Conservatives, and only the Conservatives, who can be trusted with taxpayers’ money.
I have made four fiscal judgements in this Budget. First, we will meet our fiscal rules with a margin to protect ourselves against economic risks. That is the responsible decision at a time of increasing global economic uncertainty, when our public finances are twice as sensitive to changes in interest rates as they were before the pandemic and six times as sensitive as they were before the financial crisis. Just a one percentage point increase in inflation and interest rates would cost us around £23 billion. My second judgment today is to continue to support working families.
Thirdly, as well as helping people at home, our improving fiscal position means that we will meet our obligations to the world’s poorest. I told the House that when we met our fiscal tests, we would return to spending 0.7% of our national income on overseas aid. Some people said this was a trick or a device. I told this House that it was no such thing, and based on the tests that I set out, today’s forecasts show that we are, in fact, scheduled to return to 0.7% in 2024-25—before the end of this Parliament.
My fourth fiscal judgment is this: today’s Budget increases total departmental spending over this Parliament by £150 billion. That is the largest increase this century, with spending growing by 3.8% a year in real terms. As a result of this spending review, and contrary to speculation, there will be a real-terms rise in overall spending for every single Department, and public sector net investment as a share of GDP will be at the highest sustained level for nearly half a century. If anyone still doubts it, today’s Budget confirms it: the Conservatives are the real party of public services.
Our stronger economy lays the foundation for everything that we want to achieve in today’s Budget: world class public services and more investment in our future growth. Before I turn to the details, I would like to thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke). Completing the spending review in such challenging circumstances was a tall order—and thankfully we had just the man for the job.
At the start of this Parliament, resource spending on healthcare was £133 billion. Today’s spending review confirms that by the end of this Parliament it will increase by £44 billion to over £177 billion; and the extra revenue we are forecast to raise from the health and social care levy is going direct to the NHS and social care as promised. The health capital budget will be the largest since 2010: record investment in health R&D, including better newborn screening, as campaigned for by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken); 40 new hospitals; 70 hospital upgrades; more operating theatres to tackle the backlog; and 100 community diagnostic centres, all staffed by a bigger, better-trained workforce, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more primary care appointments. As well as funding to deliver the Prime Minister’s historic reforms to social care, we are providing local government with new grant funding over the next three years of £4.8 billion—the largest increase in core funding for over a decade.
We are investing more in housing and home ownership too, with a multi-year housing settlement totalling nearly £24 billion—£11.5 billion to build up to 180,000 new affordable homes, the largest cash investment in a decade, 20% more than the previous programme. We are investing an extra £1.8 billion—enough to bring 1,500 hectares of brownfield land into use, meet our commitment to invest £10 billion in new housing, and unlock 1 million new homes. We are also confirming £5 billion to remove unsafe cladding from the highest risk buildings, partly funded by the residential property developers tax, which I can confirm will be levied on developers with profits over £25 million at a rate of 4%. We have already reduced rough sleeping by over a third, but we will go further, with £640 million a year for rough sleeping and homelessness—an 85% increase in funding compared to 2019.
Today’s Budget funds our ambition to recruit 20,000 new police officers; provides an extra £2.2 billion for courts, prisons and probation services, including £0.5 billion to reduce the courts backlog; pays for programmes to tackle neighbourhood crime, reoffending, county lines, violence against women and girls, victims’ services and improved responses to rape cases; and, over the next three years, commits £3.8 billion to the largest prison-building programme in a generation.
All Governments should aspire to provide greater life chances for future generations, but few Governments can match our ambition. So let me now turn to what this Budget does to support children. The evidence is compelling that the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are the most important. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) has recognised this with her inspirational report. We are responding today with £300 million for a start for life offer for families; high-quality parenting programmes; tailored services to help with perinatal mental health; and, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), funding to create a network of family hubs around the country too. To improve the quality of childcare, we are going to pay providers more, with today’s spending review providing an extra £170 million by 2024-25. We are confirming £150 million to support training and development for the entire early years workforce. To help up to 300,000 more families facing multiple needs, we are investing an extra £200 million in the supporting families programme, and we will provide over £200 million a year to continue the holiday activities and food programme.
Today’s spending review also delivers our commitment to schools, with an extra £4.7 billion by 2024-25, which, combined with the ambitious plans we announced at spending review 2019, will restore per-pupil funding to 2010 levels in real terms, equivalent to a cash increase for every pupil of more than £1,500. For children with special educational needs and disabilities, we are more than tripling the amount we invest to create 30,000 new school places. We know that the pandemic caused significant disruption to children’s learning. We have already announced £3.1 billion to help education recovery. Today, as promised by the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary, we will go further, with just under £2 billion of new funding to help schools and colleges, bringing this Government’s total support for education recovery to almost £5 billion.
As we level up public services, we are also levelling up communities, restoring the pride people feel in the places they call home. To do that, we are providing £560 million for youth services, enough to fund up to 300 youth clubs in England; over £200 million to build or transform up to 8,000 state-of-the-art community football pitches across the UK; and funding to turn over 100 areas of derelict land into new “pocket parks”.
I am allocating the first round of bids from the levelling up fund—£1.7 billion to invest in the infrastructure of everyday life in over 100 local areas. With £170 million in Scotland, £120 million in Wales, and £50 million in Northern Ireland—more than their Barnett shares—this will benefit the whole United Kingdom. We are backing projects in Aberdeen, Bury, Burnley, Lewes, Clwyd South, and not one, not two, but three successful projects for the great city of Stoke-on-Trent. But that is not all. We are also going to fund projects in Ashton-under-Lyne, Doncaster, South Leicester, Sunderland and West Leeds. We are so committed to levelling up, we are even levelling up the Opposition Front Bench.
Levelling up is also about protecting our unique culture and heritage. The British Museum; Tate Liverpool; the York Railway Museum: we are investing £850 million to protect museums, galleries, libraries, and local culture. Thanks to the Culture Secretary, over 100 regional museums and libraries will be renovated, restored and revived; and she has secured up to £2 million to start work on a new Beatles attraction on the Liverpool waterfront. We are also going to review our museum freedoms and make our creative tax reliefs more generous. On current plans, the tax relief for museums and galleries is due to end in March next year, just as exhibitions are starting to tour again, so I have decided to extend it for two years to March 2024. To support theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries to recover from covid, the tax reliefs for all those sectors, from today until April 2023, will be doubled, and they will not return to the normal rate until April 2024. That is a tax relief for culture worth almost a quarter of a billion pounds.
This is a Budget for the whole United Kingdom. Through the Barnett formula, today’s decisions increase Scottish Government funding, in each year, by an average of £4.6 billion, Welsh Government funding by £2.5 billion, and £1.6 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive. This delivers, in real terms, the largest block grants for the devolved Administrations since the devolution settlements of 1998. The whole of the United Kingdom will benefit from the UK shared prosperity fund, and over time we will ramp up funding so that total domestic UK-wide funding will match EU receipts, averaging around £1.5 billion a year. We will fund projects across the UK, including funding for the Extreme E race in Scotland—the 2022 Hebrides X-Prix—accelerating funding for the Cardiff city region deal in Wales, and funding in Northern Ireland for community cohesion. While today demonstrates the indisputable fiscal benefit of being part of the United Kingdom, this is and always will be secondary to the simple truth that we are bound together by more than transactional benefit. It is our collective history, our culture and our security. We are, and always will be, one family and one United Kingdom.
While today’s Budget delivers historically high levels of public spending, its success will be measured not by the billions we spend, but by the outcomes we achieve and the difference we make to people’s lives. The budgets are set; the plans are in place; the task is clear. Now we must deliver because this is not the Government’s money—it is taxpayer’s money.
Our stronger economy allows us to fund world-class public services—the people’s priority—but over the long-term, the only way to pay for higher spending is economic growth. If we want to see higher growth, we have to tackle the problem that has been holding back this country for far too long: our uneven economic geography. As we come out of the worst economic shock we have ever seen, we have a choice—to retrench, or to invest. This Government choose to invest: to invest in our economic infrastructure, to invest in innovation, to invest in skills and to invest in a plan for growth that builds a stronger economy for the future. That is what this Budget is about and that is what this Government are about.
Infrastructure connects our country, drives productivity and levels up. That is why our national infrastructure strategy invests in economic infrastructure such as roads, railways, broadband and mobile—over £130 billion. To connect our towns and cities, we are investing £21 billion on roads and £46 billion on railways. Our integrated rail plan will be published soon, dramatically improving journey times between our towns and cities. Today, we are providing £5.7 billion for London-style transport settlements in Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region, the Tees Valley, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, the west midlands and the west of England. We are helping local transport everywhere with £2.6 billion for a long-term pipeline of more than 50 local roads upgrades, over £5 billion for local roads maintenance—enough to fill 1 million more potholes a year—and funding for buses, cycling and walking totalling more than £5 billion. The Prime Minister promised an infrastructure revolution. This Budget delivers an infrastructure revolution.
Investment in our infrastructure is just the first step. We need to do what the people of this country have always done: invent, discover, and create the ideas and technologies that will change the world. So we will also invest more in innovation. The UK is already a world leader. With less than 1% of the world’s population, we have four of the world’s top 20 universities, 14% of the world’s most impactful research and the second most Nobel laureates. We want to go further. I can confirm we will maintain our target to increase research and development investment to £22 billion. But in order to get there, and deliver on our other priorities, we will reach the target in 2026-27, spending, by the end of this Parliament, £20 billion a year on R&D. That is a cash increase of 50%—the fastest increase ever. I can confirm for the House that this £20 billion is in addition to the cost of our R&D tax reliefs. Combined with those tax reliefs, total public investment in R&D is increasing from 0.7% of GDP in 2018 to 1.1% of GDP by the end of the Parliament.
How does 1.1% compare internationally? Well, the latest available data shows an OECD average of just 0.7%. Germany is investing 0.9%, France 1% and the United States just 0.7%. This unprecedented funding will: increase core science funding to £5.9 billion a year by 2024-25, a cash increase of 37%; meet the full costs of associating with Horizon Europe; establish the new Advanced Research and Invention Agency with £800 million by 2025-26; and strengthen our focus on late-stage innovation, increasing Innovate UK’s annual core budget to £1 billion, double what it was at the start of the Parliament.
There is more to becoming a science superpower than just what the Government spend on R&D. Our ambitious net zero strategy is also an innovation strategy, investing £30 billion to create the new green industries of the future. We have just issued our second green bond, making us the third-largest issuer of sovereign green bonds anywhere in the world. London last week was named the best place in the world for green finance. On Monday, the new UK Infrastructure Bank announced its first ever investment: £107 million to support offshore wind in Teesside. To build on this work, one week today I will be hosting global finance ministers and businesses at COP26.
Innovation comes from the imagination, drive and risk-taking of business. That is why we have launched Help to Grow to turbocharge SME productivity and started a new co-investment venture capital fund, Future Fund: Breakthrough. It is why I am announcing today that we will consult on further changes to the regulatory charge cap for pensions schemes, unlocking institutional investment while protecting savers. It is why we are introducing a new £1.4 billion global Britain investment fund, supporting transformative economic activity in our world-leading sectors, such as life sciences. It is why today’s Budget increases the British Business Bank’s regional financing programmes to £1.6 billion, expanding their coverage and helping innovative businesses get access to the finance they need, across the whole United Kingdom.
A third of our science Nobel laureates have been immigrants. Half of our fastest growing companies have a foreign-born founder. So an economy built on innovation must be open and attractive to the best and brightest minds. Thanks to our brilliant Home Secretary, today’s Budget confirms the eligibility criteria for our new scale-up visa, making it quicker and easier for fast-growing businesses to bring in highly skilled individuals. The Trade Secretary’s new global talent network, launching initially in the Bay Area, Boston and Bangalore, will identify, attract and relocate the best global talent in science and tech sectors. It is all part of our plan to make our visa system for international talent the most competitive in the world.
If we want greater private sector innovation, we need to make our research and development tax reliefs fit for purpose. The latest figures show the UK has the second highest spending on R&D tax reliefs in the OECD. Yet it is not working as well as it should; UK business investment in R&D is less than half the OECD average. We have reviewed the reliefs and identified two issues we are solving today. First, the reliefs need to reflect how businesses conduct research in the modern world. So, as many companies have called for, I am expanding the scope of the reliefs to include cloud computing and data costs.
The second problem is this: companies claimed UK tax relief on £48 billion of R&D spending, yet UK business investment was around half of that, at just £26 billion. We are subsidising billions of pounds of R&D that is not even happening here in the United Kingdom. That is unfair on British taxpayers and it puts us out of step with places like Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland and the USA, which have all focused their R&D tax reliefs on domestic activity. So from April 2023, we are going to do the same, and incentivise greater investment here at home. So a £22-billion investment in R&D, the net zero strategy, the future fund, Help to Grow, more regional finance, unlocking institutional capital, a more competitive visa system and a modernised R&D tax credits regime—enough action to prove the hypothesis that we are making this country a science and technology superpower.
As well as investing in infrastructure and innovation, there is one further part of our plan for growth that is crucial: providing a world-class education to all our people. Higher skills lead to higher regional productivity and higher productivity leads to higher wages. With 80% of the UK’s 2030 workforce already in work, our future success depends on not just the schooling we give our children but the lifelong learning we offer to adults.
We have already done a lot. Our plan for jobs invested in apprenticeships, traineeships and the kickstart scheme, but we need to go further. Today’s Budget invests in the most wide-ranging skills agenda this country has seen in decades. We are increasing skills spending over the Parliament by £3.8 billion—an increase of 42%. We are expanding T-levels, building institutes of technology, rolling out the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee, upgrading our further education college estate, quadrupling the number of places on skills bootcamps and significantly increasing funding for apprenticeships.
We are also going to tackle a tragic fact: millions of adults in our country have numeracy skills lower than those expected of a nine-year-old. According to the leading charity National Numeracy, this costs individuals with poor numeracy up to £1,600 a year in lost earnings. People with poor numeracy skills are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as their peers. So today, I can announce a new UK-wide numeracy programme: Multiply. With £560 million, Multiply will improve basic maths skills and help to change people’s lives across the whole United Kingdom.
So we are building our infrastructure with new roads, railways and broadband; cementing our status as a science and technology superpower; and strengthening the skills of our people, the country’s greatest asset. That is a real plan for growth and that is how this Government are building a stronger economy for the British people.
World class public services are the people’s priority. Investment in infrastructure, innovation and skills will create the growth that we need to pay for them. But as Conservatives, we know that Government action alone will not be enough to create a stronger economy. We want this country to be the most exciting and dynamic place in the world for business. Now that we have left the EU, we have the freedom to do things differently and deliver a simpler, fairer tax system.
I want to begin with one of our smallest taxes, but a tax that plays an important role in one of our pre-eminent industries: shipping. Now that we have left the EU, today we start reforming our tonnage tax regime to make it simpler and more competitive. And we are also making it fairer for UK taxpayers.
When we were in the old EU system, ships in the tonnage tax regime were required to fly the flag of an EU state, but that does not make sense for an independent nation. So I can announce today that our tonnage tax will, for the first time ever, reward companies for adopting the UK’s merchant shipping flag, the red ensign. That is entirely fitting for a country with such a proud maritime history as ours. I am sure that the Opposition will be delighted that red flags are still flying somewhere in this country, even if they are all at sea.
Let me turn now to air passenger duty. Right now, people pay more for return flights within and between the four nations of the United Kingdom than they do when flying home from abroad. We used to have a return-leg exemption for domestic flights, but we were required to remove it in 2001. But today I can announce that flights between airports in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will, from April 2023, be subject to a new lower rate of air passenger duty. This will help to cut the cost of living, with 9 million passengers seeing their duty cut by half; it will bring people together across the United Kingdom; and because they tend to have a greater proportion of domestic passengers, it is a boost to regional airports like Aberdeen, Belfast, Inverness and Southampton.
Airports are major regional employers, so to help them get through the winter I am also extending our support for English airports for a further six months. We are also making changes to reduce carbon emissions from aviation. Most emissions come from international rather than domestic aviation, so we are introducing, from April 2023, a new ultra-long-haul band in air passenger duty covering flights of over 5,500 miles, with an economy rate of £91. Less than 5% of passengers will pay more, but those who fly furthest will pay the most.
Our approach to corporate taxation strikes a responsible balance between funding public services and encouraging the investment we need for a stronger economy. At the March Budget, we took the difficult but necessary decision to increase the rate of corporation tax to 25% from 2023, which is still the lowest rate in the G7 and the fifth lowest rate in the G20. Alongside, I introduced the new super deduction—the biggest business tax cut in modern British history—and extended, to the end of this year, the annual investment allowance at its higher level of £1 million. Now is not the time to remove tax breaks on investment, so I can confirm today that the £1 million annual investment allowance will not end in December as planned. It will be extended all the way to March 2023.
I also said in March that I would review the bank surcharge within corporation tax to maintain the competitiveness of our financial services industry. We will retain a surcharge of 3%. The overall rate for corporation tax on banks will, in 2023, increase from 27% to 28% and will remain higher than the rate paid by other companies. Small challenger banks are improving banking competition, which is good for the sector and good for consumers, so to help them, I will also raise the annual allowance to £100 million.
Our manifesto promised to review business rates. We are publishing our conclusions today. Before I set out our plans, let me say this: we on the Conservative Benches are clear that reckless, unfunded promises to abolish a tax that raises £25 billion every year are completely irresponsible. It would be wrong to find £25 billion a year in extra borrowing, cuts to public services or tax rises elsewhere, so we will retain business rates, but with key reforms to ease the burden and create stronger high streets.
First, we will make the business rates system fairer and timelier with more frequent revaluations every three years. The new revaluation cycle will be delivered from 2023. Secondly, as called for by the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Property Federation, we are introducing a new investment relief to encourage businesses to adopt green technologies such as solar panels.
I am announcing today that we will accept the CBI and the British Retail Consortium’s recommendation to introduce a new business rates improvement relief. From 2023, every single business will be able to make property improvements and, for 12 months, pay no extra business rates. That means that a hotel adding extra rooms, a manufacturer expanding their factory, and an office adding new air conditioning, CCTV or bike shelters will all pay no extra rates.
Together with the new green investment relief, we are introducing investment incentives totalling £750 million. This will make a difference, but without action, millions of businesses would see their tax bills going up next year because of inflation. I want to help those businesses right now, so our third step is that next year’s planned increase in the multiplier will be cancelled. That is a tax cut for businesses worth, over the next five years, £4.6 billion.
I have one final measure to help those businesses hardest hit by the pandemic. I am announcing today, for one year, a new 50% business rates discount for businesses in the retail, hospitality, and leisure sectors: pubs, music venues, cinemas, restaurants, hotels, theatres and gyms. Any eligible business can claim a discount on their bills of 50%, up to a maximum of £110,000. That is a business tax cut worth almost £1.7 billion. Together with small business rates relief, this means that over 90% of all retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will see a discount of at least 50%. Apart from the covid reliefs, this is the biggest single-year cut to business rates in over 30 years. Taken together, today’s Budget cuts business rates by £7 billion.
We are unleashing the dynamism and creativity of British businesses with a simpler, fairer and more competitive tax system: the biggest business tax cut in modern British history; the biggest single-year cut to business rates for 30 years; a £1 million investment allowance; tonnage tax reformed; air passenger duty cut. That is the way to back business and build a stronger economy.
Let me turn now to alcohol duties. First introduced in 1643 to help pay for the civil war, our alcohol duty system is outdated, complex and full of historical anomalies. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has called it “a mess”; the Institute of Economic Affairs said that it “defies common sense”; and the World Health Organisation has warned that countries such as the UK which follow the EU rules are:
“unable to implement tax systems that are optimal from the perspective of public health.”
So today, we are taking advantage of leaving the EU to announce the most radical simplification of alcohol duties for over 140 years. We are taking five steps today to create a system that is simpler, fairer, and healthier.
First, to radically simplify the system, we are slashing the number of main duty rates from 15 to just six. Our new system will be designed around a common-sense principle: the stronger the drink, the higher the rate. This means that some drinks, like stronger red wines, fortified wines and high-strength white ciders will see a small increase in their rates because they are currently undertaxed, given their strength. That is the right thing to do, and it will help to end the era of cheap, high-strength drinks which can harm public health and enable problem drinking. Because this is a more rational system, the converse is also true: many lower-alcohol drinks are currently overtaxed—and have been for many decades. Rosé, fruit ciders, liqueurs, lower strength beers and wines—today’s changes mean that they will pay less.
The second step I am taking today will encourage small, innovative craft producers: I am announcing proposals for a new small producer relief. This will extend the principle of the small brewers relief to include for the first time ever small cider makers and other producers making alcoholic drinks of less strength than 8.5%.
Thirdly, I am going to modernise the system to reflect the way people drink today. Over the last decade, consumption of sparkling wines like prosecco has doubled. English sparkling wine alone has increased almost tenfold. It is clear they are no longer the preserve of wealthy elites, and they are no stronger than still wines. So I am going to end the irrational duty premium of 28% that they currently pay. Sparkling wines, wherever they are produced, will now pay the same duty as still wines of equivalent strength. Because growing conditions in the UK typically favour lower-strength and sparkling wines, this means English and Welsh wines, compared with stronger imported wines, will now pay less. Sales of fruit cider have increased from one in a thousand ciders sold in 2005 to one in four today, but they can pay two or three times as much duty as cider made with apples or pears, so we are cutting the duty on them too.
The fourth step I am taking today would directly support the home of British community life for centuries: our pubs. Even before the pandemic, pubs were struggling: between 2000 and 2019, consumption in the on-trade fell by 40%. Many public health bodies recognise that pubs are often safer drinking environments than being at home. As my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and for North West Durham (Mr Holden) will agree, a fairer, healthier system supports pubs, so I can announce today draught relief.
Draught relief will apply a new lower rate of duty on draught beer and cider. It will apply to drinks served from draught containers over 40 litres. It will particularly benefit community pubs that do 75% of their trade on draught. Let me tell the House the new rate: draught relief will cut duty by 5%. That is the biggest cut to cider duty since 1923; the biggest cut to fruit ciders in a generation; the biggest cut to beer duty for 50 years. This is not temporary. It is a long-term investment in British pubs of £100 million a year and a permanent cut in the cost of a pint of 3p. I cannot wait for the Opposition to accuse me tomorrow of beer-barrel politics.
These much needed reforms will come into effect in February 2023, but I want to help the hospitality industry right now, so for my final announcement on alcohol duties today, I can confirm that the planned increases in duty on spirits like Scotch whisky, wine, cider and beer will all, from midnight tonight, be cancelled. That is a tax cut worth £3 billion.
Our reforms make the alcohol duty system simpler, fairer and healthier; they help with the cost of living while tackling problem drinking; they support innovative entrepreneurs and craft producers; they back pubs and public health; and they are only possible because we have left the European Union.
World-class public services; investment in infrastructure, innovation, and skills; simpler, fairer taxes to support businesses and consumers: all built on the foundation of a stronger economy and responsible public finances. That is our vision for the future and that is what this Budget delivers.
This Budget also supports working families. With fuel prices at the highest level in eight years, I am not prepared to add to the squeeze on families and small businesses, so I can confirm today that the planned rise in fuel duty will be cancelled. That is a saving over the next five years of almost £8 billion. Compared to pre-2010 plans, today’s freeze means the average tank of fuel will cost around £15 less per car; £30 less for vans; and £130 less for HGVs. After 12 consecutive years of frozen rates, the average car driver will now save a total of £1,900.
I can also announce today that public sector workers will see fair and affordable pay rises across the whole spending review period as we return to the normal, independent pay-setting process, and I can take action to help the lowest paid as well. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the national living wage in 2016, a Conservative Government who, according to statistics published just yesterday, have overseen the proportion of people in low-paid work falling to its lowest level since 1997, and it is a Conservative Government who are increasing the wage floor again today. The independent Low Pay Commission brings together economists, business groups and trade unions. The Government are accepting its recommendation to increase the national living wage next year by 6.6%, to £9.50 an hour. For a full-time worker that is a pay rise worth over £1,000. It will benefit over 2 million of the lowest paid workers in the country, it is broadly consistent with previous increases, it keeps us on track for our target of two thirds of median earnings by 2024, and it is a major commitment to the high-wage, high-skill, high-productivity economy of the future.
As we build this stronger economy, we are doing so at the end of an extraordinary 18 months. Covid was not just a public health challenge and an economic challenge—it was a moral challenge, too. We had to show we could pull together as a country, and we did. We had to put aside questions of ideology and orthodoxy to do whatever it took to care for our people and each other, and we did.
There is a different moral dimension to the economic challenge we face now. Last year, the state grew to be over half the size of the total economy, and taxes are rising to their highest level as a percentage of GDP since the 1950s. I do not like it, but I cannot apologise for it: it is the result of the unprecedented crisis we faced and the extraordinary action we took in response. But now we have a choice: do we want to live in a country where the response to every question is “What are the Government going to do about it?”, where every time prices rise, every time a company gets in trouble, every time some new challenge emerges, the answer is always that the taxpayer must pay? Or do we choose to recognise that Government has limits?
Government should have limits. If this seems a controversial statement to make, then I am all the more glad for saying it because that means it needed saying. And it is what we believe. There is a reason we talk about the importance of family, community and personal responsibility. We do so not because these are an alternative to the market or the state, but because they are more important than the market or the state. The moments that make life worth living are not created by Government, are not announced by Government, are not granted by Government: they come from us as people—our choices, our sacrifices, our efforts—and we believe people should keep more of the rewards of those efforts. Yes, we have taken some corrective action to fund the NHS and get our debt under control, but as we look towards the future I want to say this simple thing to the House and the British people: my goal is to reduce taxes. By the end of this Parliament, I want taxes to be going down, not up. I want this to be a society that rewards energy, ingenuity and inventiveness, a society that rewards work. That is what we believe on this side of the House. That is my mission over the remainder of this Parliament.
The final announcement in today’s Budget takes a first step. For many of the lowest paid in society there is a hidden tax on work: the universal credit taper withdraws support as people work more hours. The rate is currently 63%, so for every £1 someone earns, their universal credit is reduced by 63p. Let us be in no doubt: this is a tax on work—and a high rate of tax at that. Organisations as varied as the Trades Union Congress, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Resolution Foundation, the Centre for Policy Studies, and the Centre for Social Justice have all said it is too high. So, to make sure work pays and help some of the lowest-income families in our country to keep more of their hard-earned money, I have decided to cut this rate, not by 1%, not by 2%, but by 8%. This—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] This is a tax on working people and we are cutting it from 63% to 55%, the rate originally envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). And because I am also increasing the work allowances by £500, this is a tax cut next year worth over £2 billion. Nearly 2 million families will keep on average an extra £1,000 a year. Changes like this normally take effect at the start of the new tax year in April, but we want to help people right now, so we will introduce this within weeks and no later than 1 December.
Let me tell the House what these changes mean. A single mother of two renting and working full-time on the national living wage will be better off by around £1,200. A couple renting a home with their two children, one parent working full-time, the other working part-time, will be better off every single year by £1,800. This is a £2 billion tax cut for the lowest paid workers in our country. It supports working families, it helps with the cost of living and it rewards work.
So, fuel duty cut, air passenger duty cut, alcohol duty cut, the biggest cut to business rates in 30 years, growth up, jobs up, wages up, public finances back in a better place, more investment in infrastructure, innovation and skills, a pay rise for over 2 million people, and a £2 billion tax cut for the lowest paid. This Budget helps with the cost of living. This Budget levels up to a higher-wage, higher-skill, higher-productivity economy. This Budget builds a stronger economy for the British people. I commend it to the House.
Provisional Collection of Taxes
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 51(2)),
That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions:—
(a) Returns for disposals of UK land etc (motion No. 19);
(b) Diverted profits tax (closure notices etc) (motion No. 24);
(c) Rates of tobacco products duty (motion No. 39);
(d) Vehicle excise duty (exemption for cabotage operations) (motion No. 41).—(Rishi Sunak.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to the motion entitled “Income Tax (Charge)”. It is on this motion that the debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The Questions on this motion and the remaining motions will be put at the end of the Budget debate on Tuesday 2 November. I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion formally.
Budget Resolutions
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
At this point I would normally call the Leader of the Opposition to respond to the Chancellor’s statement. As Mr Speaker announced earlier, the Leader of the Opposition is sadly isolating—we all wish him a speedy recovery—and therefore, to answer on behalf of the Opposition, I call the shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Families struggling with the cost of living crisis; businesses hit by a supply chain crisis; those who rely on our schools, our hospitals and our police—they will not recognise the world that the Chancellor described. They will think that he is living in a parallel universe.
The Chancellor decided in this Budget to cut taxes for banks, so at least the bankers on short-haul flights sipping champagne will be cheering it. And he had the arrogance, after taking £6 billion out of the pockets of some of the poorest people in this country, of expecting them to cheer today for £2 billion given to compensate. In the long story of this Parliament, never has a Chancellor asked the British people to pay so much for so little. Time and again today, he compared the investments that he is making to the last decade, but who was in charge in that lost decade? They were.
Let us just reflect on the choices that the Chancellor has made today. We have the highest sustained tax burden in peacetime—and who is going to pay for it? It is not international giants such as Amazon; no, the Chancellor has found a tax deduction for them. It is not property speculators; they have already pocketed a stamp duty cut. And it is clearly not the banks, even though bankers’ bonuses are set to reach a record high this year. Instead, the Chancellor is loading the burden on working people, with a national insurance tax rise on working people, a council tax hike on working people, and no support today for working people with VAT on their gas and electricity bills.
And what are working people getting in return? There is a record NHS waiting list with no plan to clear it, no way to see a GP, and people are still having to sell their home to pay for social care. We have community policing nowhere to be seen, a court backlog leaving victims without justice, and almost every rape going unprosecuted. There is a growing gap in results and opportunities between children at private and state schools, a soaring number of pupils in super-size classes, and no serious plan to catch up on learning stolen by the virus. The £2 billion announced today is a pale imitation of the £15 billion catch-up fund that the Prime Minister’s own education tsar said was needed. No wonder he resigned.
The Chancellor talks about world-class public services. Tell that to a pensioner waiting for a hip operation. Tell that to a young woman waiting to go to court to get justice. Tell that to a mum and dad waiting for their child to get the mental health support that they need. The Chancellor says today that he has realised what a difference early years spending makes. Has he ever heard of the Sure Start programme that this Tory Government cut?
Why are we in this position? Why are British businesses being stifled by debt while Amazon gets tax deductions? Why are working people being asked to pay more tax and put up with worse services? Why is billions of pounds in taxpayers’ money being funnelled to friends and donors of the Conservative party while millions of families are having £20 a week taken off them? Why can’t Britain do better than this?
The Government will always blame others: “It’s businesses’ fault”; “It’s the EU’s fault”; “It’s the public’s fault”; “They’re global problems”—the same old excuses. But the blunt reality is this. Working people are being asked to pay more for less, for three simple reasons: economic mismanagement, an unfair tax system, and wasteful spending. Each of those problems is down to 11 years of Conservative failure. Government Members shake their heads, but the cuts to our public services have cut them to the bone. While the Chancellor and the Prime Minister like to pretend that they are different, this Budget will only make things worse.
The solution starts with growth. The Government are caught in a bind of their own making, because low growth inexorably leads to less money for our public services unless taxes rise, and under the Conservatives Britain has become a low-growth economy. Let us look at the last decade. The Tories have grown the economy at just 1.8% a year. If we had grown at the same rate as other advanced economies, we could have had an additional £30 billion to invest in public services without raising the taxes that the Tories are raising on working people today.
Let us compare growth under the last 11 years of Conservative government to that under the last Labour Government. Even taking into account the global financial crisis, Labour grew the economy much faster—by 2.3% a year. If the Tories matched that record, we would have £30 billion more a year to spend on public services.
It could not be clearer: the Conservatives are now the party of high taxation, because the Conservatives are the party of low growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that today. We will be back to anaemic growth—[Interruption.] Conservative Members might not like this, but the Office for Budget Responsibility said that by the end of this Parliament, the UK economy will be growing by just 1.3%. That is hardly the plan for growth that the Chancellor boasted about today; it is hardly a ringing endorsement of his announcements. Under the Tory decade, we have had low growth, and there is not much growth to look forward to.
The economy has been weakened by the pandemic, but also by the Government’s mishandling of it. Responding to the virus has been a huge challenge. Governments around the world have taken on more debt, but our situation is worse than in other countries. It is worse because our economy was already fragile going into the crisis, with too much inequality, too much insecure work and too little resilience in our public services. And it is worse because the Prime Minister dithered and delayed against scientific advice, egged on by the Chancellor, and we ended up facing harsher and longer restrictions than other countries. So as well as having the highest death toll in Europe, Britain suffered—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have to be able to hear the hon. Lady. Rachel Reeves.
Rachel Reeves
So as well as having the highest death toll in Europe, Britain has suffered the worst economic hit of any major economy. The Chancellor now boasts that we are growing faster than others, but that is because we fell the furthest. While the US and others have already seen their economy bounce back to levels seen before the pandemic, the UK has not. Our economy is set to be permanently weaker.
On top of all that, the Government are now lurching from crisis to crisis: people avoiding journeys because they cannot fill up their petrol tank is not good for the economy; people spending less because the cost of the weekly shop has exploded is not good for the economy; and British exporters facing more barriers than their European competitors because of the deal the Government did is not good for our economy. If this were a plan, it would be economic sabotage. When the Prime Minister is not blagging that this chaos is part of his cunning plan, he is saying he is not worried about inflation. Well, tell that to families struggling with rising gas and electricity bills, rising petrol prices at the pump and rising food prices. He is out of touch, he is out of ideas and he has left working people out of pocket.
Conservative mismanagement has made the fiscal situation tight. When times are tight, it is even more important to ensure that taxes are fair and that taxpayers get value for money. The Government fail on both fronts. We have a grossly unfair tax system, with the burden being heaped on working people. Successive Budgets have raised council tax and income tax. Now they have raised national insurance, too. But taxes on those with the broadest shoulders, those who earn their income from stocks and shares and dividends and property portfolios, have been left nearly untouched. Businesses based on the high street are the lifeblood of our communities and are often the first venture for entrepreneurs, but despite what the Chancellor said today, businesses will still be held back by punitive and unfair business rates. The Government have failed to tax the online giants and watered down global efforts to create a level playing field.
Just when we needed every penny of public money to make a difference, we have a Government who are a byword for waste, cronyism and vanity projects. We have had £37 billion for a test and trace system that the spending watchdog says treats taxpayers like an ATM cash machine, a yacht for Ministers, a fancy paint job for the Prime Minister’s plane, a TV studio for Conservative party broadcasts that seems to have morphed into the world’s most expensive home cinema, £3.5 billion of Government contracts awarded to friends and donors of the Conservative party, a £190 million loan to a company employing the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, and £30 million to the former Health Secretary’s pub landlord—and every single one of those cheques signed by the Chancellor. Now the Chancellor comes to ordinary working people and asks them to pay more than they have ever been asked to pay before, and, at the same time, to put up with worse public services, all because of his economic mismanagement, his unfair tax system and his wasteful spending.
Of course, there are some welcome measures in the Budget today, as there are in any Budget. Labour welcomes the increase in the national minimum wage, but the Government need to go further and faster. If they had backed Labour’s position of an immediate rise to at least £10 an hour, a full-time worker on the national minimum wage would be in line for an extra £1,000 a year. Ending the punitive public sector pay freeze is welcome, but we know how much this Chancellor likes his smoke and mirrors, so we will be checking the books to make sure that the money is there for a real-terms pay rise. Labour also welcomes the Government’s decision to reduce the universal credit taper rate, as we have consistently called for, but the system has got so out of whack that even after that reduction working people on universal credit still face a higher marginal tax rate than the Prime Minister. Those unable to work through no fault of their own still face losing more than £1,000 a year. For families who go out to work every day but do not get Government benefits, who are on an average wage, who have to fill up their car with petrol to get to work, who do that weekly shop, and who see their gas and electricity prices go up, the Budget today does absolutely nothing.
We have a cost-of-living crisis. The Government have no coherent plan to help families cope with rising energy prices. Although we welcome the action taken today on universal credit, millions will still struggle to pay the bills this winter. The Government have done nothing to help people with their gas and electricity bills through the cut in VAT receipts that Labour has called for—a cut that is possible because we are outside the European Union and could be funded by the extra VAT receipts of the last few months. Working people are left out in the cold while the Government hammer them with tax rises. National insurance is a regressive tax on working people: a tax on jobs. Under the Chancellor’s plans, a landlord renting out dozens of properties will not pay a penny more in tax, but their tenants, in work, will face tax rises of hundreds of pounds a year.
The Chancellor is failing to tackle another huge issue of the day: adapting to climate change. Adapting to climate change presents opportunities—more jobs, lower bills and cleaner air—but only if we act now and at scale. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, failure to act will mean public sector debt explodes later to nearly 300% of GDP. The only way to be a prudent and responsible Chancellor is to be a green Chancellor: to invest in the transition to a zero-carbon economy and give British businesses a head start in the industries of the future. But with no mention of climate in his conference speech and the most passing of references today, we are burdened with a Chancellor unwilling to meet the scale of the challenges we face. Homeowners are left to face the costs of insulation on their own. Industries like steel and hydrogen are in a global race, but without the support they need. In the week before COP26, the Chancellor has promoted domestic flights over high-speed rail. It is because of this Chancellor that in the week when we are trying to persuade other countries to reduce their emissions, the Government cannot even confirm that they will meet their 2035 climate reduction target.
Everywhere working people look at the moment, they see prices going up and they see shortages on the shelves, but this Budget did nothing to address their fears. Household budgets are being stretched thinner than ever, but the Budget did nothing to deal with the spiralling cost of living. It is a shocking missed opportunity by a Government who are completely out of touch.
There is an alternative. Rather than just tweak the system, Labour would scrap business rates and replace them with something much better by ensuring online giants pay their fair share. That is what being pro-business looks like. We would not put up national insurance for working people. We would ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share. That is what being on the side of working people looks like. We would end the £1.7 billion subsidy that the Government give to private schools and put it straight into our local state schools. That is what being on the side of working families looks like. We would deliver a climate investment pledge of £28 billion every year for the rest of this decade: gigafactories to build batteries for electric vehicles; a thriving hydrogen industry creating jobs in all parts of our country; and retrofitting so that we keep homes warm and get our energy bills down. That is what real action on climate change looks like.
This country deserves better, but it will never get it under this Chancellor, who gives with one hand but takes so much more with the other. What you get with these two is a classic con game, like one of those pickpocketing operations you see in crowded places: the Prime Minister is the front man distracting people with his wild promises, and all the while his Chancellor is dipping his hand in their pockets. It all seems like fun and games until you walk away and find that your purse has been lifted.
But people are getting wise to them. Every month, they feel the pinch. They are tired of the smoke and mirrors. They are tired of the bluster, of the false dawns and of the promises of jam tomorrow. Labour would put working people first, and would use the power of government and the skill of business to ensure that the next generation of quality jobs are created right here in Britain. We would tax fairly, spend wisely and, after a decade of faltering growth, get Britain’s economy firing on all cylinders. That is what a Labour Budget would have done today.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I broadly welcome the Budget, which is the first my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has delivered in what we might call the second phase of this crisis, the first phase having been from a sharp contraction in the economy through to the recovery, during which period my right hon. Friend, I think it is fair to say—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. One moment. It is too noisy down here. It is not fair —the right hon. Gentleman has to be heard too.
Mel Stride
I was saying that in the first phase of this crisis, between the huge contraction in the economy and the recovery that we are now seeing, it is fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did a pretty remarkable job to support the jobs market and to support jobs—not without criticism, incidentally, from my Committee, but overall it was a remarkable job.
My right hon. Friend has an even tougher job as he looks to the future, now having to deliver sustainable economic growth and ensure that the public finances are on a sustainable trajectory, as well as meeting all the other objectives the Government rightly have on levelling up, net zero and so on.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentions levelling up. Does he not agree that this is a real workers’ budget? The funds for skills and schools will transform the prospects of our young people and our adults, and let them climb the ladder of opportunity to get skills, security, prosperity and jobs for the future.
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct about skills. He, of course, through his Committee, has done so much to promote that agenda, which I will come to momentarily, but the background is extremely tough.
While the Chancellor is right to point out that the deficit is falling, it is none the less very highly elevated compared with historical measures. The debt, in financial terms at least, is at a record level of £2.2 billion, and the economy has the headwinds of supply chain bottlenecks and the mismatch between demand and supply that we are seeing in parts of the labour force.
However, there are reasons to be cheerful, which my right hon. Friend outlined. Those are the OBR’s revised forecast showing that growth is much stronger this year—I think the Chancellor suggested 6.5%, compared with the March forecast of just 4%—and the scarring downgrade from 3% to 2%. By my calculation, that is probably worth about £10 billion or thereabouts per year; it is a significant achievement. All that has been achieved through the hard work of the last 18 months to two years. I do not think we should take that away from my right hon. Friend.
That has left my right hon. Friend with some breathing space, and he recognises that there are many challenges facing the economy and uncertainties going forward. A big test as we unpack the Budget is what he has done with that additional headroom. Not surprisingly, he has spent quite a lot of it. It appears to me that, with his fiscal rule of keeping day to day expenditure without borrowing and debt coming down as a percentage of GDP, he has headroom of about £25 billion in 2024-25 on the net debt target, which is about 0.9% of GDP, with the OBR economic and fiscal outlook suggesting he has a 55% to 60% chance of hitting that particular metric. The Committee will want to look very closely at how prudent an approach my right hon. Friend has taken to the Budget.
I see my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) itching to intervene, so I give way to him.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I am listening intently. I do believe that the Government have done extraordinarily well in raising the national living wage as part of that headroom. That is a major step towards a high-wage, high-tech economy, and it bolsters our one nation agenda, which is to be applauded.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to the matter of wages and wage growth momentarily, but let me dwell on the challenges facing the economy.
Another thing that the OBR points out is the increased sensitivity to interest rate rises—the Chancellor made this point—and the damage that they can do to the public finances. I think my right hon. Friend gave the example of a 1% rise leading to a £23 billion increase in debt servicing costs. To put that in perspective, it would wipe out the value of the corporation tax increases and income tax threshold freezes that my right hon. Friend announced in the last Budget. That would be gone in one enormous gulp, so we must be careful about the vulnerability we have. Though we have low interest rates, and interest rates might move up in baby steps, that applies to a very large debt indeed.
Let me touch on inflation—I am pleased that my right hon. Friend spent quite a lot of time on it during his speech—and its impact on interest rates. We have already seen the Monetary Policy Committee beginning to divide on whether rates should go up, and there is an expectation, certainly in the markets, that rates will start to increase. We have seen 10-year gilts going up in more recent times, and it is possible that quantitative easing will start to unwind —perhaps passively initially—when we reach a certain trigger level of interest rates, so it is important that this credible plan is there to deliver on those fiscal targets.
The history, however, is not good in that respect. We have had Chancellor after Chancellor failing to meet their fiscal targets; they have either abandoned them completely or delayed or modified them in some form. Depending on what happens to demand in the economy relative to supply, there may be a case for fiscal stimulus even further down the line. One thinks of the removal of the universal credit uplift, the energy price increases, the labour market demand-supply mismatches and the rise in taxes, often taking demand out of the economy. None the less, and setting that to one side, the Chancellor’s default position must be to stick to those fiscal targets and resist the huge cacophony of demands for more and more expenditure, particularly the day-to-day expenditure that he is rightly targeting in his fiscal rules.
Some of those demands might end up being necessary. If we do not get back to the pattern of demand for public transport that we had before we locked down, it is conceivable that further subsidy will need to go to the public transport sector. Other areas, such as the health service, might have additional demands, but I point out to my right hon. Friend—he knows this more than most —that the NHS public expenditure take has risen in the last 10 years from 32% to 42%. He must get very good at saying no to Ministers when it is necessary to do so, and telling them to go back to their Departments, work harder and get more out of what they are given. That is a lesson for us all, incidentally, particularly those of us on this side of the House.
If we fail in that endeavour and inflation takes off, interest rates go through the roof, the cost of servicing our debt becomes ruinous and international markets lose faith in our economy, we will be back broadly where we were in 1992 when we had Black Wednesday. Conservative Members will remember the long, hard lesson of that: it took us a generation to re-establish our ability to look the electorate in the eye and say, “We can offer a fiscally responsible Government.”
There were some announcements on tax today. May I say first that the drop in the bank surcharge is absolutely the right thing to do? We are putting corporation tax rates up to 25% from 19%, so it would be absurd to cripple our financial institutions with uncompetitive international tax rates.
I was particularly delighted by the shift in the universal credit taper rate from 63% to 55%. That will help countless low-paid families to earn more and keep more of their money, and encourage more people into work. When I was a Treasury Minister, we looked endlessly at this and I pushed really hard on it. I know how expensive it is to do that—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor suggested £2 billion a year—so I take my hat off to him for having grasped that particular nettle.
My right hon. Friend is also right to set out an aspiration to get taxes down before the end of this Parliament. The same pattern occurred under Lady Thatcher, who is much referred to when we talk about tax. In the early years of the Thatcher Government, the tax burden rose quite strongly, and it was my right hon. Friend’s hero Lord Lawson who was able to bring tax rates down. Let us hope that my right hon. Friend is in a position to emulate that in due course.
I turn briefly to inflation, which is right at the core of what is happening in the economy. The threat to the public finances from inflation cannot be overstated. The big debate now is whether price surges and increases in inflationary expectations will be transitory or more persistent. My right hon. Friend referred to the surge in demand relative to supply, which of course will lead to price increases; all else being equal, one might imagine that it will pass relatively quickly.
We have seen the commodity, transport and energy price increases that my right hon. Friend referred to, but there are other price increases that we might expect to be stickier. There are bottlenecks that are often outside our control—a south-east Asian chip manufacturer can have a bottleneck that results in our being unable to produce cars in the United Kingdom. Structurally, the labour market has changed: as a consequence of the pandemic, there is now greater demand for goods relative to services. It will take time to mop that up.
The Bank of England MPC has expressed increasing concerns, in different ways, about inflation and has been constantly deferring the moment at which it believes inflation will peak. There is a debate as to when deferred “transitory” becomes “persistent”, but the huge danger is that we will go into a wage price spiral. One way in which that might happen is if we talk up wages by inducing companies to put them up without a coincident increase in productivity. That will simply feed the inflationary tiger. We have to be very careful on that point.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to be very careful about believing any of these forecasts from the OBR and the Bank of England? They said that inflation would be down at under 2% just a few months ago and have now had to change their mind. Does he also agree that when Lord Lawson cut income tax rates, we had a surge of extra revenue?
Mel Stride
It is certainly the case that the Bank of England’s projections on inflation have been under-baked. In fact, if we go back in time, we can see that its recent revisions have been more dramatic, which really illustrates my point. I have a feeling that there will be rather more inflationary pressure than many people imagine.
Some of the drivers of inflation are outside the control of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but some are very much within it. One of those is immigration. I totally accept the comment from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that we do not want to instinctively
“reach for that…lever of uncontrolled immigration”.
He is absolutely right: this country left the EU to get control of our immigration. However, what we must not do is avoid pulling the lever where there are genuine pinch points in the labour market in the shorter term. If we do not act to bring in skills if necessary, we will simply encumber businesses in a way that may mean many going out of business, and replace them with imports, which can also be inflationary.
The other such area is skills. Further to the point that the Chair of the Select Committee on Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), made about the importance of skills, I was really pleased by the announcements from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about post-16 T-levels and lifelong learning. Those announcements are vital to repurposing the workforce to get the challenges of the future sorted.
In the longer term, there is a huge opportunity for us in this country. We are a world leader in life sciences, FinTech, financial services and the digital sector and we have opportunities in artificial intelligence, robotics and genetics, but if we are to grasp those opportunities, we have to get the level of business investment up. I think that my right hon. Friend referred to that level increasing over time; that may be true, but it is still quite a long way below where it ought to be, looking at it historically.
The super deduction is a very important move that the Chancellor has already made, and the extension of the annual investment allowance to 2023 is very welcome, but I think we may need to look even deeper at how, beyond the end of the super deduction, we can continue to see business investment rise.
On research and development, it seems to me that in the plethora of announcements, figures, dates, schemes and adjustments to relief that my right hon. Friend identified, we may have slipped on our target of hitting £22 billion by 2024-25—if I heard him correctly, it has slipped to 2026-27—and I am not quite sure where we are on our target of 2.4% of GDP by 2027. Those are vital targets for us to meet in the longer term.
Finally, there needs to be an overarching examination of how the recovery is balanced. Those hit hardest by the pandemic have been the poorest in our society, who are much more likely to have faced the impact of lockdown and loss of income, and young people. My Committee will look very closely at all the issues that I have raised, including that point.
Once again, I welcome the Budget. The Chancellor has been in a very difficult position and I think he has put forward a very positive set of proposals. The devil will be in the detail; my Committee will look forward to examining that detail, including with my right hon. Friend on Monday.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I call the Westminster leader of the Scottish national party, who will be heard without intervention or interruption.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that we are used to the Prime Minister perhaps being fast and loose with facts, making things up as he goes along, but I have to say that I think better of the Chancellor. I have to say gently to him that if he thinks he is going to cut air passenger duty for Inverness and the highlands and islands, he is wrong—because there is no air passenger duty in Inverness. One would have thought that if he were going to make announcements, he would check his facts first.
More fundamentally, COP26 kicks off this weekend. What on earth are we doing? When we are saying to the rest of the world that we are trying to engage other countries to step up to the plate with their climate obligations—the Prime Minister has spoken today about the importance of 1.5°—the Chancellor wants to cut air passenger duty on domestic flights. [Interruption.] I can see him nodding his head. He is increasing air passenger duty on long-haul flights, admittedly, but the fact is that carbon dioxide emissions per mile are much higher for domestic flights than for long-haul flights.
What on earth are we doing? How can we say that we are taking our climate obligations seriously? By the way, the Scottish Government, exactly because of our climate responsibilities, took the decision in 2019 to remove our planned reduction in air passenger duty. Chancellor, this is a disgrace. Quite frankly, it shows that this is not a Government who understand the climate challenge that we all face. The Chancellor should withdraw and remove that proposal.
The Budget that the Chancellor has just delivered is tantamount to grabbing 20 quid out of people’s pockets, handing them back a tenner and expecting them to be grateful. Today’s announcement does not even come close to compensating for the tax rises and cuts that he has imposed over the past month. Let us take our pensioners as an example: with the removal of the triple pensions lock, there will be a £6 billion saving for the Government from their raid on pension tax credit and on pensioners.
That is the harsh reality under this Tory Government. The raw reality of that fiscal trickery means that millions of families and workers will be worse off this winter. This is a Budget that brazenly cuts taxes for the banks, while it cuts universal credit for the poor. We welcome the changes to the taper relief, but they do not change the fundamental fact that everybody on universal credit has just lost £1,000.
The Chancellor who once promised to do “whatever it takes” is now a very distant memory. The true test of this Budget was whether it would act radically and tackle the cost-of-living crisis, the Brexit crisis and the climate crisis, and it has failed that test on all three fronts. Instead of doing “whatever it takes”, the Chancellor has done as little as possible. The Tories’ half-hearted rhetoric about fairness has predictably only produced half-measures when it comes to soaring household bills and the crippling cost of inflation.
Perhaps worst of all, before the Chancellor stood up today, millions in poverty knew that they were facing the choice between heating and eating this winter. The ultimate failure of this Budget is that when the Chancellor sat down, those millions of people were still left with that terrible choice. I think that once the full details of today’s announcement sink in, the Tories’ cheers for their Chancellor will quickly fall silent. We can already sense that discontent growing among Government Back Benchers in the red wall seats, because another hidden truth of this Budget is that it only promises capital spending tomorrow, but delivers austerity today.
The Chancellor is living in the naive hope that the public will somehow have forgotten what his Government have hit them with over the last few weeks. He came in today and bragged about his Government’s generosity, but for the last month his Government have hammered working people and ordinary families with regressive national insurance tax rises, the premature ending of furlough, and, worst of all, that disgraceful £1,000 cut in universal credit. I am sorry to break it to the Chancellor, but the public have far from forgotten. They know the political choices that this Government have made, and they know the choices that have made them poorer. They know that they have been badly hit in the pocket by this Government, and that today goes nowhere close to making up for it. They know, too, that the rise in the minimum wage is welcome, but I must say to the Chancellor that the Living Wage Foundation will update the real living wage on 15 November this year. That will reflect what is happening.
Perhaps the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland might listen, because this is important. This is about the poorest—this is about people in poverty—and I am asking the Chancellor to recognise the Living Wage Foundation’s announcement on 15 November of the real living costs for the poorest in society. While I welcome today’s announcement of the increase in the minimum wage to £9.50, I ask him to give a commitment that that figure will rise to the amount of the real living wage this year, because that, fundamentally, is what will keep people out of poverty. We know that a full-time worker on the minimum wage this year will still be hundreds of pounds worse off because of the cuts in universal credit.
The smoke and mirrors act about rising wages just doesn’t cut it. The Chancellor may want folk to think he is giving with his left hand, but in reality he is taking much more out of their pockets with his right hand. However, no one is fooled. The only people who are living in their own parallel universe are the neighbours in Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street. In the real world, people are struggling with a Tory cost-of-living crisis that this Budget fails to fix.
Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, the public are being hit with an energy crisis, a Brexit crisis, a labour crisis and an inflation crisis, and it all adds up to a Tory cost-of-living crisis that is punishing workers and punishing families. It is a deeply damaging pattern that has become all too familiar. What we are experiencing is a United Kingdom in constant crisis, and it is very little wonder that Scotland wants out. [Interruption.] They are predictable. I hear, from a sedentary position, the Secretary of State for Scotland—at least, that is what I think his job title is—
Ian Blackford
Who does not have a mask on, despite the fact that Members of this House are falling ill with covid.
I say to the Prime Minister and I say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that the simple fact of the matter is that all of us have to recognise democracy, and the Conservatives have to recognise that an election to the Scottish Parliament took place this year. There is a majority for independence in that Parliament, and that Parliament will bring forward a referendum Bill. It ill behoves those who lost the election in Scotland—and the Conservatives have lost every election there since 1955—to deny the right of the people of Scotland to their own sovereign will, their own sovereign decision, to have a referendum on our future, offering us the hope that is failing from this Tory Budget today. More and more people are coming to the view that independence now offers safety and stability—an escape from the constant crisis of Westminster control. They are coming to the view that we can simply no longer afford to pay the price of being part of this failing union.
The defining decision of this Budget is the failure to fully reverse the cuts in universal credit. Tapering the rate is only tinkering around the edges of the problem. The decision was fully wrong and it needs to be fully reversed, because not only was the cut to universal credit the wrong policy, but it came at the worst possible time. [Hon. Members: “ Callous!” ] It was a decision that was callous, and it was a decision made before the rapid rise in inflation was truly known. But instead of having the strength to admit that they were wrong, the Tories have decided to dig their heels in. Earlier this week, the Chancellor, in many of his pre-Budget announcements, said that this Budget was a chance for him and his Government to get back to
“a more normal way of doing things”.
It is therefore very telling that in the same Budget he has confirmed that disgraceful cut in universal credit. He is cutting the surcharge on banks from 8% to 3%. So “back to normal” for this Chancellor clearly means one thing. It means the mindless mantra of the Tory long-term economic plan. It means austerity for the many and tax cuts for the few.
There is a very simple way for the Tories to prove me wrong. They can do the right thing: reverse the cut in universal credit, and put £,1000 back into the pockets of those who desperately need it. And while they are at it, they can remove the benefit cap, the two-child limit, the rape clause, the sanctions regime and the five-week wait, and—finally—introduce statutory sick pay at the level of the real living wage.
As well as those permanent measures, specific and targeted measures are needed to help with energy prices for the winter ahead. That is particularly true for the 2 million pensioners in poverty who have been let down by the removal of the triple lock. We believe that the fairest way to help is to introduce an emergency energy payment to cover families who simply cannot afford the soaring cost of heating and electricity bills. That would be, at the very least, the best way to protect people this winter.
I suspect that inflation will not be the pressing issue of this Budget alone; I fear that it may well be the defining issue of many Budgets to come. The Bank of England’s new chief economist has warned that inflation could soon hit 5%. Mortgage holders are rightly fearful that that this inflationary spike will be met with a sharp rise in interest rates. The Chancellor seems to think that all this is merely transitory, but complacency on this issue is not an option. History shows how quickly an inflationary spiral can get out of control.
It is worth remembering that in 1980 the inflation rate hit 18%. None of us can afford to go back to that place.
However, the inflationary threat is just one element of what amounts to a perfect storm of economic vulnerability. The covid crisis can no longer camouflage the deep damage that Brexit has done, and the single biggest threat to our recovery remains being dragged out of the European Union, against the wishes of those who live in Scotland. The consequences of Brexit are here and they are hurting: our exports down 14% year on year, our fishermen blatantly betrayed, our farmers sold out in fire sale UK trade deals, labour shortages, food shortages, medical shortages. It cannot be said often enough that Scotland is paying the price for a policy that we never supported.
Brexit has already cost billions, but while the European Union is giving Ireland €1.05 billion to mitigate the damage of Brexit, Scotland has yet to receive a single penny of compensation from Westminster. So I would like to ask the Chancellor: where is same billion-pound package of support for struggling businesses that have been hit by Brexit? I know those on the Government Benches do not like to hear this, but what those businesses also need is a return to freedom of movement. They need the 1% hike to employer and employee national insurance halted, and our hospitality and tourism sector needs the 12.5% VAT rate to be made permanent. All those businesses badly need a break from Brexit.
As we know, this Budget comes a matter of days before COP26. Keeping the target of 1.5° alive depends on a Government commitment to embrace the green economy, but let us be honest: this Budget today does not help. The fact that this crucial conference is happening in Glasgow is a chance to show moral leadership, but it is also an opportunity to grasp the opportunities that the green economy can provide. Moving to a just transition from oil and gas is essential to capture the economic opportunities of the new energy technologies and to support people into new jobs. The depth of anger felt in the north-east of Scotland at this Government’s decision to renege on their promise to ensure that we have carbon capture and storage in Scotland obviously has not hit home on the Government Benches.
If this Chancellor was—[Interruption.] Chancellor, this is really important. This is about our ability to get to net zero, and it is about the fact that the Treasury has blocked carbon capture and storage in Scotland. I say this directly to the Chancellor: perhaps he will meet me in the coming days to ensure that the Scottish Acorn project is put back on track and that we increase the number of carbon capture and storage projects from two to three, for the simple reason that we need that to deliver on our net zero targets and to deliver 15,000 jobs in Scotland for that just transition.
I say to the Government directly: let us ensure that we give some hope to the north-east of Scotland, because £350 billion of tax revenues has been taken out of the North sea. We need a helping hand to deliver that just transition, and I need the Secretary of State for Scotland to stand up for us—to stand up for Scotland and ensure that we get that just transition.
If the Chancellor was serious about supporting Scotland, he would have stood up today and announced that the Scottish cluster would go ahead. The reality is that it was a purely political choice to deny Scotland carbon capture and storage. What on earth is the Secretary of State for Scotland doing? Sitting on his hands and failing once again to stand up for Scotland’s interests. [Interruption.] I hear “Hee haw” from the SNP Benches. Maybe he is the Secretary of State for hee haw.
It is not only on carbon capture where this Government are holding back our renewable opportunities. I am passionate about the potential of tidal stream energy, but the contracts for difference budget of this UK Government means there is currently no route to the domestic market for that industry. Despite the Prime Minister’s warm words in response to my questions last week, there is no ring-fenced £71 million budget for tidal stream energy—a small pot of money that would kick-start the opportunities in this industry and prevent it from being lost overseas.
Let us be real about this—[Interruption.] It is really important that the Chancellor listens to this debate. It is his debate. We are serious about the opportunities—[Interruption.] He can point to the clock all he likes, but we are talking about the future of the renewable energy industries in Scotland, and about paying attention to what the industries are saying.
We know about the breakthroughs in technology, and we know that the Royal Society has painted a picture of an industry that could represent 20% of our electricity needs throughout the United Kingdom, but it needs to be kick-started with financial support. However, when we were all talking about our responsibilities to net zero, it is the UK Government who are standing with their foot on the brake preventing this industry from getting off the ground and delivering for people— not just in Scotland, but right across the United Kingdom.
There is also no commitment to match the Scottish Government’s £500 million investment for a just transition in the north-east of Scotland. Now that the Chancellor has blown up the idea of a Boris bridge across the Irish sea, he should have plenty of spare money to invest. On that point, can I ask him whether the estimated £20 billion cost for that cancelled bridge will now be ring-fenced for future transport projects in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Or is that just one more promise that will be broken—just one more example of Westminster holding back Scotland’s green future?
This Budget could have been an opportunity to do things differently, to get a grip on the cost-of-living crisis and to kick-start a fair recovery. But this Budget does not signal recovery. It signals that this Chancellor is dragging us into another winter of discontent, but I can assure the House that Scotland has been discontent with Westminster control for more winters than one. Our country has not voted for a Tory economic plan since 1955. Westminster’s choices are not our choices. The last thing Scotland needs is another winter of discontent imposed by another Tory Government.
Ultimately, we know that democracy is the only cure and the only solution to that deep discontent. That is why, when the crisis of the pandemic has passed, Scotland’s people will have the right to choose their own future—an independent future. It is a manifesto promise that we made, and it is a democratic promise that we will keep. I look forward to the judgment of the people of Scotland. I look forward to a future that is fair, green and European. I look forward to an independent Scotland.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I think the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) was saying thank you for the extra £4.5 billion that will come to Scotland as a consequence of the Budget. I think he was also probably saying thank you for the eight allocations of UK-wide growth funds, with bids in Scotland between Aberdeen and Glasgow.
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the support for his party, the SNP, in the polls, I am not sure whether his memory goes back to June 2017, when the SNP in Scotland got less than 37% of the vote, way behind the 44% that the Tories got across the country as a whole.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to say, through you, to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister: thank you for the content, thank you for the delivery and thank you for the hope that things will go on getting better in the future. We need to have the resilience to face the unknown problems that will come, but we also need to face the known problems now. I think the whole House will agree—certainly given the reaction from the Labour Benches during some of the announcements, including on universal credit—that the Chancellor has found an imaginative way of giving help to people before the end of the year. I think that there will be a great deal of approval for that.
I would like to say something in tribute to Frank Field, who spent a long time working on child benefits. As and when there is extra money for children, I would give it through child benefit. I would not give it through the extra provision of services all the time, because parents would like to make their own choices. I believe in expanding holiday provision and activities, but I do not think that a child taking all their meals outside the home outside of term time is a good idea. Families should be able to look after themselves, and they need the resources to be able to do that.
I do not want to speak at length because of the time that has been taken up by the leader of the SNP, although he is often worth listening to.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I will not at the moment.
The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) spoke for the Opposition, and I thank her for her speech, but it was not absolutely clear whether that speech had been drafted for the Leader of the Opposition or for herself. I felt that there should have been some spaces left in it so that she could pick up on what the Chancellor actually said. It seems to me that the Chancellor has been criticised for the opposite of some of the provisions he read out to the House.
I welcome the extra attention to the first 1,001 days. The earliest stages of life, and of parents preparing to have a child, matter, whether it is health, economic security or housing.
I thank the Chancellor for his commitment to returning to spending 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid. I hope he will be able to announce that the spending will not suddenly go from 0.5% to 0.7% in two years’ time but will move from 0.5%—if we have got down that far, and I hope we have not—up to 0.6%, 0.65% and then 0.7%. It is ludicrous to think that we can suddenly pile an extra 40% into a programme and expect it to be used effectively, so please try to plan ahead.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the cladding money, and he and the Prime Minister must have a top-level forum with the cladding groups, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform to get an understanding that leaseholders, people at the beginning of their household life, are faced with bills of £20,000 and sometimes £100,000, which they cannot afford. Some people are having their equity wiped out when their flats are forfeited because they cannot afford to pay these charges. We need to find the problems, fix the problems and fund the problems, and then we need to get the money back.
As part of the £5 billion, I ask that potential claims on behalf of leaseholders, which might have to be made by landlords, can be made by an agency that has the power to go to the builders, developers, surveyors, architects and building control people, some of whom are the Government’s people although most are not, and their insurance companies. In time, the money has to come back from those who are responsible. The one group we know are not responsible are the leaseholders who do not own a single brick of the building.
As a life member of the Campaign for Real Ale, I thank the Chancellor for what he has done on the draught beer tax. In Worthing, which has a good reputation for hospitality, the business rates relief will be greatly welcomed by 90% of businesses. Some people think of Worthing as a place that is not only represented by a mature MP but has a lot of mature people. They are wise people.
We have had one of the youngest mayors and council leaders in the country. As Dan Humphreys prepares to stand down after six and a half years, I thank him for doing the kinds of things that the Government are trying to do. He has increased digital capability, sought regeneration funds that work, worked and shared offices with other councils to get the best value for money and provided the kind of leadership and quiet, undramatic provision of local services that gives local government a good reputation.
If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor can continue doing sensible things that get support from both sides of the House, as he has today, we will be glad that he has joined that company, too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
I hope we can manage the rest of today’s debate without a formal time limit. We have plenty of time, but a great many people wish to contribute. If everyone were to keep to around seven to eight minutes, which is much longer than we have had recently, we will manage without a time limit. That always makes for a much better-flowing debate.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to follow the Father of the House.
This Budget could be described as a pork barrel Budget. The Chancellor talked about a beer barrel Budget, and I have yet to look at the detail of the beer duty, but small breweries in my constituency will be grateful for that measure. That is my thank you to the Chancellor.
The Budget has pulled rabbits out of hats, and there has been a lot of smoke and mirrors. When we look at the detail of the funding, as we do on the Public Accounts Committee, we can see the holes in this Swiss cheese Budget. We have again had the mantra of levelling up, but there is no acknowledgement of the reality of the lives of many of my constituents who will not qualify for levelling up, by the Chancellor’s definition, because of where they live. Of course we are still waiting for the new Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to define what “levelling up” means.
I have many constituents living in overcrowded housing with one family living in the living room and another family living in the bedroom. They are not street homeless and they are not living in temporary accommodation, although I have plenty of those too, yet there is nothing in the Budget for them on housing. The cost of living is hitting all our constituents very hard, and it is clear that this Budget will not tackle a lot of those problems for a lot of people, many of whom will be made poorer as a result of these decisions.
Of course, the Chancellor has announced £150 billion for Departments this year. We have to be wary of such global figures. It sounds like a lot of money, but it is dwarfed by the spending on covid. Compare that with the steady state of the NHS budget pre-covid, which was about £150 billion, and with the £37 billion allocated over two years to test and trace. I have to wonder where the Government’s priorities are.
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank my hon. Friend for the Public Accounts Committee’s report on the spending of NHS Test and Trace. It is 20% of the NHS budget, yet the money was spent in such a way that how effective it was in meeting the main purpose could not be demonstrated. Taxpayers’ money was treated like an ATM. Does she agree that if we are to spend such money, it needs to be spent wisely and properly?
Dame Meg Hillier
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope the Chancellor does, too. I hope the Treasury is acknowledging the lessons that have been learned. We were very tolerant on the Public Accounts Committee, as we understood that spending in those early days would be challenging and money might be spent in the wrong way. The ventilator challenge, for example, means we now have ventilators that will not be used, but it was the right thing to do at the time because that is what the Government thought they needed, and any Minister in that position would have considered making such decisions.
Test and trace is one example where money kept following money without clear outcomes, without clear challenge and without a clear approach to spending taxpayers’ money. These are eyewatering sums. When we think of the NHS backlog, there have obviously been pre-announcements on NHS funding, but there is still so much work to be done to make sure that patients get the treatment they need. The money spent on test and trace could have been much better spent on the backlog.
Once again, we have heard very little about the detail of housing policy. The Government have promised to build 1 million homes over this Parliament, a statement that the Chancellor repeated. There had been a promise of 300,000 homes a year, so the figure is shifting. One hopes it means that the homes will be built eventually, but the Red Book confirms that, of the £11.5 billion that has already been allocated, £7 billion or so is owed from the spending review onward. That is enough to deliver 180,000 affordable homes, and we can add the 160,000 homes being built through mayoral combined authority and local authority funding. We are still getting very low figures.
The affordability of affordable housing, of course, depends on a person’s income. In my constituency, people in receipt of housing benefit, including housing benefit through universal credit, cannot rent a three or four-bedroom property because the rents are above the cap. That is just the market in Hackney South and Shoreditch and across the borough. It is impossible to buy. More people rent privately than own their own home, and more people rent social housing than both of those combined. Those in generation rent and those who cannot get on the waiting list for social housing are left in limbo. They are left out in the cold. Where is the levelling-up agenda for them?
The Father of the House mentioned the terrible issue of dangerous cladding on tower blocks, and this Budget only reconfirms the existing £5 billion set aside for remediation. This is the biggest consumer and regulatory failure in a generation, and many of my constituents, like many people across the country, are living in unsaleable homes. I should declare my interest, as I live in one, too, although my developer has shouldered the entire cost. As the Father of the House said, we need more developers to take that on.
The £5 billion is about a third of what is needed to sort it out. I am the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, so I do not want to see money given out willy-nilly, but if the remediation is not funded now, there will be no confidence in the sector to get started. Even as somebody who lives in a property surrounded by scaffolding right now, and as an early adopter because the developer paid, it will take many years before the remediation is delivered. For those who have not got to that point, we are talking about well over a decade before this problem will be solved. It is about certainty of funding from the Government. As the Father of the House said, there are ways of getting this money back from developers. We need to be more imaginative. I challenge the Chancellor to work with his Cabinet colleagues on that.
There was some mention of street homelessness in the Budget. Getting “Everybody In” was a covid success story; let us not squander that opportunity for the lack of a bit of funding now. The money to make sure that people get into the 6,000 new homes that are supposed to be provided for people who are sleeping rough on the streets needs to be delivered. If it is not and they go back on the streets, it will end up costing the taxpayer and the Exchequer considerably more. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—I hope I have got the new title right—has been slow to confirm the figures on progress, so it is right that the Treasury should keep an eye on how the money going into that Department is spent and on whether it will actually deliver those homes, which will, as I say, save the taxpayer money in the end.
I could speak at length about the cost-of-living issue but, given the time, I shall touch only on the main issue. Universal credit has been cut by £20. I welcome the offer to revise the taper, but it will affect only those who are in work and rather plays into a negative narrative that some people are scrounging off the state. People have lost their jobs during the covid pandemic. People have struggled to get back into work, despite the situation not being as bad as some had predicted. On top of that, we see fuel prices increasing, energy bills going through the roof and inflation. That £20 a week is still a real issue for people.
According to the Red Book there will be a 3% real-terms increase in local government funding over the spending review period, but that comes on the back of cuts of up to 40% or more in some boroughs over the past decade. Since 2019, we have seen an increase year-on-year, but 2019 is only two years ago; let us not forget the deep and swingeing cuts to local government, which has proved itself an effective deliverer of vital services during covid but cannot be squeezed further. We are still nowhere near to the previous levels of funding.
On school funding, there is another smoke-and-mirrors promise. Again, increases are talked about, but after years of cuts. Per-pupil funding is still way lower than it was in 2010 and we are only inching back up to that level. A Public Accounts Committee report showed that the per-pupil increase is lower for pupils in the most-deprived areas and much higher for those in the least-deprived areas, thereby widening the gap in funding. The gap in attainment between the least-deprived and the most-deprived was narrowing, but we now see it growing as a result of covid. This is not the time to cut funding, or to reduce funding even if it is not seen as a cut. It is clever how the Government try to present it, but let us be clear that in effect we are talking about a cut to the poorest, with money going to the wealthier pupils.
The Government have also promised a £30,000-a-year salary for teachers; as far as I can see, having read the Red Book quickly, there is not enough in the settlement for schools to pay for that even if, now that the pay freeze has been lifted, the basic pay increase is taken on board—and we do not yet know what that will be.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentions having read the Red Book and says there is no new money for housing, but the Red Book announces
“an additional £1.8 billion for housing supply”
and for the regeneration of brownfield land; is that not new money?
Dame Meg Hillier
It is not clear to me that it is new money. I have acknowledged the figures for housing on brownfield sites and other housing, but let us be clear: the Government promised 1 million new homes over the Parliament, and they had said 300,000 a year, so they are already watering down the promise on the number of homes. Crucially, there is no figure for proper affordable housing that is actually affordable, so many of my constituents who are priced out of the private rented market and home ownership have no option. There is a real gap there and, as I have said, it is not levelling up for many of my constituents.
As I was saying, even if the pay review bodies come forward with an increase to the basic pay for teachers, as we expect they might, it will be very hard for schools. In effect, it will mean cuts to the number of teachers and to other school services to pay for that promised salary, because there is not enough money in the pot to be carved up all ways. Even the catch-up money will not cover that issue.
Let us look at the detail over the coming days and weeks. The flourish with which the Chancellor finished at the Dispatch Box will wither away as we see the reality that this Budget does not exactly deliver everything that he has promised.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
First, I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the good news in the Budget. It is indeed good news that the economy is growing faster than was predicted and it is good news that we are bouncing back from the pandemic not just faster than predicted but faster than other countries in the G7, with the OBR confirming the 6.5% growth that the International Monetary Fund and OECD predicted. It is good news that unemployment is lower than the very dire predictions that we heard at the beginning of the pandemic, largely owing to the action that the Government have taken. It is good news that, as my right hon. Friend announced, the national living wage has increased to £9.50, thereby putting, as he said, just over £1,000 into the pockets of some of the lowest paid. It is also good news for public sector workers that the pay freeze is going to be lifted.
It is good news that the Chancellor has felt able to announce, albeit over a number of days publicly rather than to the House today, increased spending on issues such as infrastructure, the NHS and science. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we must today start to build the new economy post covid and that we are on the verge of what could be an economy fit for the new age of optimism. Like my right hon. Friend, I have always been optimistic about what can be achieved by the talents, hard work and initiative of the British people and what they can do to build a brighter future for themselves, their families and the country. But the brighter future will not be built simply by telling people that it will be there: a new economy needs sure foundations and optimism needs to be backed by practical delivery.
As we know, there are headwinds that mean that however optimistic people are for the future, many are finding it difficult to manage today. As the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) said, there is a debate to be had about what is going to happen to inflation and whether higher inflation is here to stay or just temporary. Of course, that will have an impact on interest rates.
Increased taxes will have both direct and indirect impacts on individuals, as will increased costs in other areas. We must never forget, as the Labour party so often does, that people are hit by increased taxes on business, because those increased costs often cannot be absorbed and are passed through to consumers—to members of the public.
I welcome the significant cut in the universal credit taper rate announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It is true to say that it is something that Conservative Governments have been working for, but previous cuts have been rather less dramatic than the one he announced today. What he has done is extremely good news.
Let me focus briefly on three particular issues in the Budget and spending review, the first of which is the forecast for the future growth of the economy. As I said, yes, we are bouncing back well, but our economy will be smaller for a number of reasons, some of which are specific to the UK, and the predicted rate of growth is below that which would normally be seen as an acceptable growth trend rate.
I am interested by the fact that the Government appear to think that they can sustain a situation wherein public spending increases by, as I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, 3.8% a year, but the economy grows at less than half that rate. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has introduced new fiscal rules, but I may have misheard or misunderstood: I think he said that the new fiscal rules will be met in the third year of every forecast period, but the forecast period rolls forward every year, which suggests to me that we will never reach the fiscal rules and they will just be rolled forward every year. As the Chairman of the Treasury Committee said, it is not the case that previous Governments have not been guilty of changing the date at which the fiscal rules were going to be met, but it seems to me that, unless I have misunderstood, it is baked in that they never necessarily need to be met.
The answer to the issue of the balance of increased public spending versus growth is, of course, to increase the growth rate of the economy. I support the desire for a green industrial revolution, but that brings me to my second point: the green industrial revolution is about not just providing support to businesses, to different sectors and to initiatives such as hydrogen. Those moves are important, though, and I welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) has introduced the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill and is finding a way to ensure that the RAB—regulated asset base—financing model will work for new nuclear in future.
To deliver the green economy of the future, we will have to ensure that we have the green skills of the future, which means that the issue involves not just the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy but the Department for Education. It is about ensuring that at every stage in our education system we prepare people for the jobs of the future and ensure that they have green skills. There were a lot of references to skills in the financial statement, but I did not hear any specific reference to green skills, which are very important. Young people are hugely enthusiastic about saving the planet, as I know from when I raised the seventh green flag for St Mary’s Catholic Primary School in Maidenhead recently. We need to ensure that young people’s education provides them with what they need to be able to take up the green jobs of the future.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way and even more grateful that she is mentioning the whole issue of the climate emergency and green skills. It felt like the Chancellor was skating over that vital issue—I do not think he got the memo on the climate emergency. Does she agree that if we had much greater investment in the net zero review, we would be able to scale up the jobs at the level she is describing? At the moment, we have a pitiful amount going into that net zero review. We have a Budget that is making more car driving more likely. It is making that cheaper. It is making short-haul aviation less cheap. So it is sending out the wrong messages at the wrong time. We need a test that would make sure that every single spending decision is measured against its climate impact.
Mrs May
The hon. Lady has always spoken passionately on these issues in this House, but I think she has overlooked the fact that the Chancellor announced a significant number of green jobs—several hundred thousand of them—for the future. Investment is going in from the Government, but the point I am making is that it is not just about the investment that the Government are putting directly into these areas; it is also about ensuring that our whole Government, on a cross-Government basis, understand the importance of this issue. That includes education. I had a positive meeting with the Secretary of State for Education earlier this week on that and other issues. So it is a cross-Government exercise and it needs to be understood as such.
My third and final point is on a different issue, which is about the NHS and social care spending. I recognise the increased money going to local authorities, but there are local authorities that feel they will be hit with significant costs with the new social care provisions. This is about not just the costs over the next couple of years before the levy money comes into social care, but those authorities that are in areas where the provision of care is more costly than in other parts of the country and where they have a very high proportion of self-funders. That includes both Wokingham Borough Council and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.
My main and final point is that in the necessary bid to deal with the backlog in the NHS—obviously more funding has been announced in relation to that—we do not lose sight of the long-term plan. Crucially, the long-term plan had commitments on areas such as mental health, prevention and workforce planning. Those commitments need to be met if we are to put the NHS on a sustainable footing for the future. For example, the young person whose mental health needs are identified and provided for at an early stage is the person who will not then turn up at A&E in a crisis situation, costing the NHS more.
Another important aspect in the long-term plan is that it was matched with measures and metrics that the Treasury was going to be able to use to ensure that money was spent effectively and wisely. As we know, the NHS does not always spend the money as well and as effectively as it could. People want to see more going into the NHS, but they want it to be spent properly with value for money, so it is important that the Government do not lose sight of that.
As a Conservative, I believe in low taxes, fiscal prudence, and sound management of the economy. I look forward to our being able to be in a position to deliver that at the same time as we are delivering that green economy for the future and that optimistic future that the Chancellor referred to in his speech.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure and indeed an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in this debate. I am not sure that either of us would have thought that we would find ourselves doing this, but we do, and I have to say that I agreed with a great deal of what she had to say. I certainly agreed with far more than is probably good for me nowadays, but I did and I will say so in my speech.
I have been a Member of this place since 1983 and have heard a great deal of just about every Budget speech. The style has changed rather a lot. There was a time when we used to get a long lecture about monetarism and the money supply—the whole theory would be explained to us, with special emphasis on M4. I may have got this wrong, but the present Chancellor’s heart seems to still be with that school of thought, but to his credit he has realised the extraordinary nature of the circumstances that currently confront us and taken what for him, and I guess the Prime Minister as well, has been a philosophically broader view.
The current circumstances are quite mind-boggling. We have not done this voluntarily, and I do not blame the Government for it, but we have borrowing at a peacetime record now. It stands at some £320 billion, which is the equivalent of 14.9% of GDP. Government debt has increased now to about 96% of GDP. Spending, I acknowledge, is falling, but it is still at what for us is a high level and what for the Conservative party must be a very high and worrying level, surpassing anything that we have seen in peacetime.
As well as the national finances being under great strain, the finances of my constituents are too. I welcome some of the measures in the Chancellor’s speech, including the capital funding for the national health service to try to clear the backlog. Whether it is enough, it is certainly more than we were going to get, so I welcome it on those terms. I am very sceptical as to whether the funding for the announced changes will find its way later into the social care budgets. The cost of that—we all see this is necessary, and it is necessary now and not in a few years’ time—will end up with local government. As we work through the details of the Budget—the ones that were not leaked to the newspapers in advance—I think that we will find that local government will be forced, particularly in metropolitan areas, to pick up the burden.
I join the right hon. Lady in welcoming the long overdue—from my point of view—addressing of the taper on the universal credit interface with increased work earnings. Universal credit affects some 9,000 households in east Newcastle, and 35% are in employment so will almost certainly come up against the clawback of 63% as it was and 55% as it is now. It is not as big a deal as it sounds, but it is going in the right direction. It is welcome. The problem of the interface between benefits to people who are in work is not a new one, and my view is that more thought needs to be given to this to find a more equitable solution. The marginal tax rate is still quite high. It was 75% on the old clawback when national insurance and other taxes are added in, and it will be something of that order even with the Government’s announcement, but that does not stop me welcoming it. I do.
Discretionary incomes, particularly those of the poor, are under significant pressure and I regret the fact that the present Government have decided to break their manifesto promise and take more from those who do not really have it, with their 1.25% increase in national insurance. I can see why the Government—a Conservative Government—see the need to raise tax, but there were other ways of doing it and I would like a lot more reassurance that these were explored properly before we arrived at the solution that the Government have arrived at.
Mention has been made of the inflationary pressures that are now loose in the economy. I take this very seriously—
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to those halcyon days when he enjoyed lectures on monetarism and remind him that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon? There is no such thing as cost-push inflation.
Mr Brown
If the right hon. Gentleman would let me make a little more progress, I was going to quote Mrs Thatcher with approval; I rather thought that would catch his interest. What he says is essentially correct, and when these issues were more contentious, it was recognised very vigorously indeed by the then Conservative Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, who once said that
“inflation is the biggest destroyer of all—of industry, of jobs, of savings, and of society”,
briefly acknowledging, untypically for her, that there was such a thing as society—perhaps her better known quote.
Although I seem to have lost my copy of the 1987 Conservative manifesto, I have a memory that it contained the memorable phrase, “Inflation is an evil and must be exterminated”. I commend that point of view to the present Government if inflationary forces are unleashed again, given all the other problems we have to face up to at the moment. The victims are my constituents: the poorest and those who are least able to find the extra money—or, indeed, to find the goods to buy, given the way in which the distribution sector is currently challenged. These higher priced products could only be purchased if people found a supermarket that was still selling them and that had not been disrupted by a lack of delivery and HGV drivers. Retailers’ stock levels are at their lowest—or reportedly at their lowest; I cannot claim personally to have done a stock check—since I entered the House in 1983.
We know that inflation will hit our constituents hard. The situation with gas prices needs a response from the state, at least temporarily. My preference would have been Labour’s proposal to remove VAT from fuel bills, at least temporarily—for, say, six months. The Government could do more, and I urge them to, to help our more vulnerable constituents through this winter. That brings me, inevitably, to covid.
The R rate is reportedly now more than 1 and is said to be as high as 1.2. I understand that the Government’s underlying assumption is that the booster vaccine will provide a countervailing policy and that that will be enough to bring the rate back down. But if it is not, the Government need seriously to focus on whatever plan B actually is, because putting the country through a lockdown or some other set of restrictive policies again in the current circumstances will have a devastating effect on our hopes for a recovery.
I will finish soon, because I know that other Members want to get in. It is a fact that, in 2014, 27% of children in my constituency lived in poverty, and the latest child poverty figure that I have for my constituency is 38%. The adjustments that have been made and announced—pre-announced, if you will—in this year’s Budget do not serve to relieve that burden on the bulk of my constituents. All 12 local authorities in the north-east of England are in the top 20 of those that have seen the highest increases in child poverty rates.
The Government used to say that the way through this situation was to increase economic activity through the northern powerhouse. The Chancellor did not mention the northern powerhouse in his address at all, unless the Government have renamed it Teesside. However, the thrust of the argument is still clear and I would like it to succeed; I would like properly paid, well-resourced jobs to be brought to the region, and for them to endure. It is not a quarrel between the parties that we want to drive up the living standards of our constituents in our region. We can make much more common cause here in Parliament on the details of the issue. I tried to tackle that when I was the Regional Minister, with some success—I am not going to say with anything else!
One of the galling announcements in the Chancellor’s statement was the reference to family hubs. What happened to Sure Start? What was wrong with that? If the incoming Conservative Government had thought it was a poor initiative that could have been configured differently, why did they not just pick it up and configure it differently, and shape it like they say they now want to shape the family hubs? The underpinning reasons for the policy are wholly justified. It did deliver results. The Government are right to have found their way to it now, but they should have got there 10 or 11 years ago.
Finally, the greatest question facing our country and the world at large is climate change, and the prospects seem absolutely terrifying. I wish the Government well with COP26 and taking the issues forward internationally. Are we going to get there? I share the concerns and worries of, frankly, every thinking Member of this House. It is essential to the community that I represent that the Government do get there and that we are able to carry international partners with us. The Government’s proposals include industrial jobs—jobs that we could do in the north-east of England and projects that our communities could bid for. We want to play our full part in taking a green industrial strategy forward.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). He is right that many of us share common ambitions across the House—ambitions for COP26, and to bring better jobs to his constituents and constituents across much of the country in areas where such jobs have not necessarily been in the past.
I was Employment Minister back in 2010, in the wake of the last economic crisis. It is therefore with a particular sense of pride—I emphasise, pride—that I listened to today’s Budget and I congratulate the Chancellor. Back in 2010, there were 2.7 million people unemployed; the numbers were rising, the pressures were upward and the challenges were enormous. I listened to economists saying, “This is going to get worse and worse.” The achievement of the Conservative party, over a decade in government, of which I am proudest is the transformation of employment prospects for the people of this country. As we went into the pandemic, we were as close as we have been in modern times to full employment. After some tough economic and spending decisions, and some tough challenges met after 2010, we collectively—through smart management of the economy and the right employment programmes to support the long-term unemployed—delivered a transformation in job prospects, particularly of young people in the United Kingdom.
It was with huge trepidation, at the start of the pandemic, that I saw that work at risk, with forecasts of 3 or 4 million people unemployed and a whole generation’s prospects disappearing. I have to say that the Chancellor stepped up to the plate. It was not easy—he was right in saying that these have not been easy decisions for a Conservative Government, but they were the right thing to do. After a large amount of money spent on the employment support programme, the furlough scheme and the loan support for businesses, we are coming out of this pandemic with unemployment at 5.4%. Yes, that is higher than it was, but there are not many in the House who, in March 2020, contemplating the prospects for the labour market, would not have been pleased and surprised to see unemployment at that level coming out of the pandemic, and falling, with 1 million vacancies in the economy and decent prospects for people. The Chancellor, single-handedly—and we have to bear in mind that he had only been in the job for about half an hour when this all started—delivered programmes that have made a massive difference to this country. I hope he will always be proud of that.
But we do now have 1 million vacancies in this country. We have businesses with skills shortages, against all our expectations. We will not solve that through mass immigration. One reason that the haulage sector is lacking people is that there was so much cheap migration of both migrant workers and trucks from eastern Europe that drove down prices and left people thinking, “This is not an industry to be part of—I am going to retire, or go elsewhere.” The solution in that industry will be about paying more, but the solution in our country to these labour shortages will be about automation and productivity.
We have taken too much advantage of a steady flow of unskilled or semi-skilled labour over a long period of time. I remember talking a few years ago to the logistics director of a big retailer, who said to me, “If we leave the European Union, where am I going to get my warehouse staff from?”, to which my answer was, “Why do you need warehouse staff—surely you are automating your warehouse?” He said, “Actually we do not need to automate our warehouse because we have access to low-cost staff.” That has to change. I welcome the measures taken by the Chancellor last year and this year to drive business investment. Much of the solution to the skills shortage in our society—although not all; there are areas where it is a real problem—will come through a drive on productivity, innovation and automation. That is the way forward and that is the challenge that not just Government but business in this country has to grasp right now and deliver on, because that will be as big a part of transforming our economy and transforming our prospects as anything the Government do.
The Chancellor was also right to stress the benefits of leaving the European Union. We have only just started to scrape the surface of the benefits that can be obtained. I look forward to seeing a process of sensible deregulation. I am not in favour of the abolition of all regulation—it is there to protect people, and rightly so—but there are things we can do in areas like artificial intelligence, and financial services and the City, to make the UK more competitive. The job of getting that done has only just started. There is work to be done. I look forward to seeing, I hope, in the months ahead more announcements from the Treasury and from other Departments about what we will do in future to maximise the potential of Britain outside the European Union.
I have two final points, briefly, because I know we are short on time. First, I welcome the return to 0.7% because we must help countries around the world to deal with the challenges they face, particularly around energy and climate change, but also in something that I feel passionately about—the protection of the natural world and habitats. Deforestation happens for a number of reasons, but one of them is simply that people cut down trees to make charcoal to cook their food. I want to see more support provided for the creation of proper sources of renewable energy in the developing world so that that element of deforestation no longer happens. There is a huge amount that we need to do in tackling climate change, but looking after the natural world is one very important part of that.
My final point is about what the Chancellor said at the end of his speech. As Conservatives, we believe in low taxation and leaving people to make their own choices. He set a direction today. My message to the Treasury is that I—and, I am pretty sure, an awful lot of people on the Conservative Benches—will be holding the Chancellor’s feet to the fire to deliver on that, because we cannot plan a future, as Conservatives, as a big-state, high-tax party. We are a small-state, free-enterprise party. We know that that is what leads to prosperity and we all want prosperity for the people of this country, particularly those who are struggling and those on low pay. This needs to be an equal, levelled-up society, and we will not do that with a big state and high taxes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind everybody that Dame Eleanor suggested contributions of between seven and eight minutes in order that people lower down the list will get fairly equal time as well. Mr Grayling, you did that—congratulations—but the average is 11 minutes, so please could people be a little bit more conscious of the timing of their contributions?
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
We will see whether the Chancellor’s optimistic forecasts for the economy come true. I believe we have many more difficult times still to come. I particularly note that he skipped over the threat of inflation, which I will mention quickly, and the damage that will do to the economy and household income. He did not even really mention the potential of interest rate rises, which we may face in the future and would have a substantial impact on people’s standard of living. We have already seen and heard that the tax burden is rising to its highest sustained level in history. This Budget will not properly address the real concerns of my constituents over the rising cost of their weekly shop, the huge increase in the price of fuel at the pump and the eye-watering increases expected in energy bills. This Budget shows that the Government are out of touch with ordinary people.
Even the rise in the living wage, alongside the announced universal credit taper change, will not offset the £20 loss in universal credit that has hit families hard. Many people in my constituency have had no pay rise for years. There is also the Government’s culpability in the lack of planning to deal with our increasing need for energy, its supply and the rising costs, or to deal with things such as the shortage of HGV drivers, which was well known before. All those problems are down to the Government’s lack of planning and foresight to come up with solutions to help address them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) raised the issue of the Test and Trace organisation and system and the eye-watering waste of £37 billion of taxpayers’ money, which is about a fifth of the NHS budget. That shows that the Government are guilty of wastage not just here, but in various contracts they have let in the past 12 months or so.
I will spend the brief time that I have on the NHS. As we know, the NHS is in crisis. It is just about coping only because of the dedication and hard work of its staff in a perilous situation. The Government’s focus since March 2020 was on covid, and that was understandable and right, but it was at the cost of treating people with other conditions such as cancer and coronary disease. It may be that more people will lose their lives over time as a result of conditions other than covid because of that problem. Until recently, the Government had no plan in place to deal with that foreseeable problem. Even now, with the additional funding the Government have announced for the NHS, there is no guarantee as to when wating lists will be brought down to pre-pandemic levels.
It is now more difficult to see a GP face-to-face. That is partly because Tory Governments since 2010 have failed to ensure that the NHS and general practice doctors and nurses have the staff they need. The British Medical Association medical staffing report was published in July 2021. It shows that across primary and secondary care, there are currently 2.8 doctors per 1,000 people in England, while the average in comparable OECD EU countries is 3.7. If the rate of medical workforce growth remains the same, it will take until 2046 before the NHS has the number of practising doctors needed to match that average. That puts us 25 years behind where we should be today. The number of patients per GP practice is 22% higher than it was in 2015, but the GP workforce has not expanded with that rise in patient need. As a result, there are now just 0.46 fully qualified GPs per 1,000 patients in England, down from 0.52 in 2015. As we all know, there is also an urgent retention issue with GPs.
I raise that issue because, despite the significant money the Government are putting into the NHS, the significant problem is that we just do not have enough staff. The shortage of doctors, nurses and specialist staff in our hospitals has happened on this Government’s watch, and I repeat that they have been in power since 2010. The latest NHS vacancy statistics for England relate to June 2021. There were 93,806 full-time-equivalent vacancies in hospital services in England, amounting to a 7.2% vacancy rate. For nursing posts, there were 38,952 vacancies, which is a 10.3% vacancy rate. For medical posts, there were 9,691 vacancies. Constituents are finding it increasingly difficult to get an NHS dentist.
When it comes to social care, local authority budget pressures are immense. My local authority has faced a cut of almost 60% in its funding since 2010. It has to make £21 million more of savings in the coming years. It is the 23rd most socially deprived borough in England and Wales. The social care crisis is forcing councils to hike council tax, and the Government are of course trying to deflect blame for that when they are not funding councils properly for social care. We are seeing increasing problems, which will get worse this winter, with discharges from hospitals into a care setting. The Budget does not go anywhere near funding the shortage that councils are facing because of Government cuts. On education, the catch-up funding and the money that the Chancellor announced is something like a third of what Sir Kevan Collins asked for before he resigned earlier this year.
I am clear that as a result of the Budget, low and middle-income families in my constituency will struggle with the cost of living, but those on high incomes and the very rich will not. The Chancellor has failed to bring forward any real sustainable solutions to the cost of living crisis coming this winter. He has proved that he is out of touch.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
What a fantastic Budget. It is fantastic for all sorts of reasons. It demonstrates how incredibly well our Chancellor and our Government did during the covid pandemic in supporting lives and livelihoods. The much more optimistic economic forecasts that have come out are testament to the effort that was put in and the result that we are starting to see.
The Budget is also fantastic for the support it gives to the leisure and hospitality sector, which will help businesses in South Northamptonshire. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is sitting on the Front Bench, for that.
Many people wrote to me about universal credit, and the taper will help people who are in work and receive universal credit. Speaking as a former Business Secretary, the investment in R&D is superb. It will create the jobs—particularly the green jobs—and productivity that we want to see across our country.
The Budget is particularly fantastic, however, because of babies. I happen to be holding “The Best Start for Life”—it is not a prop, merely something to lean on. I thank the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the whole Front-Bench team and many Opposition and Conservative Members for their commitment for many years to making sure that every family gets the support they need to give their baby the best start for life. The Prime Minister is totally committed to that, as is the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). When she asked me to chair an inter-ministerial group to look at the early years, she was completely clear that babies are vital. On that inter-ministerial group a couple of years ago were two Ministers, one of whom was Rishi Sunak, a local government Minister, and the other was Nadhim Zahawi—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) and the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi).
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should know that by now.
Of course, those Ministers have gone on to fulfil a fantastic pledge for every baby. I also pay tribute to parents and carers across England for their amazing contribution and their determination to have their voices heard and to make sure that “The Best Start for Life” works for all parents and carers.
I will take a moment to explain why that period of life is vital. Essentially, human babies are unique in the animal kingdom in the extent of their underdevelopment at birth. Every other animal can fend for itself pretty well from minutes, or at least hours, after it is born. Human babies cannot do anything for themselves until they are at least one year old, and often they are two before they can really fend for themselves.
The physical and brain underdevelopment of human babies means that they adapt to the environment in which they find themselves, so the baby who is born into a secure and happy home with a loving family will grow up learning that as an instinct for life. They will be able to do well at school, make friends, learn, get a job, hold down friendships and relationships, and then be a good parent themselves. Conversely, the baby who is born into a situation where there is interparental conflict, drug or alcohol misuse, mental health problems or severe deprivation will not have the same life chances. All the research demonstrates in spades that, for those babies, life is much harder. Their instinct for life is not good and they often go on to have all sorts of problems.
Dame Meg Hillier
There was a Sure Start programme that did exactly what the right hon. Lady is talking about. Does she now regret that that was abolished by her Government and that she voted to abolish it?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am glad that the hon. Lady, whom I consider a friend, has given me a chance to tackle that, because the standard response is “What about Sure Start?” I have paid tribute in the House to the excellent efforts of many Sure Start centres and I worked with hon. and right hon. Members across the House on that subject, but Sure Start did not provide what most families need. Unfortunately—I can vouch for this, having led a charity that had to pay rent to provide a parent-infant mental health service within the walls of a Sure Start over 20 years ago—Sure Start did not stipulate services for families. It was all about the buildings, and therein lies the problem.
With the Government’s policy of family hubs, I hope we have something that Sure Start will build into: a welcoming place where families can go to find antenatal classes, meet health visitors, meet other parents and get support, whether for smoking cessation, mental health issues or breastfeeding advice and so on. Multidisciplinary services will be available under one roof, not just physically but virtually. One thing that we learned in lockdown was the incredible value that parents placed on being able to take part in something remotely, whether breastfeeding support or perhaps dads’ mental health support. These things can very well be provided online and remotely in the 21st-century digital age, so that if someone’s baby is crying and will not sleep in the middle of the night they can look at something online rather than waiting for Sure Start to open. Unfortunately, in many cases, a Sure Start centre might be open for only a few hours a week.
I must take the hon. Lady to task, because there are 3,000 Sure Start centres in England as we speak. My hope is that local authority areas will use that as a foundation and build on them to create the family hub model proposed by the Government.
I want to move on to other action areas in “The Best Start for Life: a Vision for the 1,001 Critical Days”. I am delighted that the Chancellor has announced funding for every local authority area to publish its own Start4Life offer. One critical thing that parents and carers said to us in the early years review was that they just did not know what they needed, let alone how to access it if they did know. If someone was pregnant for the first time, why would they know that they might need smoking cessation advice, breastfeeding and weaning advice, support to avoid oral decay and help with brushing their baby’s teeth? They might need debt advice or nursery advice and so on. When someone first finds out the hopefully, but not always, fantastic news that they are expecting a baby they do not know where to go, so the news that local authority areas can publish and offer parents a range of Start4Life services will be transformational.
The third measure for which the Chancellor is offering money is a digital version of the red book. Many of us have a plastic red book, with bits of paper falling out. We forget to take it to health visitor meetings and to immunisations, so the record is incomplete. Sadly, having spoken during the research phase of the project to many foster carers, including some fabulous people who had fostered 40 babies between them, I heard that only two of those babies had turned up with a red book. Those foster carers knew nothing about what had happened to that baby, what the baby’s birth experience was, what the situation was with the birth parents—there was no information at all. That must stop, so in the digital age, a digital version of the red book will be a game changer for every family. It will be important not just for families to see what happened—when did I wean my first baby? When do I need to meet the health visitor again?—but for early years professionals. Very often, parents say, “I have had to tell my story six times this week to six different people. Why don’t you ever talk to one another?” When there is a serious case review, all too often it is a case of “These people didn’t speak to those people” or “This team didn’t know what that team was doing”.
Joining up services in Start4Life for the period from conception to the age of two is the big win in today’s Budget in my opinion. That will be transformational for many millions of babies across England. The next steps will be the implementation—it is not done until it is done—and I want to thank many colleagues and professionals in the early years sectors, as well as many Ministers current and past, for the extraordinary coming-together of views that meant that today is the biggest win for families.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I might not be as gushing as the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), but nevertheless this Budget has been delivered in a very difficult economic circumstance. A plethora of figures and initiatives have been thrown at us today, and on the first day of a Budget debate we always comment on measures with some trepidation because of course once we start looking at the detail of the Budget and the implications of its measures we often feel a bit embarrassed at having embraced some of them with enthusiasm. Indeed, sometimes even Chancellors have had to retreat quickly from measures they earlier announced with great euphoria.
Nevertheless, I am encouraged by the general thrust of the Budget and the path the Chancellor has outlined. First, he believes we must get the high levels of debt down to leave us less vulnerable to interest rate changes in the future; that is good. Secondly, he believes that has to be done in the context of returning to making fewer demands on people through taxes. Again, that is good; my party believes people and businesses are far better placed to decide how to spend their money than Government. Thirdly, although we are spending vast amounts on public services, and the Chancellor will have to continue doing so in the future, he believes that must be spent wisely. He therefore must not be afraid to tackle the question of whether money is being wasted and to stop spending it and change direction if it is.
I am also pleased that the Chancellor wants to reward people who are in work. The national living wage increase is welcome, as is the reduction in the universal credit taper to encourage people to move from not working to working or from working in low-paid jobs to working in higher-paid jobs, but we must not forget that there is still a marginal rate of 55% on people in that position, so there is still that disincentive.
However, I still worry that those in low-paid or even medium-paid jobs will face a bleak period in the near future, whether through the tax rises already declared or the fact that we are already facing huge energy price increases. While Members have condemned that in this House, we must not forget that part of the reason for it is the climate hysteria that seems to have overtaken Members and the Government themselves. One reason for higher energy bills is the fact that we are turning our back on cheaper fuels and expecting people to heat their homes in more expensive ways.
The Chancellor has of course said that he has already written to the Bank of England about the current inflation rate. There is only one reason why he would write to the Bank. He cannot instruct it to increase interest rates, but if he is raising concerns about the current level of inflation the implication is that the Bank may well look at introducing higher interest rates, which of course will hit homeowners. So while I welcome some of the incentives to get people into work, we must not ignore that there are challenges ahead, especially for those in low-paid industries.
Turning to specific matters, the Chancellor made a big issue of the additional money going to the devolved Administrations. An extra £1.6 billion per year will go to Northern Ireland, which is a real increase, but there is to be a real increase in expenditure in Northern Ireland of 1.3% each year on average over the period. That is half the increase that will go to Scotland, about one and a half times less than is going to Wales and about a third of the general increase in Government spending. While spending in Northern Ireland is going up in real terms, which I welcome, relatively speaking it will go down, and that at a time when the Government are talking about levelling up and when there are additional pressures on the Northern Ireland economy because of the Northern Ireland protocol and its impact on industry. There has to be an explanation why, relatively speaking, expenditure in Northern Ireland will be lower over this spending period than it is currently.
Let us look at some of the initiatives that have been undertaken under the levelling-up agenda. I welcome the fact that £300,000 will be spent on a digital hub in Cushendall in my constituency. I already know from speaking to those involved in it how that will create jobs—good jobs—in a relatively poor rural area. The extra money for Dundonald Ice Bowl will be welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and of course the money that is going into the city region deal will benefit massively some capital projects in my constituency. I welcome all that.
The hospitality industry has taken a hammering. The Chancellor has said that there will be a 50% discount on rates for the industry. I take it that there will be a Barnett consequential of that for Northern Ireland, and I hope that it is replicated by the Finance Minister in Northern Ireland.
There is one question that I would like a response to, and it is about the changes in excise duty on alcohol, which will be important for the likes of Diageo in my constituency and the hospitality industry. Since Northern Ireland is part of the EU excise regime due to the Northern Ireland protocol, will those changes apply to taxation on alcohol in Northern Ireland? That is a technical question that I do not know the answer to; it would be interesting if the Chancellor came back to us on that.
The Chancellor has been a steady hand on the tiller in the storms of the past. There are still economic storms for him to take the country through. We wish him all the best with that, but we will also be scrutinising the route that he takes as he seeks to guide the nation economically.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Growth is the way that we need to proceed. Growth is the way to get us over the damage done by the pandemic policies. Growth is the way to deliver the optimism that the Prime Minister expresses so well about the economy. Growth is needed to level up. Growth is needed to help generate the more and better-paid jobs we require. And growth is needed to remove the supply constraints and shortages that are too obvious in our own economy and many others around the world trying to overcome the pandemic disaster.
We therefore need from the Treasury a more vigorous growth policy even than the one that has been envisaged today, which is largely public sector-led. We need also to engage the private sector, get innovation pulsing and make sure that people can enjoy the rewards of success. Let us look at taxation of small business and the self-employed. It still seems to me that the Government have a bit of a downer on that. We are going to be mightily dependent on the good spirits, good will and enthusiasm of all those who are setting up businesses or have small businesses, or who are taking that step to go and work for themselves. They find a tax regime that is becoming increasingly penal.
We need as well to look at our capacity in many areas where the Government are the great regulator, instigator and provider, where we need to harness more private capital. We are chronically short of energy in this country, yet we are an energy-rich part of the world. If only we would exploit it. Why do we import so much gas and electricity? Why are we making ourselves so dependent on wild and erratic world market prices and sometimes having to pay spot prices, when we could produce much more of our own electricity and gas at home, supply it under sensible average price contracts and give people proper security of supply?
The Transport Secretary is doing great work in, I hope, an early resolution of the heavy goods vehicle driver shortage. There was a Government problem there, in the number of tests, the training and the support. Indeed, the taxation of drivers is another issue, which I think has led to some leaving the profession or not joining it. Again, I ask the Government to please consider where they are engaged, where they are licensing in the wrong way or where they are not providing enough capacity, to allow the private sector to respond and to perform well.
My disagreement with the Chancellor in this Budget—I do have one—is that I think the way we get faster growth is to go for lower tax rates to promote it. Lower tax rates should not be a reward for achieving growth that is much more difficult to achieve if it is done against the background of much higher tax rates. I understand why the Chancellor was persuaded to put in the £12 billion from national insurance, but it is a tax on jobs. I was against it. It is deeply damaging and wish they would remove it. However, would the Chancellor have still put that in if he had known that, in the first six months of this year, he was going to collect £44 billion more in tax revenue than the OBR forecast as short a time ago as March?
The OBR was £44 billion out for the first six months of the financial year. That revenue came in because we were living through a period of lower tax rates—stamp duty surged because the rate had been cut, for example—and because we were recovering from covid on the back of a massive fiscal and monetary stimulus, a stimulus I always supported and for which I pay tribute, as others do, to the Chancellor and the Bank of England for organising. We needed that massive stimulus. We needed to go in behind the Federal Reserve Board, which really saved the advanced world at a time of great crisis and trouble with an even bigger monetary stimulus proportionate to the size of its economy.
Now, however, times are moving on. We have had a very sharp recovery, which the OBR and the Bank of England did not forecast correctly. We have more inflation than they said. They were forecasting inflation below 2% for this year. Now I see in the latest figures that they have upped the forecast to 4% for next year and they have had to up their forecast for this year a bit, although probably not by enough. The Bank of England was caught on the rise, not understanding the power of the economy to recover. I have never seen such big revisions to forecasts in six months. We have here today a very big increase in the growth rate, a big drop in the unemployment rate and a big rise in the inflation rate.
Those of us who were saying that the forecasts were wildly pessimistic in March were, unfortunately from the Government’s point of view, proved right, but the Government should celebrate that. They should also puzzle over how the official forecasts are now much more positive for this year and next year at the very moment the economy is actually slowing for a variety of reasons partly relating to tax policy and the threat of interest rate rises, which the Bank of England now seems to think it needs to administer. I urge the Government to pay less attention to official forecasts, because they are all over the place. I have no great confidence that this latest set will be proved right over four or five years any more than I thought the March lot would be. They point to a very disappointing growth rate in the last three years of the forecast period. That is why I am urging the Treasury to look again at its growth rate policies and to find ways to strengthen them.
My final point, to keep within time, is that of course I welcome more money if it will buy me more operations and treatments, and bring down waiting lists in my local health service. Of course I welcome more money if it finds its way to my local schools, enabling them to have more and better paid teachers, and the equipment they need. But these are very large sums of money. The health increases, which come out on a very regular basis now, are on top of a massive increase in health expenditure which was understandably needed to combat covid. The Treasury must push back on some of those sums. In the case of the health budget, we will not need the massive test and trace budget, with all its set-up costs. We are not going to repeat the experiment of building Nightingale hospitals and then closing them down once we have completed them. We are not going to repeat the need to procure in a hurry a vaccine that does not exist and set up a means of distributing it. We have done all that, so that money, which is still in the base budget, should be reallocated.
Before the Government give additional money to the health service, they should satisfy themselves that the money is being properly distributed and properly spent. Above all, we need a productivity revolution. I want to see much higher pay in this country and in the public sector, but that requires increasing productivity and there is no easy way of doing that. Ministers must galvanise the senior managers of the NHS to deliver it.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who I agreed with for the first time ever yesterday. That is something I enjoyed, however fleetingly.
After listening to the Chancellor today, I think arrogance is up, complacency is up and delusion is up. Certainly, in my constituency of Wallasey and in the country as a whole, the cost of living is up, taxes are up, poverty is up and hardship is up. That is the background against which the Chancellor delivered his speech.
The combined Budget and spending review comes at a pivotal time for the country. That is partially a result of grim circumstance, which is beyond the control of any Government, as we have heard today—the pandemic and the challenge of the transition to net zero—but it is also the result of the Government’s serious mistakes and self-inflicted wounds. The botched Brexit deal has caused chaos at the borders, soaring prices and shortages, and the Government’s deadly complacency about the virus has resulted in one of the biggest economic hits and one of the largest per capita death tolls in the developed world—failure piled upon failure.
The most vulnerable have been hit the hardest, whether they are the young having their opportunities destroyed by school disruption, the old sacrificed in their tens of thousands in our neglected and underfunded social care system or the millions flung into poverty by the Government’s cruel universal credit cut—not compensated for by changes to the taper announced today, which will help only one in three and leave us with the circumstance whereby millionaires pay a marginal tax rate of 45p while those on poor wages who qualify for universal credit and are able to work pay 55%.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Two brief points. First, it is worth saying that the legacy benefits system that we inherited, before we implemented universal credit, had withdrawal rates for benefits sometimes close to, and sometimes exceeding, 100%. Whatever the hon. Lady says, this is a massive improvement.
Secondly, there is a qualitative moral difference between taking from people money that they have earned and withdrawing benefits that people are given, paid for by other taxpayers. Those are different things, and the hon. Lady should not pretend that they are the same.
Dame Angela Eagle
While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that benefit tapers have been a long-running problem for many Governments to solve, we know that the 63% fall in the Department for Work and Pensions’ costs has come about not because everybody is in work, but because benefits are some of the lowest in the developed world, causing huge hardship and poverty. The right hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that as well.
This is a Government who love power but are bored with the hard work of governing. They disdained to anticipate the problems their ideological obsession with a hard Brexit has created, choosing to believe their own propaganda instead, but the red book shows that, as a result, trade with the EU is sharply down and projected to reduce living standards by 4%, which is twice the OBR estimate of the cost of the covid pandemic. Underlying some of our difficulties are the problems of Brexit and the fact that the Government did not prepare for the trade disruption caused by their hard Brexit deal, which threw fishing, farming and peace in Northern Ireland to the wolves in pursuit of their own peculiar obsessions. They did not prepare for the supply chain problems caused by the shortage of HGV drivers, the vacancies in social care and the staff shortages in the NHS.
This is a Government who have been unwilling to offer short-term temporary relief to those who are suffering the growing cost-of-living crisis, as energy prices have rocketed and as inflation soars towards 5% this winter. Fuel and food prices are rising fast, and people are feeling the pinch. An end to the public sector pay freeze will not compensate unless it offers real increases in wages, which, taking inflation into account, have only just returned to their 2009 level. Let’s face it: whatever it says in the Chancellor’s latest propaganda press release, any pay increase below inflation is actually a pay cut on top of years of hardship, so we will have to await the detail.
A fair recovery would start with a Chancellor who had the humility to be honest about why these blunders have been made. Unfortunately, we do not have such a Chancellor; we have a Jekyll and Hyde Chancellor, with his eyes firmly on his own advancement and with a slick PR operation to match his vaunting ambition—a Chancellor whose persona depends a bit on his audience.
To the country at large, he is that nice Dr Jekyll, brandishing his public spending largesse in a blizzard of pre-Budget leaks, increasing the national living wage and announcing the end of the public sector pay freeze—he is hoping that we will not notice that it was he who froze pay last year, on top of a decade of previous Tory pay freezes that have seen real living standards fall more than at any time since the Napoleonic wars.
But when he is burnishing his leadership credentials with Tory MPs, he becomes the sadistic Mr Hyde, posing as a true low-tax, small-state Thatcherite, waxing lyrical about his
“sacred responsibility to…balance the books”,
because to do otherwise would be “immoral”—he is hoping that they will not notice that he has presided over the largest increase in the size of the state in peacetime and the biggest tax rises in 25 years. That comes the year after he borrowed an eye-watering £350 billion in a single year to pay for his covid response. The fraud, the waste and the graft to Tory donors have been an ever-present feature of the bonanza of state mis-spending that he has presided over. In fact, it has been the very definition of “immoral”.
Dame Angela Eagle
No.
Does this Budget meet the formidable long-term structural challenges before us? In the short term, does it tackle the cost-of-living crisis now looming for millions this winter? No, it does not. Projections of 1.3% growth by the end of this Parliament are nothing particular to be proud of.
The Treasury-inspired blizzard of media propaganda announcing £30 billion of apparent spending commitments means that the Budget is really an afterthought. Closer inspection reveals many reheated announcements of previous Government press releases with one thing in common: despite being announced over and over again, few of them have ever actually been delivered.
There are some modest funding allocations that seek credit for restoring a minority of the huge cuts that have been inflicted in the past 11 years of this Tory Government —indeed, the Chancellor has openly boasted, over and over again, about taking spending back to 2010 levels. Having destroyed 1,000 of Labour’s Sure Start centres, this Government now expect credit for creating a pale imitation of them in just 75 places, 11 years later. Having cut skills funding by 50% since 2010, this Government now expect credit for restoring 42% of it, 11 years later. Having underfunded education for years, this Government now expect credit for restoring funding to levels that they inherited from Labour in 2010.
This is a cynical Budget of smoke and mirrors, aimed more at burnishing the Chancellor’s leadership credentials than at fixing the country’s growing challenges. As the challenges pile up like leaked Government announcements, it is becoming plainer by the day that this Chancellor is not going to be the one who meets them—and Britain will be the poorer for it.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). Unlike her, having recently left the Cabinet, I am grateful to the Treasury for all the effort that it has made to keep us informed of what will be in the Budget—I have never approached a Budget knowing quite as much in advance. However, I would still like to speak about a couple of elements that I think are quite significant.
One of those elements is the change in the universal credit taper rate, which will help millions of people throughout the country. It underlines a fundamental Conservative objective, which is to make work pay, and I strongly welcome it. I also think it important that we have announced an increase in the national living wage, which, again, will help us to build that higher-wage, higher-productivity economy that is so fundamental to our economic plan.
I also want to put on the record my praise for the Chancellor, which is contrary to some of the remarks we have heard today. I think that his stewardship of the economy over an extraordinary year and a half is enormously to his credit, and I think that that is reflected in the public confidence that he has built up for himself and for the Government over that period. We are seeing the economy bouncing back better—still scarred, but in a significantly better position than many people would have imagined. We are seeing employment in an immeasurably stronger position than we would have imagined just a few months ago, along with a commensurate surge in tax revenues that contrasts with the gloomy forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility the last time we heard from the Chancellor. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood): we have to question how useful the OBR is when its forecasts are so far out, and have to hope that it can raise its game in the future.
Let me make a few brief points. First, I think the Chancellor was right to continue to highlight the cost of living as a major issue. I do not think we should assume that inflation will be fleeting and transitory; I think it could be with us for a long time, which is why it is important that we take action. The action on the universal credit taper rate will help, as will the national living wage, and the changes in fuel duty and other items will be useful as well, but we must prepare ourselves—steel ourselves—for the likelihood that this year and most of next year will be marked by a significant pressure on people on low and medium incomes.
Secondly, I am very concerned about the current level of public spending, and the size of the state. We must be honest with ourselves, and acknowledge that on top of the £400 billion of unplanned outlay that was required to get us through the covid response, we are now seeing the size of the state increase to the largest that it has been in peacetime. The amount of public expenditure today is higher than it was during the financial crisis; it is about the same as it was under Denis Healey in 1976, when he had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund. The size of the state is large, and we have heard from the Chancellor today that it is going to grow even further, beyond 41% of national income. History suggests that that is not a sensible long-term level for public expenditure, because it starts to crowd out the private sector, and makes it hard to build and sustain the free-market, free-enterprise economy that we all want to see.
That leads me to two points. One is that we have to ensure that this public money is well spent. I think particularly of the NHS, which is soon to account for 40% of total current expenditure. That is a significant amount. Many of us, and our constituents, want to see the NHS properly funded, but a heavy burden of responsibility now falls on the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the money is well spent and is accompanied by reform. I remember previous settlements, including the one referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Just a couple of years ago, money was given to the NHS without a proper plan for reform and was not well spent, so I hope that this money will be spent differently.
The second point is the difference between funding for day-to-day purposes and funding that will genuinely increase productivity in the economy. At the end of the day, as many Members have already said, it is all about productivity growth. The forecasts that the Chancellor set out earlier today were for one or two years, if we are to believe the OBR, of very significant growth in the economy, and then a return to low levels of growth— 1% or 1.3%—with perhaps a decade of low growth ahead of us.
We have to improve productivity, and in that respect there was much to commend in the Budget and the spending review: significant increases in infrastructure, particularly the sorts of infrastructure, such as roads, railways and broadband, that will genuinely improve productivity and boost the economy, and the work on skills—in particular lifelong learning, which for too long has been a weakness in our country.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about productivity. Does he share my delight that the Chancellor announced tax relief for investment—certainly in the short term and hopefully in the longer term? Hopefully, that will enable businesses to do the heavy lifting rather than the Government trying to do it for them.
Robert Jenrick
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. At the end of the day, the way we boost productivity is by backing the private sector in the economy. The way we grow the economy is to make the UK a more competitive place to do business. That will mean ensuring that we attract investment from overseas. It will also mean correcting the poor levels of trade that we have seen in recent years, as has been mentioned. That needs to change. It also means ensuring that we as a Government bring forward some of the supply-side reforms that we will have to implement if we are going to make ourselves more innovative and competitive.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman has had a position at a senior level of Government overseeing local government, and I wonder whether he would like to modify his comments slightly. Of course I understand that the private sector is vital for our growth and productivity, but strong public services and strong local government are also critical for helping to enable a strong local economy. Does he not feel that it is important to build that into the Government’s thinking?
Robert Jenrick
Absolutely; I do not demur from that, but we have to find the right balance in our country between public expenditure and ensuring that the private sector can flourish. I worry that we have now reached the moment at which there is not much more that we can spend.
We have to ensure that we grow our way out of this challenge. That was illustrated in some of the Chancellor’s announcements today, including those on research and development relief, the continuation of the investment allowance, the support for skills and also the maths support, about which I would be interested to hear more detail. This is also about ensuring that we have sensible tax arrangements in this country that can incentivise investment and ensure that businesses can prosper. The overall tax burden is at its highest sustained level in peacetime, and I worry that we will not be able to go much further than that.
I want to make one last point briefly before closing, because I appreciate that—
Sir Edward Leigh
I want to say a fantastic big thank you to my right hon. Friend personally, because it has just been announced this minute that Gainsborough is getting £10 million of levelling-up funds. I relentlessly lobbied him on this, and I have lobbied his successor, so a big thank you!
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for ending on such a positive note. I know Gainsborough well—it is my neighbouring constituency—and I am delighted for him and his constituents.
I shall close where I began, which is by saying that there was a huge amount in the Chancellor’s announcements to be applauded. I commend him and the Treasury team and wish them well. The focus now needs to be on growing the economy and making the UK the most competitive place it possibly can be, rather than seeing taxes rise and expenditure increase, risking the private sector not being able to flourish and build that optimistic vision that the Chancellor laid out.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), although I cannot express the same pleasure about much of what the House has heard today. We face a looming cost of living crisis, with food prices and energy bills soaring. The Chancellor had a chance to lessen the pain for hard-working families who pay their tax, play by the rules and need his support. Instead, he is hammering them with tax hikes, empty words and broken promises from a Government who are completely out of touch with the people of this country. There is nothing to help families with their energy bills this winter.
The Chancellor says that this Budget is all about optimism, but it is hard to be optimistic when it is our children who will pay the price with their income, their life chances and their planet. Today he could have chosen to invest in their future; instead, he chose to anchor them to the pandemic and the past. Our children, their education already damaged and their futures undermined, are left without sufficient funding for the catch-up classes that they desperately need. Unless the Government provide that funding in full, children who are at school now will face up to £46,000 in lost earnings over their lifetimes. If the Government are serious about investing in our future, surely they should start with those children. Instead, the Chancellor has spent more today on cutting the price of prosecco than on saving our children’s future. That tells us everything we need to know about this Government’s priorities.
The £5 billion of catch-up funding is a third of what the Government’s own adviser said is needed, and it is just a fraction of the £450 billion hit our economy could see from the learning our children have lost to covid.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on behalf of children, parents and teachers across our country. Is she aware that, in the fine detail of the Budget, banks are getting a tax cut that is bigger than the increase announced today for catch-up funding? Does she agree that is the wrong priority?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. If people are going to intervene, they should at least have the good grace to come in a few speakers before.
Christine Jardine
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) for his intervention, and I will address the Government’s strange priorities.
Under this Chancellor we have seen the highest tax burden since the second world war and the lowest school spending per pupil in a generation. Increasing funding per pupil by 2025 will come too late for millions of children whose life chances are being dashed. That is the choice the Chancellor has made, and it is the wrong choice.
Many of us in this place come from a background in which education was our passport to a better future. Our families had the support they needed to enable us to be the first in our family to go to university, and I do not want to deny that chance to this generation. The Chancellor’s announcement on universal credit is giving just a third of what he snatched away, and millions of families who are not in work will not be helped at all. What will their winter be like? Those parents will be choosing between eating and heating. For those who get the disparaging increase in the minimum wage, it has already been eaten up by the national insurance hike.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady agreed with the point made by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on bank taxation. Does she agree that 28 is higher than 27? The corporation tax rate on banks is currently 27%, and after the rise in corporation tax and the change to the bank corporation tax surcharge it will be 28%. By anyone’s reckoning that is an increase in taxation on banks, not a decrease.
Christine Jardine
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, but I do not want to get involved in nit-picking. [Interruption.] I did not mention either 27% or 28%. I was talking about the disparaging increase in the minimum wage, which has already been eaten up by the national insurance hike. That broken Tory promise means a nurse on an average salary will see her tax bill rise by £310 a year. After 18 months on the frontline of the pandemic, covid heroes will be clobbered by a tax hike and the cost of living crisis. How can it be that NHS staff and care workers are facing a £900 million tax hike while banks are, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, being given a £900 million tax cut? No doubt bankers will be toasting their tax cut and the Chancellor’s decision to reduce the bank surcharge with cheaper bubbly tonight. It is clear that this Chancellor’s priorities are not the priorities of the British people.
It could have been so different. The Government could have addressed the labour shortage that threatens to derail our recovery before it gets going. They could have radically overhauled business rates, as they promised, instead of the sticking plaster we got. They could have provided the £10,000 that the Liberal Democrats want every adult to have to buy training in the new skills that they desperately need.
The Government could have provided the £150 billion green recovery plan we are calling for to insulate people’s homes and to protect our natural environment. They could have seized the opportunity afforded by COP26 to lead the way on protecting the planet. Instead, the Chancellor has slashed air passenger duty on domestic flights and admitted that overseas aid will not be restored to the legal target of 0.7% until at least 2024. What kind of signal does that send to our international partners ahead of next week’s crucial climate summit in Glasgow? Then again, the word “climate” did not appear anywhere in the Chancellor’s statement.
It is clear that this is the Budget of a former hedge-fund manager, but we cannot run a country like a hedge fund. There is no column in a spreadsheet for people’s dignity and no formula for investing in our children’s future. Today’s Budget promises a future bitter with the consequences of the Chancellor’s inaction—bitter with the betrayal of future generations. It is a Budget that handcuffs us to the consequences of climate change, fails to invest in our children’s education and hammers families with tax hikes instead of helping them with the cost-of-living crisis. What has it all been for? The suspicion remains that the Chancellor is using old data from the Office for Budget Responsibility so that he can save some spending for later in the Parliament. That is the reality: pain for ordinary families now, but a tax cut before the election to help Tory candidates. The Budget should have been about ordinary people’s jobs up and down this country but was instead all about one person’s next job—the Chancellor’s.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on beer and brewing, I welcome the measures that the Chancellor announced to support sectors that have been particularly hard hit throughout the pandemic and by many of the measures that were necessary to fight coronavirus. In the previous financial year, around £17 billion in lost trade was wiped off the value of the pub and beer sector. Trade in the wider hospitality sector was down 64% year on year; beer sales through pubs fell by 70%; and at least 1,000 pubs that closed during the restrictions have still not opened their doors since the end of those restrictions.
Beer and pubs are worth fighting for and are intrinsically linked. Pubs and brewing support around 930,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom, roughly equally split between men and women, and around half the people employed in the sectors are aged under 25. Pubs and brewing support more than 1,000 jobs in my constituency of Dudley South. They contribute around £26 billion to the UK economy and, as the Chancellor will be aware, around £15 billion to the Exchequer in tax revenues.
If pubs are a force for good economically, they are also a force for good socially and culturally. As Professor Robin Dunbar of the University of Oxford wrote in his report “Friends on Tap”, people who have a local that they use regularly are more likely to have more friends and to be more
“satisfied with their lives and feel more embedded in their local communities”.
They are likely to be healthier and happier.
Isolation is one of the big social challenges that face so many of our communities. Pubs really were the original social network. They are at the heart of our communities. So often, when a pub in a town or village closes, it is the last facility to go. As pubs have closed throughout the pandemic, it is not just one service that has gone with them. As we have seen through so much of the work by the wonderful charity Pub is The Hub, there are, in effect, community centres operating out of pubs. There are parent and child groups, jobs clubs and almost every facility and service. The APPG even visited one pub with a barber and hairdresser operating out of the bar. I only hope that the people cutting the hair had less to drink than some of those who might have been on the receiving end of the haircut. Pubs also raise more than £100 million a year for charities and they support grassroots community sport to the value of £40 million annually, working in every one of our constituencies.
Over the past two years, pubs have never been in greater need of support, so pubs, brewers and beer drinkers were looking to the Chancellor today to see whether he would step up to that challenge. I was pleased to hear that he did with a package of measures that went beyond what I think the industry had even dared to hope for. A key measure will be around business rates. The 50% support on business rates will make a massive difference to the viability of many pubs and to the jobs and livelihoods that depend on them.
One of my first questions in this place after I was elected six and a half years ago was to ask the now Health Secretary about business rate reform. As has been alluded to during this debate, it has been promised a few times. For this finally to go ahead, we need to make sure that it recognises the realities of a 21st century economy where the value of property is not necessarily the driving force of economic activity, as it might have been 50 or 60 years ago.
Pubs pay around 2.5% of business rate revenues and that is despite having only about 0.5% of the rateable values. They are paying far more than the proportionate amount and that needs to be addressed during the reforms that were mentioned earlier.
As a sector, beer and pubs were absolutely clear that the one thing they could not afford as they started to rebuild after the pandemic was an increase in alcohol duties.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for his speech. He is making a wonderfully nuanced exposition of the benefits of pubs and local hospitality businesses to an area, both in terms of charities and of contributing socially to a community. The Windsor constituency is dependent on hospitality and the whole constituency breathed a sigh of relief with the measures in the Budget, because it is clear they hit home when it comes to supporting those hospitality businesses and pubs, which are at the heart of our local communities. Like him, I very much commend the Chancellor’s words today and, in particular, those measures that support those smaller businesses.
Mike Wood
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. The wider hospitality sector employs around 3 million people across the country. It is a bigger employer than automotives and aerospace combined. It is one of our biggest economic sectors. An increase in alcohol duties today, even a CPI or RPI increase, would have killed off so many of those small businesses: businesses that have struggled through two years of on-off restrictions, that have just about kept their heads above water, and that have exhausted all of their savings and reserves—their borrowing facilities—but have just about managed to keep going with rebuilding their businesses. It is excellent business and job-saving news that the Chancellor has listened to them and announced that, yet again, there will be no increase in beer duty, which will mean that beer duty has not increased at all since before the 2017 general election.
The broader reforms that the Chancellor has announced for a new, simpler and fairer system of alcohol duties, and that my hon. Friend the Minister has published in the consultation alongside the Budget this afternoon, also make sense. They take away so many of the distortions that the current multiple rates represent: the disincentives to expand; and the incentives to produce stronger alcoholic drinks rather than ones that may be lower in alcoholic volume. These are all counterproductive and go against our policy in other areas.
The changes resolve many of the anomalies in a system that has grown in an ad hoc fashion over many years—for example, on cider duties. Why should far more duty be paid on a flavoured cider just because the fruit is added after the fermentation process, so that it suddenly finds itself being taxed as a wine, instead of a cider? The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) seemed to think that the changes being introduced to duty on sparkling wines were either unnecessary or illogical, but what is logical about a system of wine duties under which more duty is paid on a £6 bottle of prosecco than a £30 bottle of claret? That makes no sense economically or on any level. Resolving those anomalies in the duty system is only possible now that we have the control to restructure duty systems outside of the previous EU excise duties regulations.
Most significant of all was the announcement by the Chancellor of the new reduced rate for draft beer and cider. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), is smiling; she may be aware that I have been arguing this case for some time. I think the issue was in the speech that I made four and a half years ago when I first became chair of the all-party parliamentary group. Of course, at that point we did not have the legal powers to address it.
Before the pandemic, it made sense to support our pubs, bars, restaurants and hospitality venues by charging a lower rate of duty on draught beer—the beers that can only really be served and sold through a hospitality venue—than on the bottles and cans that tend to be sold at very low prices in our supermarkets. Since the pandemic, that has gone from being a sensible measure to a bit of a no-brainer. It will help the parts of the sector that have been hit hardest during the pandemic and need the most support.
Beer and pubs have had a terrible two years. For many, the conditions will remain extremely difficult for some time to come, but the measures that the Chancellor has announced today provide a lifeline and a source of confidence to rebuild, reinvest and support those jobs to play their part in creating the prosperity on which our constituents rely.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I have often found myself wondering what levelling up means and how we know that we have got there. I have discovered the answer in the Budget today. It means that the Tories’ ambition is to get back to Labour’s level of public funding in 2010. Eleven wasted years—the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are trying to create the impression that this Government have only been in power for the last two years, and that they were not part of austerity and the years that followed. We cannot return to a system of austerity that kicks the stuffing out of our public services to the point that they do not have the resilience to respond to something such as the covid pandemic. Covid taught us that we need resilient public services—services that we are not only entitled to, but that we so desperately need to have in place.
The Tory austerity years from 2010 saw the lowest annual increases in NHS spending—lower even than under Margaret Thatcher, so she would be very proud of the Government. There have been cuts to police funding; central Government grants for policing fell by 30% in real terms between 2010 and 2019. There have also been cuts to education funding. According to the IFS, education funding from 2010 to 2019 was the worst since the 1970s. Government funding for local authorities has fallen by an estimated 49% in real terms from 2010 to 2018. Our public services were already stretched before covid came along.
In 2010, funding for Sure Start—we have heard a lot about that today—was £1.8 billion. It was cut by a third by 2018, with over 500 centres closing between 2011 and 2017. We now have today’s announcement of £300 million. That is nowhere near to getting us back to where we were with Sure Start. We have had all the guff about wraparound services, but these could easily have been provided through Sure Start—why was it cut? We heard from the Chancellor about youth spending, with another 300 youth clubs. Youth service spending was £1.4 billion in 2010. By 2019 it had been cut to £429 million, and 700 youth clubs went, as well as 4,500 youth workers.
Then we have the 21,000 police officers that were cut. The Conservatives came here and told us that they were going to cut 21,000 police officers but that it was going to result in more police officers being on the street. They closed nearly 600 police stations. In London, they took £1 billion away from policing; when the Prime Minister was Mayor, we lost our safer neighbourhood teams. My local Tories are now campaigning about closures of police stations—the brass neck! The Tories were warned that cutting 21,000 police officers would lead to rising crime, as it did, and now they are panicking and trying to put 20,000 officers back, as was confirmed in this Budget. Like burglars wanting to be thanked for returning stolen goods, they want to be thanked for reversing the cuts that they made in the first place.
It is the same in the NHS. Capital spending is back to 2010 levels—so we cannot not welcome that. We have 80,000 vacancies in the NHS. The Tories cut nursing bursaries. They were warned that that would lead to a lack of recruitment among nurses. We now have 38,000 nursing vacancies—nearly half the vacancies in the NHS. What was the Government’s response after covid—after everything nurses had done? The Government wanted to give them a 1% pay increase. That is not the way to deal with the recruitment crisis in the NHS. There was precious little about that in the Budget. A Nursing Times survey indicated that 80% of nurses feel that patient safety is compromised due to the severe staff shortage. Health Education England is saying that we need £900,000 per year for training to plug the gaps in nurse numbers in our NHS. In 2015, the Government promised 5,000 doctors, but we are 1,300 down on that figure.
In education, it is a similar situation. According to the IFS annual review of education funding, teachers’ pay has fallen by 9% since 2010. Total spending per pupil in England was just over £6,400 in 2020. Compare that with the high point of £7,200 in 2010, under the last Labour Government. Now we are going back to 2010 levels, the Chancellor claims in the Budget. Overall, the most deprived secondary schools have received a 14% real-terms cut per pupil between 2010 and 2020, compared with just 9% in the least deprived areas. Go tell that to the red wall seats! The IFS says that represents the largest cut in over 40 years. The increase in spending in previous years under the Labour Government was 60%. Cuts to our children’s education just highlight the reality of Tory austerity Britain. Under austerity, our children’s education was expendable. Funding had consistently been cut since 2010. Small wonder that the Tories failed to fund the catch-up that our children need following covid and refuse to feed our children during the school holidays.
Since 2010, as part of austerity, the Tories’ strategy has been intentionally to impose a cut on public sector pay. As a result, average public sector pay is £900 lower today in real terms than it was in 2010. For many, the loss in pay was more than £900 a year. For example, nurses and community nurses at NHS band 5 are more than £3,000 worse off today in real terms than they were in 2010. Residential care workers employed by local government are nearly £1,900 worse off in real terms. Ambulance drivers are £1,600 worse off in real terms. Now we are told that the Government believe that public sector workers deserve a pay rise. Will it be funded? Do they intend to restore public sector pay to 2010 levels in real terms? Will they fund those pay rises no matter what is recommended, or will the Government insist the increases are found from within existing budgets, as they did with nurses’ pay this year?
What does levelling up mean when it comes to poverty? In 2010, 49,000 people received three days’ worth of emergency food from Trussell Trust food banks; in 2019, that number was 1.9 million; and in the last financial year, it was 2.5 million. Is reducing reliance on food banks a measure of levelling-up success? Since 2010, the number of pensioners in poverty has risen from 1.6 million to 2.1 million. The TUC found that the number of children growing up in poverty in working households has risen since 2010 by 800,000 to 2.9 million. Working households comprised 37% of those below the official poverty level in 1994-95. By 2017-18, that had risen to 58%. Most people in poverty live in a family with someone in work—a dramatic change from 20 years ago according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Will we see those people levelled up as a result of this Budget? I think not.
Then there is the cut to universal credit. In my constituency, 8,690 households containing 5,383 children will lose a combined £9 million. That is £9 million they will not have available to survive from day to day. That is £9 million that will not be spent in my local community. They will be facing the costs of inflation, fuel bills and food prices that they cannot avoid. The living wage increase does not touch families living on universal credit. It only affects the 2 million people on the national living wage. As we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), the taper on that was at 75%. When we take into consideration income tax—income tax relief has been frozen, so that is an increase—and the increase in national insurance, with the marginal rate of tax for people on the national living wage, the change will be minimal. They will be lucky if they end up with £7 a week—not the large figures read out by the Chancellor.
Getting funding back to the levels of 11 years ago is not progress. It is an indictment of the Tories’ record and underlines the fact that we have had 11 wasted years of Tory austerity. Sadly, following this Budget, I think that that will continue.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). Although I may disagree with much of what he says, he always speaks with compassion, commitment and belief, and that is important in this place.
Unlike the Opposition, I took pleasure in the optimism and cheerfulness of the Chancellor’s presentation—something has obviously rubbed off from next door in that respect—which was because he was able to announce any number of increases in spending, from the national health service to local infrastructure and from R&D to the numeracy multiplier in education. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) pointed out, the Chancellor was able to do that because of a Treasury re-forecast for the growth rate—a Treasury error.
When people have heard the number of Budgets that I have, they come to realise that finding £20 billion down the back of the sofa is not unusual. In this case it was £44 billion, but the Chancellor’s predecessor but one found £20 billion in his last Budget. That arises because the Treasury, the OBR and the Bank of England are all very bad at forecasting; they generally get it right within about £20 billion but not much closer.
The first thing I will say about the Budget strategy we are talking about today is that we have to make allowance for it being £20 billion out. The key point in that is the growth rate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham pointed out in his brilliant speech, the key to the whole strategy must be growth—private sector growth—without which we cannot pay for anything. That is what I will briefly focus on today; given his speech I can do it more quickly that I might otherwise have.
Before I get to that, the overhang of debt that arises from the covid crisis, which is £400 billion of borrowing or thereabouts, is crucial to the broad economic strategy. We have not seen that scale of debt since after each world war, and the approach should be the same. In essence, we should create war bonds that are paid off over 50 to 75 years. Both sets of war bonds were paid off in the last decade or so, which gives us a measure of how long was taken over it.
In the 1920s, when Winston Churchill was Chancellor, he consolidated the war debt on a 4% basis when our Bank rate was 4.5%. The Bank rate today is barely above 0%—0.1%—so now is the time to do that. If we are worried about the £27 billion cost of each 1% increase in interest rates, we should lock it up as quickly as we can so that we can sterilise it from our future decisions about spending and growth. That is key.
The Chancellor says that he aims to broadly balance the books by 2023. Given the error margin in our forecast, he ought to say 2025 and base balancing the books on growth. To that end, the area where I disagree with the Government’s strategy is on the level of income tax, national insurance contributions and taxation generally which, in my view, is likely to raise significantly less money than the Treasury spreadsheet tells them. The simple truth is that the increase in NICs will undoubtedly depress growth and employment and, as a result, depress the tax take.
Similarly, the freeze in the income tax personal allowance will have a big effect on the poorer families who we care about and who matter to us—that goes to the point about levelling up that the hon. Member for Eltham made. It will have a big effect on consumption and, as a result, a big effect on growth. There is a real issue there. My view, like that of Nigel Lawson, who I think is one of the Chancellor’s heroes, is that cutting tax rates leads to more growth, more investment, more employment and, as a result, more tax take. That is, essentially, the normal Conservative strategy.
The other element of the Budget strategy is based on higher wages—not just raising the living wage, but the whole wage bill—with which we all agree, but that can be done only if we increase productivity. Again, we come back to a tax issue. Notwithstanding the arguments about the bank sector, we are talking about increasing corporation tax. Of course there are a lot of offsets for investment, but I am afraid that when investors are deciding which country to invest in, they take the headline rate of corporation tax into account.
We may be the best in the G7, but when someone is looking at whether to invest in Great Britain or the United Kingdom, they are not looking at the G7 but at Ireland or the Netherlands as comparators. Those places have significantly lower corporation tax rates than we do, which is important because, as well as trade, investment is the key to productivity. As a result, we should look hard at reducing that tax. I hold no brief for the individual capitalists involved; it is simply a question of where the money will go and whether we need it here, and the answer is yes.
It is really very simple. The route to maintaining a growth rate higher than 1.3%, which is in the Red Book, for a few years is lower taxes and more investment and, as a result, more employment. The level of 1.3% applies because of demographic factors, which we cannot change. We cannot change the demographics that we face. We can do very little—we can attract research, investment and talent—but we will not materially change them. Tax cuts, however, will increase investment and productivity rates. That is the key to a successful strategy.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and follow many important contributions from Members across the House. It is disappointing that we heard very little that was new, or that was not pre-announced. It is frustrating that Parliament seems to be a sideshow when it comes to the Government making important decisions.
Moving on to the content of the Budget, a test for the Budget is whether it makes life easier or harder for businesses and families across the UK, and whether it takes the steps necessary to tackle the increase in the cost of living which we all know families in our constituencies face. The Chancellor’s choices today will shape how well children can learn; who goes to bed hungry; and how our businesses, which have been on the frontline, can not just survive but can be equipped and prepared for the future.
It is a shame that the Chancellor seems to have chosen a tax cut for bankers that is bigger than the extra funding that he is providing for children to catch up. Even that as a total is a third of what was recommended by the Government tsar. That was not a random figure of £15 billion picked out from a hat; it was based on research and evidence, and on understanding what children across the country needed to get through and catch up because of what they faced and how they were held back during the pandemic. They must continue to be at the front of our minds in this House.
This winter, the country faces a cost of living crisis of historic proportions. Fuel shortages, rising energy prices, the Government’s supply chain crisis and price inflation have hit families across the UK. A recent survey by 38 Degrees in Feltham and Heston found that 90% of respondents were concerned about their current supply of critical food and goods. Sixty-four per cent. of respondents had observed insufficient stock in their supermarket. The price of fruit and vegetables is up, and half of respondents had seen a rise in their energy bills. In the past few weeks, the Office for National Statistics has reported that 8 million Britons have been unable to buy essential food items, while grocery prices are reported to be 1.7% higher than last year.
These changes cannot be denied, and they have been compounded by the Government’s cruel decision—and it was cruel—to cut universal credit for six million families this winter, taking £20 a week from the pockets of families at time when prices are rising. In Feltham and Heston, 18,000 households are worse off as a result of the cut. £18 million has been cut from our local economy. Where was the £20 for universal credit going? It was not going into offshore tax havens; it was being spent by families, on families, in our businesses, in our communities and on our high streets. Returning what appears to be £2 billion through changes to the tapering of universal credit is welcome, and is an important step, but it does not go far enough. It will support some people, but not all, and there will still be millions of families who, just by trying to get through, will end up going into debt, with all the consequent problems that that brings. The Chancellor knows that, food banks know it, and the citizens advice bureau knows it. Everyone who looks at families’ income and the impact of the universal credit cut knows it.
I am glad that the Government have at least taken the advice of the Low Pay Commission to increase the minimum wage. I welcome this, but it needs to go further, and to a minimum of £10; good employers such as Morrisons have already increased wages to a minimum of £10 for all their employees. Many families are still going to struggle, however, even before taking into account the likely rise in gas and electricity prices next year, but there are no measures today to assist householders with rising domestic gas and electricity bills.
Meanwhile, many businesses are approaching what should be their most profitable period of the year yet are in great danger of insolvency, faced with huge debts from the pandemic, soaring energy bills, rising prices, empty shelves and growing shortages. Analysis based on the Office for National Statistics business survey suggests that over 300,000 new businesses, employing some 800,000 people, are at risk of closure in the next few months, yet the Government’s response has been to hit businesses with a new jobs tax as well as weakening their industrial strategy, and to take little more than piecemeal steps to resolve a supply chain crisis made worse by inaction and the lack of forward planning.
This crisis has hit British businesses and families harder than those in other countries. Almost 50 high street shops per day closed in the first six months of this year. Without further targeted action the face of our high streets and communities will be changed beyond recognition. Although today’s changes to business rates are welcome and a step in the right direction, as the Chancellor knows these reforms are in part a response to the stand Labour has taken.
The current business rate system in England is not fit for purpose. It punishes investment and entrepreneurship and hits the high street. Some of the incremental changes announced today, adopting calls for change from the British Retail Consortium, the CBI and others, are the steps that we need to incentivise rather than disincentivise investment, but there is no proper plan for sustained reform and rebuilding our high streets and economy. UK Hospitality has previously said that the biggest cost danger in sight for the sector was the reintroduction of business rates from 2022.
Today’s moves are welcome but also highlight why Labour called on the Government to freeze the business rates multiplier and extend the threshold for small business rates relief. This can be paid for by increasing the sales tax, levelling the playing field between online and bricks and mortar businesses, but this is an area where the Government have inexplicably been dragging their feet. Why, on page 144 of the Red Book, do they say they will
“continue to explore the arguments for and against a UK-wide OST”
and “publish a consultation shortly”? This has been going on for a long time; this is not a new issue. The inequity between online and bricks and mortar businesses is impacting on the prosperity of those on the frontline in our communities, who have served our communities and who have served our country through the pandemic. They are being penalised for being in our communities rather than moving their services online. Reducing the cost burdens so many of our businesses face is essential if they are to survive and grow that necessary employment for the future.
If this Government were genuinely supporting entrepreneurship, I would have liked to see more about that in the Budget, and it would be helpful for the Government to be clear about whether they are still targeting the new enterprise allowance for cuts. Latest statistics show that since its launch in 2011, 268,000 start-ups have been initiated by 249,000 individuals. Those businesses reportedly range from plastering, gardening and removal services to website design, film making and architecture enterprises; they are businesses that are at the heart of our communities and that go on to employ others. This scheme has been supported by the Prince’s Trust and others that do amazing and important work in supporting enterprise and entrepreneurial skills for young people. This is the kind of culture and opportunity we should be looking to enhance; it should be integral, not an add-on. In the work we have been doing in Hounslow, I have consistently been surprised—positively and pleasantly surprised—by how many young people want the skills and opportunities to start their own businesses, and how many people who may lose their jobs want support to do something different and to achieve a dream or grow a passion. Yet we seem to make it harder, not easier.
I grew up in a small business in our community in Hounslow. I have been self-employed. I have an MBA. I have worked in the private sector and the public sector. I know what innovation and entrepreneurship is. I know what it takes; I know the sacrifices that those who are self-employed—those who start up and bear the risk —make. I know what they do.
In the last year, I have co-chaired the development of the west London innovation district, looking to use innovation and create opportunities for research and investment to enable our local aviation hub to become a worldwide Silicon Valley for aviation, working with all parts of our national and international aviation supply chains to take advantage of opportunities in technology and to drive jet zero outcomes. We are working with West London Business and our research institutions— Brunel University, Imperial College and others—because we recognise that a place-based response to innovation is what drives sustainable growth. Part of that is bringing entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs into the overall growth programme and having an integrated strategy that helps to deliver that.
I want the UK to be the best place to start and grow a business. We should be improving and upgrading measures such as the new enterprise allowance, as opposed to pulling the rug out from under the feet of new community-based entrepreneurs—not just those in the City but those in the heart of our communities, who deserve opportunities at grassroots level.
With a week to go until COP26, the Government have also failed to match their climate change rhetoric with action, as shown by the Climate Change Committee predictions that the Government are on course to miss future carbon budgets. A recent British Chambers of Commerce survey found that just 11% of small and medium-sized enterprises are aware of how to measure their carbon footprint.
How much of the increased R&D investment, which is so critical to supporting innovative businesses at the cutting edge of the new economy, is going to support small businesses on their transition to net zero, and how is that going to be enabled? How are these announcements going to be delivered and translated to outcomes on the ground that make a difference in the recovery of local communities such as Hounslow—being an aviation community, we were hit very hard by the covid slowdown—with tremendous green growth ambitions?
I cannot see in this Budget the step change in vocational and technical skills that we need, or the less bureaucratic apprenticeship system. I am sure that hon. Members across the House will have seen this in their constituencies, but in north-west London, for example, millions in apprenticeship levy money has gone unspent. It is a scandal that that has been carrying on for years. The Government have been told about it, but we need structural reform to the apprenticeship levy to make it easier to create opportunities for skills to be grown for the future. We need businesses to be able to find the skilled workers that they need, and we need our local communities to have access to those opportunities so that they are equipped for the jobs of the future.
I, too, want an optimistic Budget—we all want an optimistic view for our country—but why did today’s Budget not make a clear, unequivocal commitment, with clear messages about our direction, such as Labour’s call to invest £28 billion every year until 2030 to tackle the climate crisis so that we can protect the planet and secure jobs in the UK? Businesses want to be certain about our vision and direction. They want a clear view of where they should invest. They want to know that if they make an investment today, they will get a return on it in five years’ time, and that there will not be another sudden change of strategy. The Chancellor has been talking to businesses; he will have heard the same message that I have.
Let me mention a few other areas of concern before I close. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on mortgage prisoners, I find it disappointing that there is nothing in the Budget to help the 250,000 mortgage prisoners trapped paying high interest rates. The Government sold many of them off to mortgage loan sharks, which are charging them hundreds of thousands of pounds extra a year. That is more than seven months after the Chancellor promised Martin Lewis that the Government were looking for workable solutions. Markets are now expecting rises in interest rates, which will have a devastating impact on the finances of mortgage prisoners. The Government need to make sure that all mortgage prisoners can access reasonable fixed rates, so they get a fair deal and are protected against interest rates rises.
On building safety and cladding, I want to make just a brief mention of the challenges leaseholders are facing in blocks below 18 metres. I am not the only MP who is hearing about this from their constituents and the anxiety it is causing families week after week, day after day, with the uncertainty of how the safety measures and remediations will be funded. There needed to be more on that in the Budget and the Government need to tackle the issue urgently.
On children and youth facilities, I must say that I take issue with the portrait of Sure Start centres painted by right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). Her experience was not the same as mine. Our Sure Start centres did exactly what she described: they were family hubs, they gave advice and they supported early education. They supported language and literacy for those who were one or two years old. They supported new parents and they brought families together. I pay tribute to Noveen Phillips and others who ran the Bedfont Sure Start centre, which was forced to close as funding ran out. Those cuts affected over 500 Sure Start centres across the country, with children paying the price. On youth services—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We were suggesting eight minutes; the hon. Lady has now taken 16 minutes.
Seema Malhotra
On youth services, No Shame in Running, Project TurnOver and other Hounslow youth services have seen cuts. They are doing an excellent job of trying to support young people.
In conclusion, the Budget should have had a longer-term and better plan for the short-term cost pressures facing businesses and families. We need a more resilient economy and public services. I will be honest: I expected more today. We needed more today. I hope that, in the interests of our country, the Chancellor will take heed of the comments from Members across the House this week.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), although I have to say that I did not expect more from the Budget—I came here today fearing the worst. I expected to see some pretty dire public finances, and to be fair we have seen some pretty dire numbers. The deficits for the last financial year and the current year total £500 billion, and we will still be running a deficit this year of about £130 billion.
However, we have managed to forecast to balance the books in the financial year after next. I could not possibly have expected that we could go from the economic storm that we suffered back to a balanced situation less than a couple of years after the end of the pandemic. That is a tremendous achievement and it shows how successful the Government’s measures to save the economy have been over the past 18 months that we can even forecast that position. Even if that forecast is a bit optimistic, I was expecting years and years of deficit, and was wondering how we were going to fill it with spending cuts and tax rises. It looks, thankfully, like we will not need them.
We are forecasting the end of the deficit the year after next despite the Budget increasing the deficit by £25 billion. The measures we see are tax rises of about £12.5 billion and spending increases forecast to be about £38 billion. The spending envelope is actually being relaxed while we are balancing the books—quite a tremendous achievement. It probably shows, however, how key some of the sensitivities are in the forecast that we need to deliver the economic growth to drive tax receipts, otherwise those numbers just will not work.
We need to focus on what more we can do to increase the long-term trend in the rate of growth. What we are seeing by the end of the forecast period, well under 2%, will not be sufficient to deliver the public finances that we all want to see. That is why we need to make sure that the very welcome measures to increase investment, improve skills and boost productivity are driven through and made to work.
There was much good news in the Budget. Most of it was trailed well in advance. More money for the NHS will be hugely welcomed across Amber Valley. The rise in the living wage will be welcomed by people earning low wages. The end of the public sector pay freeze is the right thing to do. We had a year of it. I understand why we needed it in the middle of the crisis, but we cannot leave people worse off in real terms given the rise in bills.
I especially welcome the reduction in the universal credit taper. If I could just gently tick the Government off, that is not a tax rise. It is not a marginal tax rate. If we really wanted to say what the marginal tax rate was and we included that, we would have to add the 55% new taper rate, the 13% national insurance rate and the 20% income tax rate for those earning over £12,000, leaving an 88% marginal tax rate. I suspect that is not what the Government are trying to tell us, and nobody really believes that people can move into work from benefits and not have any reduction in their benefits. It is quite right that there is a reduction, so I am not sure that it was helpful to present this as a tax cut. It is a welcome reduction in the taper rate, which will ensure that work pays, but we should be careful in the presentation of that.
I have been one of those arguing to keep the £20-a-week uplift. We would have had a much better system if the benefit had started in the right place and then tapered off at the right rate. It is clearly welcome that the Chancellor has found £2 billion a year to improve the taper rate and make sure that we can be certain for everyone that work will always pay and that they will be materially better off if they take work, get more hours and get higher pay. That is hugely welcome.
I also welcome the fact that the Government, in our post-Brexit world, are starting to tweak the tax system so that we can use our post-Brexit freedoms. The reduction in the draft beer duty rate is sensible. On the domestic air passenger duty rate, it is absolutely right that people should be able to fly within their own country at a lower tax rate than when they fly overseas. That is what used to be the case until 20 years ago, when we were forced to change.
I even welcome small measures such as the plan to take away the right to offset losses incurred across Europe from UK corporation tax. That is a sensible measure. There is no reason why a loss that someone incurs overseas should reduce their UK tax bill. There are other measures that we had to introduce to be compliant with EU rules, which we could now reform. We had to take away a collection of tax avoidance measures because they did not comply with EU rules; we can now reinstate them and protect our tax. I urge the Government to continue that trend.
I welcome the changes to the research and development rules, the increased investment and the tweaks to the R&D tax incentives. It is right that when we give people a tax incentive, that work is done in the UK. Actually, it is more important that the fruits of that research are owned in the UK, that the intellectual property produced is owned and exploited here, and that the research generates jobs and tax revenues here. I urge the Government to introduce the detail behind those changes and to add a rule that says, “If you are going to claim that tax credit, the IP produced needs to be owned in the UK for you to get it.” That will be more important in the long run than where the research was carried out. If the Minister wants some clues on how to draft such a measure, he should know that I moved an amendment to that effect about 10 years ago during consideration of the Finance Bill. He can check the history.
Kevin Hollinrake
On the universal credit taper rate change, my hon. Friend says it is not a tax cut. It will cost the Exchequer £2 billion to do it, so it is a tax cut in that way. On national insurance and personal tax thresholds, for people who are below those figures, the extra taxation he mentioned—the 20% and the 13%—will not apply.
Nigel Mills
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree with his point, but actually we cannot say that every spending increase is a tax cut. That makes no sense. This is an increase in welfare spend; universal credit is not a tax. By improving the taper rate, we are not changing tax. That is not the case. It is not a factual statement, nor is it helpful for people who need to understand their own financial position to believe that description. I am sure my hon. Friend knows that many people who are entitled to universal credit earn more than £12,000 and therefore pay income tax and national insurance. That is not an unusual situation to be in.
I shall conclude so that I comply with the Chair’s strictures on time. This is a hugely powerful Budget that sets the country in the right direction. It shows a welcome improvement in the public finances and delivers on many of the priorities of my constituents. I wholeheartedly welcome it.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Owing to the extensive trailing that went on in the press beforehand, this Budget contained far fewer surprises than it properly ought to have had. At the outset, I want to take a moment to salute the bravery of the Treasury spin doctor who allowed the Chancellor to be pictured wearing a pair of flip flops in the Evening Standard the day before delivering a Budget. If we had had rather more flip flops in the Budget than we had in the Evening Standard, we might be having a different discussion and one in which I could be more favourable towards it.
The Chancellor posed the question whether we want to be a country where in every crisis people ask, “What are the Government going to do about it?” To put it bluntly, that is the wrong question entirely. The question that we should be asking, particularly of this Chancellor and this Prime Minister, is “How can we stop them making it worse?” Across a range of issues, of which I will concentrate on three—the cost of living, supply and the environment—the Budget is doing nowhere near as much as it should to tackle the crises that we face.
It is a Budget that appears to be marked by short-termism, with a conceit that it is boosting working family incomes, while still imposing levies. I am careful about treading into the friendly fire that has been exchanged, but there is certainly no arguing with the fact that, even with the reduction in the taper rate, anyone who earns an additional £1 will still lose more than if they were paying the higher rate of income tax on it. That is a marginal rate, if you like, but there is also a very high marginal rate of tax on some of the youngest and lowest earners in society, which this Budget does nothing to tackle in the face of the worst cost-of-living crisis in memory.
I know that we have all been busy gathering external reaction from our various electronic devices as best we can, but I draw hon. Members’ attention to an IFS finding:
“Over the next 5 years real household disposable income is expected to grow by 0.8% per year, well below the historical average.”
The director of the IFS, Paul Johnson, has said:
“This is actually awful. Yet more years of real incomes barely growing. High inflation, rising taxes, poor growth keeping living standards virtually stagnant for another half a decade”.
The Chancellor spoke about the importance of the first 1,000 days of a child’s life. I heartily concur, which makes it all the more extraordinary that in each year of a child’s first 1,000 days on this earth, the Government will potentially be taking £1,000 away from its family by withdrawing the universal credit uplift. In Scotland, that will mean 20,000 children drawn into poverty and thousands more drawn into hardship, undermining the impact of the Scottish Government’s Scottish child payment to families. Those who are earning at the taper will still lose out to a far greater extent for every additional £1 than any objective analysis would suggest they should.
The costs of energy are soaring, the triple lock on pensions has been removed and—lest we forget—we have seen a 1% hike in national insurance, which breaks a Conservative party manifesto commitment and will bake in geographical and generational inequalities for many years to come, but it has all been made many, many times worse by the rising inflationary pressures as Brexit shortages begin to bite. We are seeing what I believe is the most concerted attack on living standards and hard-working, hard-pressed families.
The rising growth that the Chancellor has been relying on reflects a hoped-for return to trend, rather than anything beneficial that has been happening in the Budget, but it is a return to a trend that was very sluggish before covid and is even more so as Brexit continues to bite. On covid, we clearly could not do a great deal to prevent the impact as it hit us, but Brexit is an entirely self-inflicted wound. That has not acted as an existential shock to the economy, stimulating new ways of doing things and jolting the Government into action to counteract the immediate damage. The Chancellor or the Government could have announced measures, and not necessarily even fiscal or economic measures; simply allowing more immigration to fill the shortages that we are seeing in certain sectors would have been hugely beneficial in counteracting the adverse impacts that we are seeing in our supply crisis.
The Chancellor has announced measures to increase R&D funding, which may or may not compensate—we will find out when we delve into the figures—for loss of access to European funding streams for research and innovation, but investment in research and development is a marathon rather than a sprint. The UK’s R&D spending of 1.7% of GDP is still languishing well below the OECD average of 2.5%, while Germany is way out in front with 3.2%. It remains to be seen whether or not the modest changes that the Chancellor has announced—even if they were not announced with a huge amount of modesty—will close that gap.
As I have said, we are seeing significant labour shortages, especially in the haulage and agriculture sectors. Of particular concern to me, as a Member representing a rural constituency, is the fact that an animal and potentially human welfare crisis is looming in the pig industry because there are not enough butchers and abattoir workers to deal with the capacity issues. While this Government may not class those jobs as being particularly highly skilled, they are certainly in high demand at present, and it is in no one’s interest for the demand to be as high as it is now. We are also seeing significant shortages in shops, and I do not think that anyone could reasonably be convinced by the Chancellor’s plea in mitigation that they are a result of “global inflation”. We have already seen a CO2 crisis; it seems that we have far too much CO2 where we do not want it and not enough where we do want it. As supply chains continue to be stretched to breaking point, this is a crisis that can only worsen and lead us into a winter of discontent.
The most pressing crisis of all is the environmental crisis. The Scottish Government are set to invest more than half a billion pounds in a “just transition fund” to benefit the north-east of Scotland, and have challenged the UK Government to match that, but I am sorry to say that nothing I have seen in the Budget so far suggests that the UK Government are doing so. In fact, what they have done this week is scupper the Acorn project in Peterhead for carbon capture and underground storage, which was the only scheme in the mix that was scalable and deliverable, using an existing infrastructure, and which could have benefited clusters in south Wales and around the Solent because of its ability to accept imports of carbon dioxide. The contrast is striking, and my constituents will see it very clearly: the UK Government roll out the pork barrel for the north-east of England, while sticking two fingers up to the north-east of Scotland.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
What has happened with the Acorn project is doubly galling, given that Scotland’s carbon assets have already been taken and now this carbon-capture asset is not being placed in Scotland, after all that has been taken from it over the decades.
Richard Thomson
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There has been £350 billion from the North sea since oil began to be extracted, and when it comes to dealing with the environmental consequences of fossil fuel use, we are potentially not even going to be in the pole position that we ought to be in, and will not be able to take full advantage of our geological, geographical, sectoral and intellectual advantages in that field.
This afternoon we have heard a blizzard of spending commitments, un-baselined, some of them doubtless reheating previous announcements. Together with the new fiscal rules, it put me in mind of another Chancellor who for a long time coveted the role of the gentleman next door, and of his desire to mark his own homework. We are told that today’s announcements will be Barnettised, but experience leads me to say that I need to wait, and that the Scottish Government and people in Scotland would be also be wise to wait and see what actually does come through to the Scottish Government.
This Government have demonstrated eloquently, today and in the days leading up to it, that they have no interest in working with the Scottish Government, or working with the grain of Scottish opinion to respect the democratic choices of the Scottish people. Scotland can do better than this, and shall do better, with independence.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
What I have heard from several Members, particularly Opposition Members, suggests that they do not really know what levelling up is. I think it is actually very straightforward. It is about spreading opportunity more fairly and evenly across the country, so that all children, whichever part of the country they live in—in fact, not just all children, but all adults—have the same opportunity to reach their full potential. I do not think that that is very complicated to explain, but it is of course more challenging to deliver.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Surely levelling up should be something very simple, and simply understood. It is a product of UK misgovernance over the years—of governance that has meant only policies for the south-east of England, specifically ignoring much of the rest of the UK. That is why, on our side, we want to do things ourselves in the future.
Mr Harper
I took an intervention from the hon. Gentleman because I anticipated what he might say. I listened carefully to the Chancellor, and he set out a Budget that delivers not just for every part of England but for every part of our United Kingdom. We on this side of the House—and I think, to be fair, those on the Labour Benches—want to ensure that we keep our country together. We are spreading opportunity to every part of the United Kingdom. I listened carefully to the Chancellor, and this Budget delivers a significant increase in resources to the Scottish Government. I hope that they spend those resources wisely, although given their track record, I am pretty confident that they will not.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Harper
Let me make a little more progress, then I will of course give way to my right hon. Friend.
I thank the Chancellor for agreeing to the levelling-up bid made by my constituents. It was a partnership bid by Hartpury University and Hartpury College, Forest of Dean District Council and Cinderford Town Council, and it focuses very much on improving opportunities for my constituents. They worked collaboratively with me and my office, which put me in a strong position to make the case to Ministers, including the Chancellor, and it got us a really good result today. This was a real Forest team effort. Does my right hon. Friend still wish to intervene on me?
Mr Harper
I see that he is allowing me to make some progress.
We have a strong track record in my constituency. We got money from the Getting Building Fund last spring for the Construction Skills Accelerator Centre, which will improve skills and productivity in the construction industry. That centre will be completed and opened this December, which demonstrates turning around Government support and money in partnership with the private sector and delivering real change on the ground very quickly indeed.
I also welcome what the Chancellor set out on alcohol duty. That will be particularly welcomed by small producers in my constituency, especially our fantastic cider makers, including Severn Cider. Also, picking up on the theme of leisure, retail and hospitality, the 50% reduction in business rates will be a tremendous benefit to that sector, which was hard hit throughout the pandemic. That extra resource will be very welcome. Also, £175,000 from the community ownership fund has enabled the Rising Sun pub in Woodcroft to be saved and to become a really strong community asset.
Turning to the Budget themes overall, I think the Chancellor’s focus on fiscal responsibility and sound money is incredibly important. This is not about ideology; it is the key to our future prosperity. It is because we took sensible, difficult decisions between 2010 and 2019 that, when the pandemic hit last year, we were able to spend what was required to protect jobs and to defend people across our country. If we had not taken those difficult decisions, we would not have been in a position to respond accordingly. It is important to focus on sound money because inflation is a real threat, and it is a threat to the poorest. That is why it is important for the Chancellor to keep control of the public finances—I am pleased that he has done so today—and of the level of investment to drive up productivity. I agree with all those speakers on our side of the House who have pointed out that we have to deliver productivity in order to ensure that we can have high wages without driving up inflation. That is absolutely critical.
Finally, I want to focus on a few themes from the Budget. The spending that we rolled out last year on the pandemic, particularly on protecting jobs, keeping unemployment low and reducing the long-term impact of covid, will turn out to be one of the wisest decisions that we took. It has been welcomed by my constituents, and I think that our decision to minimise the economic impact of the pandemic will be something that we will look back on and be thankful for. That decision does of course mean that we have grown the size of the economy. We have had to put up taxes, which I am not comfortable with and nor is the Chancellor, but it was necessary and we would have regretted doing anything differently.
I welcome the Chancellor’s significant reduction in the taper rate for universal credit. This will ensure that work pays. It will encourage everybody on universal credit to get into work—we are seeing a record number of vacancies in the economy—or, if they are in work, it will make it absolutely worth their while to take on extra hours or increase their skills to earn extra income. That is the right set of incentives.
In closing, to stick to the Chair’s informal time limit, I will focus on the Chancellor’s final remarks on the size of the state and the direction of travel. I am pleased he has set out an ambition for this Government to reduce the size of the state, enabling people to take more responsibility for themselves. It was necessary to grow the state to deal with the pandemic, but he has set out a clear direction of travel on empowering individuals. I am pleased to back that mission, and I am pleased to support the Budget.
I commend the Budget to all Conservative Members.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me on this first day of the Budget debate. I draw the House’s attention to my interests, which are declared in the register.
I do not think any Finance Minister or Chancellor has faced a more difficult year than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has faced, and he has commanded the House and carried out his duties with exceptional skill and devotion. This extremely good Budget comes at the end of that very difficult year, so I start where my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) left off.
As the Chancellor knows, I have been extremely concerned about the cut to universal credit. I am also conscious that it was a temporary measure designed by the Government to put their arms around people who were very vulnerable as the pandemic got going, but nevertheless any such cut in benefits is a controversial matter. He has been extraordinarily skilled in reducing the taper rate of universal credit, which is an extremely good approach, on which I congratulate him.
I have three brief points. The first point is local and regional, and it concerns the west midlands and, in particular, my constituency of Sutton Coldfield. We are pleased to have £1 billion of transport funding for the west midlands, and that funding has also gone to the Mayor of Greater Manchester. It is backing for the regional mayoral structure, and it is very welcome. Money from the fund will enable Sutton Coldfield to start major work on town centre renewal. The town centre renewal plan is all set, and taxpayers’ money is needed to address some of the transport issues, so I am pleased with this week’s announcement.
Secondly, in the west midlands we also want money from the skills budget, and the Prime Minister singled out Andy Street, our Mayor, for his work on boot camps for digital retraining. That model was pioneered in the west midlands and is now being taken out nationally. This is incredibly important if we are to capture the vital growth that a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends mentioned. The skills agenda is vital. There is money for skills, and we want it in the west midlands.
Thirdly, we want money to ensure that homes for the future are built on brownfield sites and not on the green belt. We are looking for a £200 million accelerator in the west midlands so that we can get houses built and protect the green belt. In my constituency I have one of the biggest house building programmes in the country at Langley, on Sutton Coldfield’s green belt. The scheme was much loved by the Labour Birmingham City Council, and it was quite wrongly waved through by a Conservative Secretary of State. That is done now, and we will get the best we can for the town from that development. We want to see homes built, but we want to see them built in the right places, which is why the brownfield money is so important.
In the royal town of Sutton Coldfield we have four particular priorities: the town centre, the cottage hospital, our royal park and the town hall. They all require, for the development and the aspirations that we have for them, a little bit of taxpayers’ money, and we are glad that on at least one, if not the other three, we have managed to convince the Government and the regional Mayor of the importance of that support. That is my first point.
Secondly, moving from the parochial to the national and, indeed, the international, as we look toward the COP that is coming up shortly it is clear that the Government are doing extremely well on the UK’s climate strategy. The report published last week sets out the importance of our reaching net zero emissions by 2050; how the UK will be powered entirely by clean energy by 2035; the subsidies for replacing domestic boilers; the incentives to switch to electric vehicles, which is incredibly important in the west midlands in respect of Jaguar Land Rover, which will make only electric cars from 2025; the quadrupling of offshore wind; and the significant advances in carbon capture and storage. Of course, the agenda will also unlock 500,000 new jobs, as well as huge private sector investment. Those are important matters on which Britain is leading and clearly setting the right example, which is very good. By contrast, I am keeping my fingers crossed that the Prime Minister’s unique boosterism will pull a rabbit out of a hat for the COP, because as he himself has said the approach to the COP is challenging.
We learned today from the Public Accounts Committee about the waste of £37 billion on NHS Test and Trace; I merely point out to those on the Treasury Bench that the £4 billion that has been cut so damagingly from the international development budget amounts to just 10% of that amount. Of course, it would be churlish of me not to recognise that today the Chancellor asserted his conviction that we must return to the 0.7% target and that we will be able to do so by 2024-25. I am fighting the inner cynic in me when I note that that commitment has been given for a period just after the likely date of the next election. Nevertheless, if the 0.7% is restored by that date, I promise the Chancellor of the Exchequer—if he is still Chancellor and not Prime Minister by then—that if, when he progresses north to his constituency at the end of that week, he can take the time to come to the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, I will buy him the best dinner that the town can provide. It would be an extremely good dinner. I very much regret that that cut was made but I am pleased to hear that the Chancellor puts a priority on this. We in the House must never forget that the development budget not only makes some of the poorest people in the world safer and more prosperous but makes us in Britain, in our constituencies and economic centres, safer and more prosperous.
Will those on the Treasury Bench clarify whether the funding for the special drawing rights that the IMF has issued and for the other measures, particularly the vaccines, will come out of the 0.5% of GNI, as it now is, or be in addition to that? Perhaps a Minister could make clear the position on that at some point.
Thirdly, on value for money, I am conscious that the taxpayer is going to provide an immense amount of money for the NHS catch-up and for social care. When the Government announced what is a very welcome measure indeed in the House, I asked what plans the Treasury had to monitor what taxpayers will get for the additional money; the response from those on the Treasury Bench was not as good as it could have been. I want to see Treasury officials all over this money. It will be hard-earned money provided by taxpayers and we need to demonstrate to them one of the mantras of the Department for International Development, before it was vapourised: that for every hard-earned pound taken off the taxpayer, 100p of value must be delivered on the ground. I hope that the Treasury will make certain that the Departments that spend the extra £12 billion a year raised through national insurance justify every penny of it, so that we can assure our constituents that it really is successful, incremental spending that works to their advantage.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I do not know whether his offer to the Chancellor has advanced or impeded his prospects in the future, but I am sure that he will look forward to the dinner none the less.
No one can be in any doubt about the central importance of science, innovation and technology to the future wellbeing and prosperity not just of this country, but of every country around the world. Yesterday, my Committee —the Science and Technology Committee—was privileged to hear from Professor Sir Andrew Pollard who, with Dame Sarah Gilbert, was one of the scientists who developed the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine against covid. Their work is saving millions of lives in this country and around the world, and allowing life here and around the world to resume. The vaccine would not have been possible had it not been built on sustained research conducted by world-class scientists in Britain over many years. It is not just in vaccine development, but in almost every field of human endeavour that research and science are transforming the world, from battery technology and energy storage, as we move to net zero, to the role that satellites play in monitoring agricultural matters from space to get the best crop yields around the world.
At this most exciting and transformational time for science and technology since the first industrial revolution forged in Britain, it is obvious that our future must be even more science and innovation focused than ever.
In the industrial strategy that we launched in 2017, the then Prime Minister and I committed the UK to invest 2.4% of our GDP in research and development within a decade—the OECD average—and then to move on to 3% thereafter. We increased the public science budget from £9 billion to £12 billion a year by 2020—then the biggest ever increase. I mention this to underline the remarkable fact that this Budget will increase the national investment from public funds in research and development not from £9 billion to £12 billion, but to £20 billion a year by 2024-25.
However, the Government had previously committed in the manifesto to invest £22 billion by that year, so, clearly, it is a source of regret that the Chancellor has not been able to keep that commitment. Having said that, had the original commitment been to £20 billion by 2024-25, it would still have been regarded as a remarkable transformation in our science funding and warmly welcomed. None the less, there is a cost to commitments that are not met in terms of the confidence of investors, who are investing alongside the Government.
Having said that, the Committee and the science community were very concerned that there might be a stop-start approach to meeting this commitment because of the current fiscal difficulties, with future increases deferred until later in the Parliament and therefore more uncertain. Witnesses to my Committee talked about the importance of a sustained increase in funding rather than famine first and feast later. I welcome very strongly the fact that the increases are not just in the later years, but that there is steady progress throughout the spending review period that will give great confidence to the science community. In fact, the later increases to get to £22 billion are somewhat less than the early increases that are being made, so I hope that it might prove possible in future Budgets to find the £2 billion required to get to the target earlier than 2026-27.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Last week, in my constituency, I met representatives from the Glasgow School of Art, who raised concerns that the creative industries were part of the original industrial strategy, but that that now seems to have been lost given where the Government are going now. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that much economic activity can come from the creative industry—innovation as well as other things—and that perhaps it ought to form a larger part of the strategy?
Greg Clark
The creative industries play a crucial role right across the country. The creative industries cluster in Glasgow has given a great deal of boost to that city and that has been matched by a lot of private sector investment. I pay tribute to Sir Peter Bazalgette who led the creative industries review that resulted in that. The money is there now as a result of this settlement and I very much hope that the faith placed in successful programmes such as that will be maintained.
Let me say a brief word about the fact that the Budget and the spending review provide the necessary funding for our association with Horizon Europe, the European funding system. There are many advantages to that association, as science is inherently international, but we are facing difficulties with the Commission ratifying our application for association. I do worry that the delays are already leading to British research institutions not being included in bids that are being put together for some of the funding that will be available over the next seven years. As every month goes by, the attractiveness of association diminishes.
The Chancellor has confirmed to me personally that the Horizon subscription that is listed in the Red Book is guaranteed, available and set aside. It is £1.3 billion this year and rises to £2.3 billion in 2023-24, and more thereafter. We no longer get more out of Horizon than we put in, which was the case when we were a member of the European Union. We also have to pay an administration fee, which I understand to be about £200 million a year, which is about twice the administration cost of running our own domestic innovation programme. Given that and the delay, it seems to me that the science community will want to assure itself that it would not prefer the budget that the Chancellor has guaranteed to be in the hands of UK universities and research establishments so that they can deploy themselves in international collaborations.
Science is inherently international, so I share the welcome of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield for the prospects of resuming the 0.7% target on official development assistance. I particularly welcome the increase in the Red Book for ODA funding of science, even within the spending review period. In fact, that will nearly double. The cuts to science programmes that were funded by ODA were a big blow to science, so it is good to see that funding increase.
A major theme of this Budget is levelling up. British universities and research institutions all across Britain are often the most important institution in their area for driving prosperity. I therefore hope that, with a substantially rising tide of funding, it will be possible to keep faith with the programmes of excellence that we have, while strengthening the contribution made by the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. As Professor Richard Jones of the University of Manchester said in evidence to my Committee, that is literally levelling up—advancing the prospects of the nations and regions without diminishing the investments that we already make.
The science and research community and my Committee will look in detail at what has been proposed, but we recognise this substantial commitment to science—the biggest ever increase in the science budget. Even if we regret that the £22 billion that was scheduled may be two years late in being delivered, we are relieved that there will be sustained and steady progress towards it. If the economy recovers even more strongly in future years, we hope that we will be able to get there as planned, as originally set out.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I am delighted to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who speaks so powerfully about science and research.
I welcome the Chancellor’s Budget and the actions that he is taking so that we can build back better from the effects of the covid-19 pandemic. It was a constructive, thoughtful, innovative and conservative Budget that was presented with style and dynamism by my right hon. Friend. We are recovering faster than our major competitors, more people are in work and growth is going up. That is brilliant news and a testament to his hard work and his and his team’s successful policies. I congratulate him on and thank him for all his work over the past 18 months. His actions have protected jobs and livelihoods with £407 billion, supporting more than 14.5 million jobs and providing more than £100 billion-worth of business grants and loans, throughout the pandemic.
I know from conversations and correspondence I have had with businesses in my constituency and across my borough of Bexley that the Government support has been much appreciated, particularly the ability to furlough staff and the coronavirus grant funding. These measures have been vital to help businesses survive during a really difficult time, particularly when many of them have not been operational due to necessary restrictions. I also meet and talk to people from small and medium-sized businesses around the country. They, too, are very pleased to have a Chancellor who listens to them, hears what their problems and challenges are, takes note of them and tries to implement policies to assist them. We must never forget that these small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy and our country.
I should like to direct my main comments to businesses and skills. Business is the key to the economic success of our country. Our ability to invest in our vital public services relies on successful businesses paying the taxes that can then be used for those public services. Our priority now therefore has to be to help people into work and to help them develop the skills they need to progress their careers, as well as to increase and spread opportunity across the whole of the UK by supporting businesses, investing in infrastructure, and encouraging growth.
The Government had already taken positive steps towards that aim, and our plan for jobs is supporting people to gain the skills our economy needs. The £2 billion kickstart scheme has already seen 85,000 young people into employment, and the £2.9 billion restart scheme has helped over 1 million long-term unemployed people to find work.
Regrettably, our country does have a skills shortage. New employees often do not have the skills that employees want, and we need retraining and reskilling of the existing workforce. In an age of great change, and to have a successful, innovative and entrepreneurial economy, we need to boost skills. I am particularly pleased with the commitment to create a new UK global talent network to work with businesses and research institutes to identify and attract the best global talent in key science and tech sectors.
The Government very much understand the importance of lifelong learning and developing skills to support our economy, increase productivity and spread opportunity. The lifetime skills guarantee offers adults in England without an A-level or equivalent the chance to retrain, realigning further education with employers’ needs. The measures announced today to tackle poor numeracy through a new UK-wide numeracy programme called Multiply will benefit some half a million adults through a £560 million investment. This is really good news to help people who do not have the skills or the education to get jobs and make something of themselves throughout their lives. I welcome that really strongly and passionately, because social mobility is so important, and without the basic education we do not get the social mobility that all of us, in all parts in this House, want to see.
I also welcome the substantial commitment to increasing overall skills spending by £3.8 billion over the course of the Parliament, equating to an increase of some 42%. That is big money. We are not talking trivia; we are talking big investment. This includes more hours’ learning for 16 to 19-year-olds, including those who are taking T-levels, which are another great innovation; more traineeships; building institutes of technology to help to close skills gaps in key STEM areas; funding the lifetime skills guarantee; upgrading our further education college estate; quadrupling the number of places in skills bootcamps; and increasing funding for apprenticeships to a record £2.7 billion by 2024-25.
I believe, and have always believed, in local colleges. I had the pleasure of working for one in the years when I was not in Parliament. They have a vital part to play in our determination to upskill and reskill individuals to maximise their potential. In my area of London, we are extremely fortunate in having a first-class college in London South East Colleges, led by Sam Parrett CBE. I regularly visit the Erith campus. The college does a fantastic job in the field of training, spread over the Bexley, Greenwich and Bromley boroughs, and—this is the key point—in working closely with businesses and local authorities to find out what businesses need and then being able to deliver it. The increase in money for schools is very welcome, as is the commitment for more money for per pupil funding and for new school places, particularly for children with special educational needs and disability. That is really good news for education.
The Budget also strikes the right balance between supporting businesses to recover from the pandemic and investment in our public services. One area I have regularly raised is the hospitality industry, which was the first to close but the last to reopen. I have had many discussions with businesses in my area dealing with hospitality on the issues they have had and the problems of lock- down measures and local restrictions. I know that the announcement today to cut business rates to help hospitality, retail and leisure will be most welcome across my borough of Bexley. The measures, alongside the small business rates relief, equate to a business tax cut worth £7 billion for more than 700,000 eligible businesses. It is the biggest business rates tax cut in 30 years. It will significantly reduce the financial burdens on businesses to support further investment.
In conclusion, I am pleased to give this Budget my full support. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has struck the right balance between improving public services, supporting businesses, upskilling individuals and looking at the public finances. He has delivered a positive and constructive Budget that is good for our country. I think I can do no better than quote my right hon. Friend’s concluding sentence, when he said:
“This Budget builds a stronger economy for the British people.”
I believe it does.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett), I was pleased with the Chancellor’s optimistic Budget for our country today. We faced a major difficulty with the pandemic and have had to intervene in the economy more than any Government since the second world war, introducing schemes that were massive in their scale to protect people, jobs and businesses. The amazing thing is that that was delivered seamlessly and successfully. We used our fiscal position, whereby we had relatively low national debt, to get through this crisis. The fact that the OBR has reduced its estimate of scarring of the economy, and that the Bank of England has reduced it to only 1%—I suspect it may be reduced further—shows that the economy has got through a major crisis and emerged the other side in much better shape than one had any reason to suspect.
We have 1 million vacancies and an economy estimated by the OBR to grow by more than 6% this year, and it could be higher. We therefore have an economy that is growing and recovering extremely fast. I think that is a good thing. The fact that we have come through this with a growing economy is great. We also look like we will have rapid growth next year and growth in future years. The Government are now in quite a good position. They have a rising growth rate and rising tax income.
Two things concern me. First, I do not like raising taxes. I will only raise taxes if I feel that money is being spent well. We have increased spending in this Budget, and it is beholden on the Government to justify that it is being well spent in the NHS and through other Departments. I have to say that some of the examples—things such as Test and Trace—do not exactly fill one with enthusiasm that some of this money is being well spent. I call on the Government to look at that organisation and perhaps to start to reduce its size and the amount of money it is spending. Some £20 billion-odd a year is a lot of money—twice what we got from putting up national insurance on many people who are low paid. There are still many areas where the Government could save money.
I was pleased by the optimistic tone of what the Chancellor said today. What he has done with many taxes and charges, generally speaking, is just to let things flow on and not to put up inflation by raising things such as fuel duty and alcohol duty. The changes to business rates are welcome and will be helpful. In particular, I think the change of the taper rate in universal credit, so that people can earn more if they work more, is vital. It has always struck me that there is a barrier there. Many people working 16 hours a week, if they are asked to do overtime, say, “No, it’s not worth my while.” It must be right that those who are partly supported by the state and work for employers have flexible enough employment that they can take up more work and earn more when asked. That and many other measures should add flexibility to the British economy.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said about science. If any of us needed a lesson about the importance of science, the pandemic brought that home. We are a science superpower, but sometimes the proceeds of science are not turned into jobs, factories and other things.
At the beginning of the pandemic, we had world-class people to develop vaccines, but only two vaccine manufacturers for animals rather than people. Now we have factories and the capacity. Even the person who drives the van with vaccines in it from the factory to the delivery point is a job created in the United Kingdom. With any kind of science policy, we have to ensure not only that we have world-class science, but that that is turned into jobs in this country, which has always been our weak point.
One of big lessons of the past 12 months is that we have been living in a just-in-time world, so many businesses are finding higher freight rates and disruption due to the pandemic very difficult. We must have a more resilient economy, which may mean that the Government have to look at storemen and storing strategic materials. I was pleased to read in the newspapers that we are in discussions about increasing our gas capacity and bringing back some of the British Gas capacity. As an economy, the biggest challenge ahead is ensuring that we have the raw materials and the resources to get ahead. Relying on other people to build things is not as sustainable and sensible as it used to be.
Over the past 20 years, we have imported a lot from nice China, but we now find that it is more aggressive, so we have to look at where we source things from. There is nothing better than sourcing something at or near to home, which would make a big difference. Clearly, freight rates will make a big difference to the world economy. The economics change substantially if we can import a container of cheap products from the far east for £1,500 compared with £8,000 a container. That is why some British companies are busy filling a new market.
The essential lessons for the Government are to get the national debt and the deficit falling, which the Budget does; invest in the things that are worth investing in, such as decent infrastructure and science, where we can win; structure our economy so that we produce more at home; and plan for the fact that the free-flowing world-trading economy that we have known over the past 20 years may not be there in future. We have to be more resilient and more careful in how we proceed.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I do not envy the Chancellor. I do not think anyone else would have wanted to do today’s Budget, which was delivered in one of the most challenging environments of any Budget for many decades. I congratulate him, therefore, on a very skilful, comprehensive and prudent Budget, and on the priorities that he identified. That was possible only because of the prudent measures taken to support jobs and businesses during the pandemic, which proved to be essential and the right thing to do. It also emphasises how important it is that we avoid, at all costs, going back into a lockdown and taking the economy into reverse. The figure of a 6.5% increase in the economy, which is way ahead of the forecast and our competitors, is stunning and we need to safeguard that at all costs.
In the short time available, I will comment on a few specific things that the Chancellor announced and a couple that he did not. I absolutely welcome the end of the public sector pay freeze. Public servants did a sterling job during the pandemic in particular and I am sure we all want to see them rewarded more. I also welcome the increase in the national living wage to a rate above even that being advertised by the Labour party for security people at its party conference earlier this year.
I welcome the masterstroke on universal credit. I was uncomfortable with the ending of the temporary uplift, but the measure will be a practical help to 2 million families. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) who made that possible in the first place. If we go back to the first principles of how he envisaged that universal credit would work in practice, it is about making work pay and about fairness. It is a shame that that was not welcomed by the Opposition.
I welcome the focus on skills and productivity, and everything that has been said about the importance of R&D and investment in science. Again, the pandemic showed us that we have world-class academic and research facilities in this country, and we need to make more of them in future if we are to address the productivity gap from which we have suffered for so long. We must upskill our workforce and wean ourselves off the dependency on importing cheap, temporary labour from the EU and abroad without investing in training and the quality jobs that will keep people there and keep improving jobs.
I share the enthusiasm of my long-standing friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), for the emphasis on vulnerable children. Extraordinarily, that announcement was heckled by the Opposition. It is the vindication of the campaign that my right hon. Friend has undertaken for many years—many of us have banged the same drum—acknowledging the crucial importance of those first 1,001 days. We have made the case for the social benefits of investing in early years: investing in a strong attachment between a baby or toddler and his or her parents; investing in happy mums—and dads, where possible; and making sure that those children are well supported before school.
The situation has been made worse by the pandemic, with challenges for first-time single mums in particular and babies who could not meet other babies for many months. There has been a lot of focus on mental health problems in schools and school-age solutions—that is absolutely right—but we need to go back to where it begins, at conception. The stat that I have used throughout this campaign is that there is a 99% likelihood that the mothers of 15 or 16-year-olds suffering from some form of depression or low-level mental illness at school suffered themselves from some form of low-level mental illness or depression during or around the time of pregnancy. It is interconnected, so why do we not acknowledge that and invest?
Every year, we spend more than £8 billion on perinatal mental health, often for first-time mums. Every year, we spend £15 billion on child neglect, making a total of £23 billion on getting it wrong for mums and for kids at a crucial stage in their upbringing. Today’s announcement is a recognition by the Chancellor of the financial—not just the social—advantages of investing in children and their parents right at the beginning, and I absolutely praise that. I would point out that there is still a £2 billion shortfall in children’s social care for those children whose parents could not take advantage of that early support for whatever reason and who find themselves in care. That still needs to be addressed, because all the focus, I am afraid, has been on adult social care, but there are a lot of children out there who are missing out.
For those who say, “Sure Start was fine—why don’t you just stick with it?”, I should say that the Government measures are complementary; this is not an either/or. Sure Start had shortcomings, and 15% of the most deprived families in the country did not access it. This is not about bricks and mortar; it is about outcomes. Family hubs are much more flexible, offering all sorts of doorways and access points to those vulnerable families at a time when they need that sort of support, as well as the information to know what support they need, as was well articulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. It is all about much better team-working around the family.
A couple of other things to mention: I raise a glass to the changes in duty on alcohol, particularly on sparkling wine, which helps the English wine industry in particular. I have been drinking English wine since the 1970s, but it was not very good then. Now it is a world-class, quality product of this country that beats French champagne and other competitors hands down.
The literature that is ready to go out from the Labour party makes the criticism that for the Chancellor it is all about reducing the cost of champagne. By 2040, the sparkling wine industry—the English and Welsh wine industry—is predicted to encompass more than 25,000 jobs, produce 40 million bottles and make over £1 billion in sales, a third of that in exports. It is a major industry, and it was a ridiculous anomaly when sparkling wine, with 11% alcohol, was taxed a third more than still wine, typically with 13% to 14% alcohol. I have been badgering Ministers about that anomaly for many years, and at last this Chancellor has put it right; we should celebrate that, rather than be trying to make cheap party points against a very important quality English and Welsh industry. I welcome, too, the measures on draft beer relief and on ciders.
On a different subject, I absolutely endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley): please can we taper back up to 0.7%, rather than just have a big leap back up with the problem that all of a sudden we have to spend large amounts on finding new projects, just as we have had to take away large amounts of money on end-early projects which we were previously financing under the 0.7% international development spend?
In closing, I want to mention a couple of things that were not in the Budget. The Labour party has been calling for VAT on energy bills to be scrapped. That of course could only happen now, after Brexit: the irony of that coming from people who have been banging on about the downsides of Brexit is that it is only possible as we can now dictate our own VAT and other tax rates in this country.
As the fuel poverty charity National Energy Action points out, an across-the-board scrapping of VAT is not necessarily the best way to support those most in need of help with rising fuel bills this winter. I ask the Chancellor to look at using the estimated £100 million additional revenue from the VAT receipts on rising energy prices, and perhaps some of the additional £1 billion the Treasury is gaining from the rising carbon tax revenues due to gas price hikes, to concentrate on a winter fuel payment to vulnerable working-age households, providing direct relief to help with energy bills this winter. We also need to be able to help those who are not working families and who will not benefit from the changes to universal credit.
As part of the green revolution, I want to see zero-rated VAT applied to heat pumps and energy efficient measures as well. It is incongruous for a Government who are strongly and effectively pushing the green agenda to be taxing environmental goods when no longer compelled to do so by the EU.
Finally, the hospitality sector is big in coastal constituencies such as mine. Hospitality businesses took a big hit in the lockdown but were helped by schemes such as eat out to help out—again, masterfully produced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last year—and helped hugely by the reduction in VAT from 20% to 5%. It has now just gone back up to 12.5% and is due to go back to 20% next April. I welcome the huge help from that 50% reduction in business rates, which is a big factor for many hospitality businesses, but they have taken a big hit already: a £100 billion reduction in income; permanent closures of over 12,000 establishments, including many pubs, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood); and 660,000 job losses.
It is great that we are having this business rate relief, but it is only for a year. My constituency’s hospitality businesses—restaurants, pubs and so forth—say, “We know we’re going to be paying higher wages, and we want to be able to pay those higher wages and to upskill our staff. We’re going to need to do that to keep them in the hospitality sector because the pandemic has meant it’s a buyers’ market, and people are going into higher paid jobs and other jobs that are less onerous and do not have such antisocial hours. If we can keep VAT rates low, we can pay those extra wages.”
That is the deal so, after the year when the business rate relief is no longer in place, please can we look at permanent solutions as well to help those businesses to up the pay of their staff in crucial areas of our economy, help improve the quality of those jobs and upskill the people in those jobs? This sector is a major part of our economy, particularly in coastal constituencies like mine.
I greatly welcome the Budget. It contains some very good practical measures that few would have expected after the economic nightmare we have all been through in this pandemic. I congratulate the Chancellor greatly on the Budget, therefore, and hope that just occasionally the Opposition will give credit where credit is due rather than leap on the bandwagon of saying everything this Government are doing is bad. Today’s Budget shows that actually we are getting things back on track, thank goodness.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I refer the House to my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)? I think I agree with everything he said, particularly his point about the importance of early years. All I would perhaps say is that, like him, I have been drinking English wine since the 1970s, and we had to grimace at the time. It has got a lot better, and I commend it not just to the House but to the world. It is first class.
This has been said a few times, but may I say well done to the Treasury Ministers? When a colleague says that, there is usually a “but” at the end of it, but I do mean it. The Chancellor has done a phenomenal job. He has been very sure-footed during the last 18 months, and that is what we have needed. He and the Treasury team have been absolutely right in ensuring that we minimise the economic impact of the pandemic, with the furlough scheme and all the rest of it. I think the success that we are seeing with the economy now is a testament to that period when tough decisions were required, and taken, for the good of all.
I thought the Budget overall was very good. There was lots of optimism in it, quite rightly; that was quite justified. I liked the measures to help the lower paid, including the reduction in tapering on universal credit; I liked the green jobs emphasis; I liked the science and technology emphasis, and I liked the reform of how we levy duties on alcohol. I particularly liked the introduction of a £9.50-an-hour national living wage, as a result of which those working full time will be something like £1,000 better off per year. That will particularly support younger and lower-paid workers and help the UK transition to the high-wage, high-skill economy that we need.
I suggest that the Government should not be pushed off course by big business. For too long—perhaps 20 years —because of unlimited immigration while we were a member of the EU, it has relied perhaps too frequently on lower wages as a substitute for investment in R&D, the skilling up of the labour force and increased automation, all things that will now lead to the emergence of new and better-paid jobs. That in turn will serve to increase productivity. That is excellent news, and higher wages and controlled immigration will also bolster our one nation agenda, the aim of which is to encourage economic prosperity in order to better help the less fortunate in society.
Having said all that, in the few minutes I have left, I would like to share a few concerns with Treasury Ministers. I do not think that I am alone in being concerned that the level of spending increases forecast over the next four or five years is nearly double the growth rate of the economy. If we think it through, that is unsustainable. It can only result in financial pinch points—perhaps the raising of taxes and the taking on of more debt. It cannot be sustained indefinitely.
I am not someone who attaches much credence to forecasts, but even the Treasury forecast suggests that, as this five-year spending review period unfolds, the growth rate, if anything, will fall off. We have to look at this very seriously. We have to try to reboot growth, in many respects, and at the same time keep an eye on inflation. We are at a tipping point as to whether inflation is indeed transitory or whether it will become embedded. We have to be very careful about that, because it will have serious consequences for living standards generally if we let inflation out of the bag. We have to look at rebooting growth and do everything we can, because at the end of the day, growth is where it’s at. It is growth that is the engine room when it comes to a prosperous economy, a prosperous society and helping to raise living standards.
I make no apologies in opposing the increase in national insurance. We used to believe in the Conservative party that it was a tax on jobs. We seem to have drifted away from that. I urge Treasury Ministers to think about that, because in the end an increase in national insurance is reflected in lower pay and higher prices, which are bad for workers, businesses, customers and the economy as a whole.
We need to take another look at corporation tax. We need to reduce corporation tax over time. All the evidence suggests that if we reduce corporation tax or taxes generally, in the medium to long term, we increase revenues. It is not a zero-sum game. Low taxes equals greater prosperity. I also encourage the Government to consider bringing back a lower rate of corporation tax for small and medium-sized enterprises, which we all know employ a disproportionate number of people.
It is not just about lower taxes, however. We need to deregulate more if we are to reboot growth. There is too much regulation out there, including in financial services and in industry generally. I specialise in something called investment trusts, a hangover from our EU membership. Key information documents—KIDs—are still far too complex. They should be pushed to one side, with better and simpler regulation brought in.
We should also, now that we are out of the EU, consider scrapping more tariffs. Why do we still have tariffs on imported goods? I do wonder. The trade deal with New Zealand, announced last week, is a step in the right direction. A lot of tariffs were reduced or removed altogether. I did not know, for example, that we charged an 8% tariff on New Zealand onions, but that has now been scrapped and rightly so. We need to look again at reducing taxes, deregulating and scrapping tariffs.
In the minute or so I have left, let me touch briefly on one or two other items that perhaps were not touched on enough in the Budget. The cladding issue was mentioned. The Government have to look at that again. The problem is not the fault of leaseholders. It has been an extraordinary consumer regulation failure. I made my opposition known. The Government have moved a long way on this, but I still think it is wrong that we should ask leaseholders to pay anything when it has not been their fault. So I ask Treasury Ministers to look at that again.
On soft power, as chair of the British Council all-party parliamentary group, we recently fought a campaign to get the Government to think again. For the sake of an extra £10 million, the Government opted to compel the British Council to close 20 of its overseas offices, as defined by removing a country director and staff. That will damage our soft power. It has been the largest set of closures in the proud history of the British Council. Some people forget that it was established in the 1930s to help to counter the rise of Nazism. It is too much to ask. If we want to give meaning to our concept of global Britain and engaging with the world, we cannot be closing 20 offices. The British Council does an inordinate amount of work when it comes to our soft power.
I would suggest this, if money needs to be raised. I opposed HS2. I think it is the biggest white elephant this Government or any Government have spent money on for a long time. Yes, some forecasts suggest we would lose £10 billion, but we would save £90 billion. A fair bit of money could be saved if we scrapped it even at this stage. I would also take a close look at quangos. We have far too many quangos. The TaxPayers’ Alliance reckons that billions of pounds would be saved if we consolidated them or brought them under more control.
I reiterate what a good number of other hon. Members mentioned, which is getting value for money for the expenditure we are asking the taxpayer to incur. I was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer for 10 years, so I can testify to the fact that Governments of all parties have, for good reasons, bombarded the NHS with process targets, such as two-week and four-week waiting times, but not focused enough on outcome measures—in other words, one-year cancer survival rates. That is why, despite all the money that has gone into the NHS, we are still not catching up with international averages when it comes to cancer survival rates.
Half those who work in the NHS are not medically trained, but just a tweaking of that figure—say, 60:40—would make a phenomenal difference on the frontline. We must re-examine how money is spent. Overall, however, this is an excellent Budget and I commend it to the House.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I agree with many of his comments, particularly those on the cladding scandal, which I have been involved in considering as a Select Committee member since 14 June 2017. I definitely agree that we need to go further on the issue.
I very much welcome the Budget, as my hon. Friend did, although not just what is in it. I welcome the optimism with which the Budget was presented, and I welcome the way it was contrasted with the pessimism of the Opposition parties. We are a party that believes in the future of this country and the individuals within it, and we believe that we can make a genuine difference to their lives.
We must bear it in mind that the Budget is set against a backdrop of the reduction in the size of the economy that began 18 months ago, which was the sharpest contraction in any of our lifetimes. As a consequence of the Government’s interventions, that contraction has been followed by the fastest growth in the economy we have seen in our lifetimes. That has certainly put us back on a par with countries that people said were doing better than us through the crisis, such as Germany. The effects on GDP and on unemployment have produced far better outcomes for us than many people predicted.
We must put that in context. The huge economic fallout from covid was totally unexpected, although we were ready to deal with the economic fallout caused by leaving the EU. I voted to remain, but never argued that our economy could not succeed outside the EU. There were going to be short-term challenges, as we have seen to some extent, but, rightly, the Government have seen that in moments of crisis there are moments of opportunity. That is exactly the way we should approach this, and the move to a higher wage, higher skilled economy is absolutely right. The key to that is having control over immigration, which we never could have had within the EU.
Owing to that and owing to the covid crisis—principally because of the covid crisis—we have some real pinch points in our economy right now. There are labour shortages across the economy; this is not just about HGV drivers. Almost every sector I speak to is having labour difficulties, not least in Thirsk and Malton. There are difficulties in some of our pig supply chains and our pig farmers are having real problems in getting the pigs off the farms and into the meat processing plants because there are shortages of some workers, who farmers would normally get from further afield. That is due to Brexit to a certain extent but is mainly down to covid.
The other big issue that we must confront and which we will be dealing with for some time yet is inflation. Predictions of inflation topping at 4% seem likely, so that will cause some pressure for people, particularly those on low incomes. Nevertheless, both issues—labour shortages and inflation—are short term and they will be resolved in time.
The longer-term issues we must deal with involve demographics and the ageing population. That is good news as it means we are living longer, but the ageing population will put huge pressure on the taxpayer. The OBR is not always accurate, but its central prediction is that, owing to the cost of healthcare, social care and pensions, our debt to GDP ratio, which is 100% of GDP, will be 400% by 2060 if we do not change our system of taxation. That is a frightening thought for the Treasury, but it is something the Treasury will have to confront and deal with.
Rather than throwing lots of money at everything without expecting to raise taxes, or criticising tax increases to pay for our spending, as the Opposition do, the Treasury has taken a sensible, balanced view. It is balancing day-to-day payments and shifting the burden away from taxpayers’ earnings, so that it is subsidised not through the tax system, but through employers paying more to employ people, while people keep more of the money—hence the universal credit taper, which I absolutely welcome. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty, I think it is a far better use of taxpayers’ money to provide a greater incentive to work, rather than simply paying people through other taxpayers’ contributions to their income. That is absolutely the right way forward.
If we are to head off the prospect of our debt being 400% of our GDP, it is critical that as well as making work pay, we get the economy growing. To do that, we have to make business pay. That has been my life—I started up a business—but there are so many benefits: not just the opportunities for businesspeople, but the fantastic effect on the consumer. The best way to drive down prices and drive up services for consumers is to have more competition. In my experience, having started a small business that we grew into a larger business, the one thing that makes us more competitive is competition. That is the key: a competitive economic environment. That is what we have to try to engender.
Hon. Members have talked about cutting regulation and making it simpler to establish a business. I support all those things, as long as we put sensible protections in place, but the No. 1 thing that we can do to engender a positive business environment is to have a fair and level playing field. It encourages more entrants; it encourages people with all kinds of business model to start up and scale up. Businesses want a fair and level playing field and simple and stable taxation.
I welcome what the Chancellor has done on alcohol duties: a simpler, more stable alcohol taxation system is absolutely right. There has been a massive simplification, and I would like to see the same principle applied to one of the biggest barriers to a competitive environment and to a fair and level playing field in our business world today: business rates. Business rates create a massive distortion between physical and online retailers, which is deeply unhelpful.
The Government have done a lot—I think that they have put about £11.6 billion into easing the burden on lots of business sectors—but that still creates winners and losers. Whenever reliefs, much as I welcome them, are put in place, people will fall on either side. I know that the measures are only short-term, so we need longer-term reform, as many hon. Members have said.
There seems to be a debate about online sales tax, and the Government seem potentially to be heading down that road. The Opposition say that the digital services tax should be increased sixfold, which I have to say I think is a bonkers idea. It will hit very few retailers, or even hit marketplaces only. When the levy was put in place, Amazon added it straight to the cost of goods; the Opposition’s proposed increase would be added straight to the cost to consumers. It is absolutely wrong to do things in that way, but I welcome at least the efforts to solve the problem.
I believe that we should scrap business rates completely. The system is completely archaic; I absolutely believe what the Labour party says about that. In my view, we already have an online sales tax: it is called VAT. A simple solution—not easy, but simple—would be to add the £25 billion cost to VAT while lowering the threshold for VAT registration.
Kevin Hollinrake
Well, I am happy to have a debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should think about what I am saying, rather than simply ruling it out. It would create a fair and level playing field, it would raise the same amount, and it would mean online retailers trading in exactly the same way as physical retailers. It would be a simple solution to a very thorny problem.
I sympathise with the Treasury, because this is not easy. To my mind, the Opposition solution is totally unworkable.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) in appreciating the enthusiasm and constructive effort that have been put into this Budget. It is thanks to the wisdom of the stewardship during covid that the Chancellor has been able to provide such a positive Budget today. The Red Book is just out, as is the OBR publication, and the Chancellor sat down only a couple of hours ago, so there is much to digest.
From the perspective of Bournemouth, which very much values tourism and hospitality, the cuts to air passenger duty, alcohol duty and fuel duty are not just welcome, but appreciated. The cuts to business rates are particularly appreciated by the hospitality industry; they will make such a difference to the impact on the sector, which has been hit so hard by covid.
I was also pleased to see that effort had been put into the net zero strategy. I wish COP26 well, but we can only expect other nations to agree to reductions in CO2 emissions if we lead by example. We have done well to cut our emissions to date, and I welcome other initiatives such as investment in electric vehicle technology, efforts to insulate homes better, and the carbon capture and storage programmes, but in my view this is not enough if we really want to move the scale. I strongly urge the Government—and I am pleased to see the Chief Secretary in his place—to advance the modular nuclear reactor programme, which is something in which we excel across the world: this is what Rolls-Royce does. The reactors cost about £2 billion per unit, and one can be made in a factory every six months. We can not only reduce the CO2 emissions in this country but help other countries around the world, including our Commonwealth friends, who may find it very difficult to reduce their CO2 emissions.
Let me turn to the wider picture. I welcome the increase in aid spending to 0.7% of gross national income, and I am pleased to have been part of the noise that was made to try to encourage the return to 0.7%. The Chancellor’s domestic focus on energising the post-covid economy is understandable and has of course been welcomed, but while we have been distracted by covid, the world has become increasingly dangerous, and the difficulties that we have been facing in the wider security context of today are due to a global security issue. It is because of covid that the Budget has been affected, but nowhere does the Budget, the Red Book or indeed the OBR deal with security and its impact on the Budget itself.
As I have said in the past, there is a 1930s feel to the world, with rising authoritarianism, western institutions unable to cope with errant nations, the absence of western leadership, and—as Afghanistan illustrated—a lack of strategic patience and ambition to hold the international peace. I remind the House of the 10-year rule, adopted in 1919: the assumption that there would be a decade in which to identify and prepare for future threats. Today, demands on our armed forces are increasing and the storm clouds are beginning to gather overseas, yet we currently remain on a peacetime defence budget. I hope that, if global security continues to deteriorate, the Chancellor will return to the House to announce an increase in defence spending. It falls to me to report to the House that the defence budget is the only budget that I can identify that is being cut today, in comparison with those of all other Departments.
A key part of the Chancellor’s speech was his comment that we want to live in a country where the response to every question is not, “What are your Government going to do about it?” I entirely agree with his premise. There are limits on what the Government can and should do, but I strongly believe that security is the Government’s responsibility, and I am sad to see that, in real terms, the defence budget has been cut—ever so slightly, but it has definitely been diminished.
Defence spending is overstretched. It includes space and cyber-security, which is having an impact on the three conventional services. The Army is being forced to cut the number of tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and troops. The Royal Air Force is cutting the number of heavy lift aircraft and the number of F-35s—our new fighter aircraft; we were supposed to buy 138, and we are buying only 48—and the Navy is cutting the number of frigates. Cutting the defence budget at this point is a grave mistake, which our competitors will note, and it sends the wrong message, post Afghanistan, about our commitment and appetite to play a more influential role on the international stage.
Page 7 of the Red Book states:
“The Budget…builds on the government’s vision of Global Britain as a problem-solving and burden-sharing nation, globally competitive and firmly committed to an open and resilient international order.”
It goes on to say:
“In the coming years, the UK will continue to catalyse action from the international community to address the most pressing global issues”.
Perhaps it was just a printing error, but it seems that the Government are not interested in doing that now.
We need to address this. We face continued unparalleled economic uncertainty, but we also face growing global instability. From where I sit, I see the world becoming more siloed and countries becoming more protectionist. As nations retreat from global exposure, our world is absolutely getting more dangerous, not less. I ask that as we grow in economic confidence, we address the real security concerns that are in front of us. For me, that is what global Britain needs to be about.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I warmly welcome this positive, optimistic Budget, which puts post-pandemic economic recovery at the heart of what we do. We currently have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. The OBR has predicted 6.5% growth, although looking at recent statistics, I think it could be higher. Next year, we are looking at 6% growth. That is very strong. We are also looking at employment getting back to pre-pandemic levels, and at wages going up.
But more important than my welcoming the Budget is the fact that the markets have welcomed it. Gilts have rallied substantially this afternoon. Ten-year gilt yields have gone down 10 basis points, or 0.1%. This is relevant to all of us because, as the Chancellor said in his Budget, 100 basis points, or 1%, means either a cost of £23 billion or a reduction of £23 billion, depending on which way yields go. That is a real endorsement by the gilt markets of what we have done today. It is telling that the Debt Management Office has said today that our anticipated sale of gilts will be down £57.8 billion, relative to what we thought we had to do at the beginning of the year. That is huge—we have almost £60 billion less debt that we have to go into the markets to sell.
I also welcome the Chancellor’s statement at the end of his speech that the direction of travel was to lower taxes. I feel very strongly that, while we have had to do some things because of the exceptional circumstances of coronavirus, in the long term we need to be a low-tax economy. It is with lower taxes that we encourage growth and get more investment, which leads to greater productivity, which is key.
As many colleagues have said, we are clearly investing an awful lot in public services at the moment, and it is good that we are providing that investment. However, I say to my colleagues on the Front Bench that we must ensure that we get value for money from that expenditure. Let us account for every pound of it, because the numbers are substantial. Many people have alluded to inflation, and inflation is forecast to go up, peaking at 4.4% according to the OBR forecasts. As far as that concerns wages, of course we want people to be well paid. We want a well-paid economy and well-paid workers, but let us ensure that we also get the skills and the productivity improvements in place.
This is a great Budget. I am conscious of the time, but I would like to talk briefly about a few issues in my constituency. First, I warmly welcome the tapering for universal credit, a strong development which goes to the Conservative ethos of ensuring that work pays. I am also glad to see that we have made progress on the residential property development tax. Grenfell Tower is in my constituency, so I am glad to see there has been progress, but I am conscious that we are still awaiting further details on 11 to 18 metres.
Although bank corporation tax rates will go up, we have reduced the surcharge, which I am glad to see. I object to the attitude of some Opposition Members who are so negative to financial services. I remind everyone that financial services are critical to our economy.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
They are worth £76 billion.
Felicity Buchan
I believe that is 11% of our total tax take. This is an issue not just for London but for Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle, Leeds, Bristol and Chelmsford. Financial services are critical, so let us not talk them down, as that would be equivalent to California talking down the film industry. Financial services are a huge source of our exports.
Finally, I welcome the £7 billion-worth of measures on business rates. These are short-term measures. I welcome them but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has just said, we need a longer-term solution. I would like to work with my Front-Bench colleagues on finding that solution.
One small technicality: the 50% discount for hospitality will be capped at £110,000. I represent a central London constituency with a lot of retail and hospitality. Central London has suffered about the most in the country, but many of my businesses will get very little help on a percentage basis. I would appreciate a conversation on that point.
This is a very strong Budget. The economy is faring well. We have alluded to some risks, but we can all get behind this Budget, which is good for the country and good for Kensington.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Having sat here for six hours, I am running out of unique points to make. Rather than following in the footsteps of illustrious colleagues who made fine, analytical arguments on the Budget in its widest sense, I have been asking myself what it will mean for the ordinary person I represent in Bury.
Three or four days ago it was announced that Greater Manchester will receive more than £1 billion of funding to transform our transport infrastructure. Today the metropolitan borough of Bury, which is made up of two parliamentary constituencies, was successful with two levelling-up fund applications. Both were for £20 million, one to transform Radcliffe, a fine town in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), and one to transform the world’s best market, Bury market, which as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, has the finest purveyors of black pudding. I have been working with my local Labour council and national Government to put forward a vision of how such an iconic part of our history and heritage in Bury can be used to transform and regenerate the town centre, to create employment and to provide a hub for mental health and health services.
In the last week people in the metropolitan borough of Bury, on those three announcements alone, have received more than £100 million of funding, from which we are getting a new interchange, better bus services and better tram services, as well as more employment and the regeneration of our town centres. Anyone looking at the Budget will therefore say it is a fantastic Budget that will transform opportunities and do something that politics has not done for a long time. It not only provides the fiscal policies that allow the general economy to prosper but is changing landscapes in front of us and reinforcing our pride in our areas. I thoroughly support every announcement that the Chancellor made today.
I fully support the cut to beer duty, in respect of which I want to make one point. The big four pub companies in this country account for 25% of the total number of pubs. Pubs are disappearing at an alarming rate throughout the country. All Conservative Members, and I suspect even Labour Members, support the reductions in duty, which are clearly welcomed and will benefit the industry. I gently encourage my friends on the Front Bench to think about this problem, though: the profit will go to the pub companies, in the main. Often, the contractual and leasehold arrangements that they have with their tenants in the pubs in all our constituencies make it financially unviable for the pubs to succeed, no matter what steps are taken in respect of tax. I hope that is taken into consideration.
Let me go back to Bury and how the Budget will improve lives. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth employment, and I welcome the announcements on skills and further funding. I do not have time to go over them all, but I do know how the investments that have been previously announced are affecting my constituents. Last week, planning permission was given for a £6 million health, innovation and STEM centre, which will teach new skills and provide new facilities and training opportunities for young people in Bury. It is not simply about the numbers; when I sit in the Chamber, I sometimes think how important it is that we personalise things. We have to demand and think about outcomes, not just amounts of money, and the Government are putting in place policies in that regard.
I wish to speak in support of a lot of my hon. Friends who have talked about the positive and optimistic nature of the Budget. Last week, I talked to the headteacher of Derby High School, a fine high school in my constituency. She was full of ambition and ways to improve the delivery of education for students at the school, but the building is completely unacceptable for that and needs investment. The Budget offers a way for investment to be put in. We will have more new schools and more educational support, so that schools like the Derby know that the Government are going to back them with not only increased funding in the schools budget but the facilities that pupils in my Bury constituency will hopefully enjoy.
Whenever I look at Budgets, I cannot escape my 10 years as a councillor. Whenever I see the word “pothole” in anything, I get very excited, and there is £8 billion in pothole funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) probably thinks the same thing. At its basic level, politics is about the things people see when they walk out the front door. If there is a pothole, people want it to be fixed. People want roads to be in such a condition that they can drive down them safely and appropriately. People want transport infrastructure in Bury. They want good schools that can be improved. They want better hospitals. That is what the Budget will deliver in areas such as mine and throughout the country. It is a fantastic Budget.
The Budget also opens up opportunities for technological advances. Last week, I visited the East Lancashire Railway in my constituency. Bury is known for many things and is a unique place, but one fine example is the steam railway. We have the longest continually used locomotive shed in existence—we have been fixing steam-railway locomotives in Bury since 1860—and although the House cannot see it, it is the most amazing place to go into. When we consider the skills agenda, there are obviously the high-tech jobs, the green jobs and all the other things that the Chancellor talked about, but there are also other innovative sectors. There is too much work for the East Lancashire Railway: we have to invest in that site so that we can carry out the renovations that are needed and preserve part of our national heritage. The railway is looking for £10 million of investment to transform that site so that it can provide more apprenticeships and opportunities and create the sense of pride in place that is at the heart of a lot of the Government’s policies.
The Budget invests in Bury people and in the infra- structure necessary for our economy to prosper, and it will put more money into the frontline services that we all need. I was delighted about the investment in special educational needs services—I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) is very passionate about this. Whether we as a Parliament succeed in levelling up this country will depend on our creating equality of opportunity for those with special educational needs to have the best chance to thrive and succeed. It is a credit to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and to this Government that money is going into that area. Again, it is about how that money is delivered on the ground—£100 million, £200 million or £300 million are just numbers on a piece of paper. We have to think about the delivery model at a local level.
I have been speaking with the fantastic headteacher at Elms Bank School in my constituency, and we believe that the best model for delivering SEN provision in our area is through an SEN hub—a lifelong hub where we have the integrated commissioning of services in one place to support people not only on their educational journey, but with mental health support and employment support. One comment that was made was that the pandemic has shown that the delivery of services at a local level can be done in an innovative way to ensure that we are delivering these important levelling-up provisions in the best way. Certainly in Bury, the creation of hubs has been excellent.
I am tempted to speak about Bury for a lot longer. There is much to be said about the place, but I prefer to say this: as the last person to speak in this debate, I can say that I have listened to all the contributions from those on the Opposition Benches and that what they say is not logical. We are investing billions of pounds in frontline services and billions of pounds in the most vulnerable people. By cutting taxes, we are providing the conditions for businesses to thrive. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am a practising solicitor and have my own business. What has been announced today supports employers like me. It is supporting people to deliver more jobs on the ground, supporting skills, and providing the opportunities for the future. I know that there is political knockabout and that perhaps people say things because they have to do so, but I am so proud of our Government. We are delivering on our central mantra of levelling up for every single person no matter their background, no matter their circumstances, and no matter where they are from. People have an equal chance to have a happy, fulfilling life, and that is what this Budget is about. It is a fantastic Budget, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Sewage Pollution: Whitburn
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
My constituent Mr Latimer has been raising concerns about raw sewage dumping at the Whitburn end of Seaburn beach and into the North sea for two decades. In October 2012, before I was his MP, the European Court of Justice found that raw sewage was being dumped at this location and that the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its obligations and breached standards for treating wastewater.
In 2020, eight years later, the ECJ found again that the levels of sewage dumping at Whitburn continued to breach standards. As the sewage flows, our gorgeous beach is continually damaged. The wildlife and sea life that once inhabited our rock pools is disappearing. Dolphins and seals, regulars on our coastline, now swim through sewage soup and the seagrass meadows in the nearby River Tyne estuary are being ruined.
Mr Latimer is now supported by the Whitburn residents forum, and nearly 1,000 residents have signed our petition to stop this sewage dumping. In the nine years that I have been the MP for South Shields and part of this campaign, I have seen us stonewalled by various Departments, bodies, companies, Secretaries of State and Ministers who claim this sewage dumping is a figment of our imagination. It is not. We know that, because we live there.
We all know that this Government are not really committed to protecting our water and seas after their shameful behaviour last week, voting in favour of sewage dumping into our waterways and oceans. The Minister claimed that this was due to costs of up to £660 billion associated with upgrading our sewers—costs that today have been discounted via a leaked report from the storm overflows taskforce, which found that the actual costs, spread over 10 years, would be £21.7 billion. I am aware that the Minister was concerned that the cost would fall to consumers, but since the industry has paid its shareholders in excess of £50 billion over the last three decades, it would make sense for the water companies to meet the costs.
This week’s U-turn on the matter will not fool anyone. It is a disingenuous attempt to appease the public. If the Government really did care about sewage dumping, why have they sat back while knowing that Whitburn is continually being blighted—
Mrs Lewell-Buck
After the judgment in 2012, the UK was given five years to correct the situation. The correctional work was completed by the end of December 2017. In those years, I continued to correspond with various Secretaries of State regarding my constituents’ concerns and requests for information. I was advised that Mr Latimer’s requests, via me, had become repetitive and created an unreasonable burden on the resources of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency. It was then decided that no further requests or queries would be responded to. Of course the requests have been repetitive; it is because answers and solutions have never been forthcoming.
In January 2019, our hardworking and effective MEP, Jude Kirton-Darling, raised the matter again with the European Parliament. Guess what? It found that the UK was still in breach, and sewage continued to harm our beach at Whitburn and our sea life. It asked yet again that the United Kingdom fully comply with the 2012 ruling and explain what action it intended on taking within two months. It appears that the Government never bothered replying and never took steps to halt the sewage discharges.
In early 2020, I raised the matter yet again with yet another Secretary of State, eight years after the initial request to rectify the problem. I was advised that DEFRA does not believe there are problems with the sewage system at Whitburn and that the beach was classified as “Excellent”. Now, everything in South Shields is excellent, but that definitely does not mean that sewage is not being dumped on that beach. By October 2020, a further letter from the EU confirmed that new evidence showed that, both in terms of frequency and quantity, dumping levels continued to be breached, reaching almost 53 tonnes of sewage in the first six months of the year. As a result, it also confirmed that it was commencing infringement proceedings.
And so it went on, with more meetings and more correspondence. The Environment Agency, Northumbrian Water and the Government all dispute the findings. It is a bureaucratic nightmare, where everyone has a different version of the levels of sewage being dumped, everyone continues to claim that it is not up to them to sort it out, and no one seems able to provide any update at all on the infringement proceedings. I, my team and my constituents are exhausted and angry. This obstinance has to stop. I cannot imagine the cost to the public purse of these years of avoidance. We—the people who actually live in South Shields and use Whitburn beach—know that sewage is being dumped there. We see the damage that it is doing to our coastline.
In the Environment Bill debate last week, the Minister said:
“The Government are absolutely committed to reducing sewage in our water. Nobody thinks sewage in water is a good idea, and I hope we have demonstrated that we have been very strong on that.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2021; Vol. 701, c. 865.]
Today I am pleading with the Minister to do once and for all what her predecessors have refused to, and outline what steps she is going to take to clean up our beach. That is the only way truly to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to and strength on this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure, as ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair. I thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for securing this debate on sewage pollution. Sewage is obviously quite a topic this week. I do not know whether securing this debate was a coincidence, but it is certainly the subject in which we have all been much immersed. Water quality is a Government priority and it has been one of my personal priorities since becoming the Environment Minister.
I want to get something very clear at the outset, as there were some somewhat aggressive comments right at the beginning of the hon. Member’s speech. This Government are totally committed to protecting the environment—that is why we are bringing forward the Environment Bill, a landmark piece of legislation—and totally committed to protecting our seas. Spurious comments made about the Government voting to allow raw sewage into the sea are completely inaccurate, as has now been pointed out on many fronts.
A really aggressive social media campaign is being run on this, to the detriment of many MPs, including death threats. We all need to act with a little more kindness and respect in this Chamber. We voted for six pages of measures in the Environment Bill when I was here last week at the Dispatch Box, and they are all things that will prevent raw sewage from going into the sea.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I would like to correct some of the Minister’s points. I was not aggressive; I was stating facts. I am very disappointed that people have had death threats, and of course I would not condone that. I was simply relaying facts and what happened in last week’s votes. If the Government were confident about last week’s votes, why on earth have they U-turned?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for that. There has been no U-turn whatever. As I said, we have six pages of clauses in the Environment Bill committing to reducing sewage in our watercourses, all with essential steps that we have to take in order to fully tackle this whole issue. We have now announced a legal duty on water companies to take action to reduce harm from overflows. I am going to outline all the overall measures that we are dedicated to in this Government. There has been no U-turn whatever. Again, that is spurious spinning of the facts. I want to get that on the record.
I will talk a little about the sewer systems, to get all that clear. Many of our sewer systems are combined systems where sewage is combined with rainwater. During and after heavy and prolonged rain, the capacity of combined sewer systems can be exceeded. Storm overflows were a design feature of the Victorian sewers. They act as a release valve to discharge excess sewage in rainwater into the rivers and the sea if the capacity of the sewage system is exceeded. This protects properties from flooding and from sewage backing up in these kinds of extreme weather. Historically, they were designed only to be used in very infrequent, exceptional weather, but water companies are now relying on them far too often. Water companies have failed to adequately reduce sewage discharges. That is unacceptable, and I have said so unequivocally. That is why we are taking action, particularly through the Environment Bill.
I want to lay out the sources of pollution that we are dealing with in our rivers and marine spaces. The largest contributor to water pollution is agriculture—that is, 40% of pollution—and the water industry accounts for 36% of water pollution. Of that, a fifth is from the storm sewage overflows, but four fifths is from water that is already treated in treatment works and goes into the river. A lot of that contains too much phosphate, for example, which is one of the things polluting our rivers. That is just to get this into perspective.
Clearly, action is necessary to tackle the issue on all fronts. That is why we are asking the water industry to do so much more on the environment. However, I want to put on the record that investment in this area since privatisation has been over £30 billion, so the water industry has actually invested a lot of money since 1990. Some £3.1 billion is being invested in storm overflows between 2020 and 2025. But to tackle the increasing pressures on our water environment, we really do need to do more. Reducing the frequency of the use of the storm sewage discharges is really important. On those grounds, I recently set up the storm overflow taskforce, which was tasked with a whole lot of assessments but also reporting back on what the cost of total elimination of the storm overflow outflows would be, as well as on a range of other combinations in reducing their use.
I want to take issue again with the stats. Nobody gave spurious statistics about this. The taskforce’s report is shortly to be published. I will share some stats with the hon. Member as she raised the issue and we need to get the record straight on that as well.
To reduce these overflows to zero, the taskforce has come back after much research to say that the cost would be between £150 billion and £300 billion. That would be done through increasing the size of the infrastructure, but there would still probably be some use of the overflows if we have massive storms. If we then wanted to completely separate our system so that we had one pipe for rainwater and one pipe for sewage, the taskforce estimate, after much research, that that would cost between £350 billion and £600 billion. The hon. Lady will be able to see that data clearly published, potentially tomorrow. We are happy to share that data with her just to get that really clear.
I have referred to some of the other measures that we are implementing to show we are determined as a Government to tackle the issue. We have set a new set of strategic priorities for the industry’s regulator, Ofwat. It is the first time any Government have set the direction in which water companies must take steps to significantly reduce the frequency and volume of sewage discharges from storm overflows. The regulator should ensure that funding should be approved to let the water companies do that. That is a really important point. As the Environment Secretary set out yesterday, we will now put that instruction on a firm legal footing. So no U-turns have occurred; this work was all in train. That direction will be enshrined in law.
I will just look in detail at the comprehensive measures we already voted for last week in the Environment Bill, which demonstrate we mean business on tackling storm sewage overflows. Together with the legal duty, the direction to Ofwat and the targets that will be set on water quality, the Bill will make a significant difference. Last week, on 20 October, the Government put forward six pages of new law on this issue, of which the hon. Member should be completely aware. Just in case she is not, I will run through what those things were.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister is being very generous. I am fully aware of what is in the Environment Bill. This debate this evening is about a particular issue that has been ongoing in my constituency for more than 20 years. I was hoping that the Minister would come here tonight to discuss that, not what the Government are going to do in the future. She is already aware of the problems at Whitburn; we have corresponded about it repeatedly. I would like to know what action will be taken for me and my constituents, because this problem is ruining our beach and has been for decades.
Rebecca Pow
I am very well aware of that, but it was the hon. Member who started on all these other, much wider areas, so I thought I would set the record straight. The point is—I will get to her area—that all these measures should and will make a difference in her area. That is the point.
There is a duty on the Government to publish a plan before September 2022 to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows, a duty on the Government to report to Parliament on implementing the plan, a duty on water companies to publish data on the storm overflow operation on an annual basis, and a duty on the Environment Agency to publish data on storm overflows from water companies.
Further amendments set clear objectives, such as a duty on water companies to report discharges occurring and ceasing in near real-time—within an hour. That should really help in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and she should be on that to make sure it happens. There is also a duty on water companies to put gadgetry up and downstream of the outflows to monitor them. Again, that will genuinely help if there is still a problem in her area.
We are looking at schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 on sustainable urban drainage and we are bringing in sewerage management plans. The water company in the hon. Lady’s area, like every water company, will now have to produce drainage and sewerage management plans so we can clearly see their power of direction and how they will reduce the use of storm overflows.
I now turn to the bit the hon. Lady has been waiting for on Whitburn. I hear what she said. My intelligence tells me that a great deal of work has been done in her area to intercept storm overflows and decrease the frequency of the discharges. I believe there is an out-to-sea discharge that is 1.5 km out.
The sewage interceptor scheme that protects the bathing waters that the hon. Lady mentioned was completed in 2017, as she said, at a cost of £10 million. The idea was to tackle any sewage discharges. The scheme includes a combination of storm water storage, removing surface water in sewers, and sustainable urban drainage systems—including, interestingly, rainwater gardens at some local schools. The stats tell us that the bathing waters have continued to receive excellent quality status, which is what we want for our bathing waters.
The stats and the intelligence that the hon. Lady has recounted tonight are contrary to the data that I have. On those grounds, I would be very happy to meet her to look at what she is saying. I am the Environment Minister and I care about water quality, so I am genuinely slightly mortified to hear that different data. Clearly, a lot of parties are involved and she seems to have engaged with many of them. I am happy to meet her, as I will any Member of Parliament who comes to me with any environmental issue that I think is not right. I will leave it there.
Question put and agreed to.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: Dr Rupa Huq
Begum, Apsana (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
† Bryant, Chris (Rhondda) (Lab)
† Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab)
† Fletcher, Colleen (Coventry North East) (Lab)
† Fletcher, Mark (Bolsover) (Con)
† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)
† Lewer, Andrew (Northampton South) (Con)
† Loder, Chris (West Dorset) (Con)
† Malhotra, Seema (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
† Moore, Damien (Southport) (Con)
† Pawsey, Mark (Rugby) (Con)
† Scully, Paul (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)
† Seely, Bob (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Sheerman, Mr Barry (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
† Stuart, Graham (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
† Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)
† Whittaker, Craig (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
Seb Newman, Guy Mathers, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Second Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 27 October 2021
[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
The Chair
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission—apart from me, who may have to speak at any moment. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room. I also ask Members to please send their speaking notes via email to our colleagues at Hansard. The address is hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers—the days of passing notes are gone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Huq. I beg to move that the Committee approves the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1091).
These regulations were laid before the House on 28 September 2021. We are here again discussing another snappily titled statutory instrument after the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduced a suite of permanent and temporary measures to help companies weather the effects of the pandemic. Most of those temporary measures, including the relaxation of wrongful trading, expired at the end of June this year. However, the restrictions on company winding-up protections were extended for a further three months until the end of September. Since their introduction, those restrictions—despite also being a severe restriction on creditors’ right to enforce recovery of their debts—have helped to protect from unnecessary insolvency the many businesses that were unable to trade due to the national lockdown periods.
Now that we are back to full trading, following the successful completion of the Government’s four-step road map out of lockdown on 19 July, the signs are indicative of a strong economic bounce back. However, many businesses—particularly those in the hospitality, retail and travel sectors that were most affected by the lockdown restrictions for over a year—have been acutely affected, and their solvency will be threatened by accrued debts and low cash reserves before they have been given a chance to trade their way back to financial health. They therefore need a further period of protections to allow them to do so, but as businesses are now trading normally and have been able to do so since the middle of June this year, it is right that any further period of protection given should recognise that fact and bring back some creditor rights.
As such, these regulations introduce a new form of restriction on winding up companies that is tapered from the version that has been in place since last year. To put it another way, we are still protecting those businesses that most need it; we are also promoting a gradual return to the normal functioning of the insolvency framework.
This instrument replaces the previous high bar for winding-up petitions on the ground of inability to pay debts introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act—which required that petitioners should satisfy a court that those debts were not covid-19 related—with new targeted criteria for creditors that seek to encourage dialogue with their debtors prior to pursuing a winding up. The new and temporary criteria for petitioning creditors that came into force on 1 October 2021 for a period of six months are threefold: a requirement for creditors to demonstrate that they have sought to negotiate repayment of a debt before seeking to wind a company up; that the debt owed must be at least £10,000; and that a company winding-up petition cannot be brought in respect of a commercial rent, as described by the provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020.
Starting with the first of the criteria, the new requirement for creditors to demonstrate that they have sought to negotiate the repayment of a debt, before presenting a winding-up petition, the creditor must send a notice to the company giving it 21 days to respond with proposals for paying the debt. Creditors will then be required to confirm to the court that they have sent the notice and whether they have received any proposals from the company, and if so, state why those proposals are not satisfactory. A creditor is not obliged to agree to the proposals put forward by the company. However, the court will be able to draw on its existing discretion to refuse to make a winding-up order where it appears that a creditor is attempting to abuse the winding-up process. The measure will reinforce the message that creditors and debtors should collaborate to find solutions to address arrears accrued as a result of the pandemic.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell us how many companies have taken advantage of this situation thus far, how many companies he expects to fall within this provision over the next few months, and how he has determined that this is the right process for us to adopt at this stage?
Paul Scully
It is difficult to assess that at the moment. We believe that it has helped companies to get through this process, but we are not able at the moment to ascertain an accurate figure.
The second of the temporary criteria is that, in order to present a company winding-up petition, the debt owed must be at least £10,000. For the most part, there is not normally a minimum amount that must be owed before a winding-up petition can be brought, although based on the statutory demand the debt must be at least £750. Analysis suggests that a temporary minimum debt level of £10,000 could prevent in the region of 15% of petitions that would otherwise be presented. They would largely be petitions against small and medium-sized enterprises, which are likely to have smaller debts and lower cash reserves and, as such, are most in need of additional support.
That £10,000 limit also aligns with the existing £10,000 limit for bringing a case to the small claims court, making it easily recognisable as a rule, to prevent winding-up petitions being presented for small businesses and small debts in the aftermath of the pandemic.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Will the Minister say whether those are debts that occurred before covid that are subject to the measures, or debts that have occurred since the commencement of the covid period?
Paul Scully
These are an extension of the existing provisions, which are specifically for covid-related debts.
The third and final criterion is that a company winding-up petition cannot be presented in respect of commercial rent until the end of March 2022. I should say that the point of the petition is not to stop companies that have accrued debt being wound up; it should be to allow the creditor the full rights to be able to do so. We are trying to give temporary relief to businesses that are otherwise hard-pressed, specifically because of the pandemic.
The Committee will be aware that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has announced an extension of the moratorium on the forfeiture of commercial tenancies until 25 March 2022. That is to allow time for the implementation through primary legislation of a rent arbitration scheme to help industry deal with the significant amount of commercial rental debts that have accrued during the national restrictions period.
The restrictions in the commercial rent arrears recovery scheme have been similarly extended. That measure serves not to undermine the proposed rent arbitration scheme before it is implemented, so commercial landlords will continue to operate under the previous restrictions for petitioning to wind up a company in respect of debts until the end of March 2022. We recognise that that measure might mean a further period of uncertainty for commercial landlords, who themselves might be struggling as a result of the pandemic. However, the rent arbitration scheme will deliver certainty to both the landlord and the tenant, where an agreement to pay down lockdown rent arrears has been unachievable.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am looking for clarity. I think the Minister said that this does not cover rent. Is that right? Could he give an example of the sort of debt that would be specific to this new extended legislation? Are we talking about a supplier not paying for goods that they have taken—that sort of thing? How is it proved that it is a covid-related debt under this legislation?
Paul Scully
I do not want to pre-empt deliberations on this, but if a business has been closed and is unable to trade, that would be more likely to be eligible. However, the commercial debt that was within the period that we have packaged and kept aside—effectively, from the beginning to the end of lockdown—has been bundled up and will be dealt with in the next set of legislation on mandatory arbitration, which we hope we will not need.
We hope that between now and completion of that legislation a lot of companies will be able to have those conversations between tenants and landlords, knowing that otherwise they will be forced into mandatory arbitration. We want people to be able to settle their own debts and have their own discussions. The rent debts that were accrued during lockdown are ring-fenced for the purpose of that arbitration scheme, but all commercial rents that are owed after 19 July 2021 should be paid in full, as and when they fall due.
In conclusion, these new targeted criteria demonstrate that the Government have listened to the concerns raised about the potential for a cliff edge for insolvencies, once the Government’s regulatory and fiscal support has ended. The new targeted criteria represent a balance between the rights of creditors and the further protections needed by the businesses most affected by the trading restrictions placed on them. The new criteria reinforce the Government’s clear message that discussion is absolutely crucial between creditors and the debtors, who should continue to negotiate where possible. If successful, those negotiations can result in both creditors and debtors achieving the same long-term goals of continued trading, repayment of debts and a return to profits, in turn bringing benefits to themselves, their employees and the wider economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question proposed,
That the Committee has considered the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1091).—(Paul Scully.)
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. May I thank the Minister for his opening remarks? I would be grateful to him if he could respond to some of my questions, either in response today or in writing. I want to know which business organisations the Minister spoke to before deciding to move forward with the tapering as it is and as proposed by the Government. How will he keep the measure under review? It is both an extension of some support and a withdrawal of other support in the way that it has been tapered, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda for the point he made in relation to that.
We believe that it is right to maintain restrictions on serving winding-up petitions under schedule 10 to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. It is vital that businesses that have sustained pressure during the last 18 months are supported right through to the end of the pandemic. We acknowledge and welcome the raised limit, and at least there is considerable protection for small businesses with debts below £10,000. That is important and is in line with the measures that we have called for since June, when other support was withdrawn, to ensure that there are effective ways to deal with debt through the period of recovery, so that we do not see the loss of viable businesses that are allowed to fail because of the impact of covid-19.
Let us face it: covid-19 is not over yet, and there is still uncertainty about what might happen going forward and whether there will be further restrictions. It is important that the Government make it clear to Parliament how there will be flexibility in relation to business support that will be in line with potentially changing health measures. In this context, the pressures facing businesses this winter must be taken into account as the Government keep the measure under review.
The challenges are numerous: rising energy prices, the Government’s supply chain crisis, price inflation and consumer confidence declining to its lowest level since April, compounded further by the Government’s cruel decision to cut universal credit for 6 million families. Why does that matter? Let me take my constituency as an example, with 18,000 households affected and £18 million coming out of the local economy—£18 million that would be spent largely in local shops. There is a relationship between the choices being made on cuts to universal credit and the support that there will be for small businesses as household income reduces, as people are able to spend less on looking after their families, which they do largely in community businesses.
This is a time when businesses should be experiencing their golden quarter—the quarter leading up to Christmas, when they can make the majority of their profits for the year in order to address the debt that they may have accrued during the periods before—but many businesses will still be fighting for their survival and having to respond to one crisis after another. I am sure that the Minister has received representations from affected businesses. I can state one example of a business that told me it had to refund £8,000-worth of customer purchases a month ago because the goods were not going to arrive due to the supply chain crisis.
This is affecting businesses up and down the country. The last two quarters have also seen more than 100,000 business deaths in each quarter—more than in any other subsequent quarters in the recent past. Without a more robust response, quarter 4 of 2021 and quarter 1 of next year will be worse. Against this backdrop, it is no wonder that business groups, including the Federation of Small Businesses, have warned of falling business confidence. The cash liquidity crisis, which is also facing various sectors of the economy, from aviation to retail and leisure, will continue well into 2022. It is important for us not to just assume and want to believe that things were suddenly magically better from July onwards, because a lot of the uncertainty remains.
That brings us to the extension of the restrictions, even with the tapering, which we do support, as we did last month with the extensions that we debated then. First, with regard to the two-day gap that was created by the initial version of this instrument, how many businesses were issued with winding-up orders on 29 and 30 September? Does the Minister have those figures? Will those businesses now benefit from the protections that they should have had?
Last time, we also noted our concern that the Government were legislating for businesses to be protected from eviction but not rent-induced liquidation. The Minister then spoke of legislation being introduced to support the resolution of commercial rent arrears for tenants that were affected by the restrictions during the pandemic. What is the status of that? Rent debt will remain an anvil around the necks of many businesses, particularly those in the hospitality and retail sectors, which have been impacted—sometimes most—by the pandemic.
That can also be the case in areas of tourism that were very significantly impacted. Some of that picked up this summer, but aviation has seen a very stuttering recovery. In relation to the aviation supply chain across the country, which includes hundreds of thousands of businesses, the Minister will know that there is still huge uncertainty as international travel and even domestic travel are still recovering. It is estimated that the hospitality sector alone is facing billions of pounds of rent debt.
Therefore, when it comes to lifting the measure of support, along with the business rate and VAT reductions and the eviction restrictions, much of which will happen in March, this could well lead to a real risk of a cliff-edge scenario for businesses, particularly those that have been hit hardest by the pandemic and are not in those sectors that are recovering more quickly. The tail of the recovery is set to continue well into next year and even the year after, so what assessment is being made of what the additional support might be and how that can be tailored to deal with the slower recovery of particular sectors?
Will the Minister also provide an update on the arbitration process that, I think, has been brought forward? On the detail of that in relation to rent arrears, I would be grateful for an update.
I will express just a few concerns about today’s SI. The legislation note describes the process, which the Minister outlined, of notice needing to be given, 21 days of consultation, and allowing a response from the debtor to then be taken into account. What happens if, unreasonably, the creditor does not wish to accept the proposal? Would that then be for the courts to decide? Could any court fees then be payable? If the debtor does not win the case against them, will they then be having to pay court fees as well? Perhaps the Minister can provide clarification, because I am not sure of the detail of that.
Could the Minister clarify one point? If the 21 days begins just a few days before the measures are due to end in March of next year, what does that mean for any of the disagreements going through between a creditor and a debtor? Will the 21 days that might start before the end of these provisions continue with those rights secured?
People may be concerned about their business, which might otherwise be viable but has been hit by covid and the continuing uncertainty over recovery. What are the Government doing to ensure that those who are concerned about the ending of the temporary insolvency measures seek effective early advice? I agree with R3 that businesses that seek advice early often have the best options open to them and the best advice to make decisions about their next steps. That often results in a more favourable outcome than if those businesses had waited and let problems spiral. What are the Government doing to make businesses aware of such advice? That may mean the involvement of grassroots business organisations.
If the Government are forced to introduce new measures this winter as a result of a health crisis that restricts business operations, will they review those measures and amend them as required? At a time when businesses need us most, the House should focus on how we support businesses not just to survive but to recover and thrive. They will be looking to us to make sure that support is not removed from businesses prematurely. That would have a catastrophic impact on businesses, high streets and communities across the country.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
The Scottish National party is happy to support the regulations but with a note of caution. If we allow a company to continue to trade in the circumstances outlined, we must be mindful of the potential impact that may have down the line on the cash flow of other companies that are not protected and may find their own position weakened. It is also important to recognise the limitations of the insolvency Act, because of itself it does very little to support indebted firms to insulate themselves from the impact of rising prices elsewhere in the economy, particularly in the months ahead. It is certainly no substitute in economic terms for the stimulation of overall aggregate demand and finding ways to reduce business outgoings in other ways.
I will be brief because there is a much, much bigger economic event happening later today, and I am certain that there are at least one or two dots and commas that have not been pre-trailed to the press that we will all be desperate to find out about. I wait in hope rather than in any great expectation, but we will see what develops. What the Chancellor should be doing is delivering the full £350 billion of coronavirus business interruption loan scheme support to the businesses that need it. That needs to happen. For those businesses that are in genuine difficulty those loans should be converted to grants. If the Chancellor does that this afternoon, he may find that the measures in the regulations before us this morning will be needed much less frequently than they might otherwise be in the months ahead. But those months are bound to be extremely difficult on a number of fronts for families, individuals and businesses.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I thought the Minister started admirably with the first half of his first sentence, when he said that it was a delight to sit under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. It then went all horribly wrong.
Chris Bryant
It did, because his next sentence was, “I beg to move that we approve this measure.” That is not what we are considering; we are only considering whether we have considered the matter.
I have a problem with secondary legislation, and it is an important point not least because we have considered so many pieces of secondary legislation in the past 18 months. I understand that there has been a pandemic but no other country in Europe, or anywhere else in the world, has used so much secondary legislation, which has gone through effectively on the nod, as we have in the UK. The problem with secondary legislation is that even if every single member of this Committee were to decide to vote against it, including the Minister, it would none the less go through, because we had “considered the matter” . It is just a fact that we would have considered the matter. I just wish that Ministers would get into their heads that we need a proper legislative process in this country. We have far too extensive use of secondary legislation and Henry VIII powers and it is time that we rolled back to legislating properly.
I specifically asked the Minister how he knows whether this is the right thing to do. Of course, the regulations say:
“Further to section 22(1) of that Act, the Secretary of State has considered the effect of these Regulations on persons likely to be affected by them.”
However, he just said that he has no idea whether the process we have been through has been useful. He thinks it might have been, but he does not know—he has no evidence to bring before us.
The regulations continue:
“Further to section 22(2) of that Act, the Secretary of State is satisfied that…the need for the provision made by these Regulations is urgent”.
The Minister has not proved that to the Committee in any shape or form. They then say that
“the provision made by these Regulations is proportionate to the purpose for which it is made”.
Again, he cannot assert that because he has no evidence on which the regulations are based.
The Minister referred to the end of covid and the Government successfully taking us through the process as if, in July, liberty day—whatever the Prime Minister called it—suddenly meant that we were all free and there was no need for any further restrictions. That we now have the highest level of infections of any country in Europe and the highest number of deaths due to covid should suggest to the Government that we are not quite through this yet. The Minister might say, “That’s one of the reasons why we still brought forward this legislation,” and that is undoubtedly why most of us would not want to oppose it, but I have important questions for him.
Why are the regulations extending the relevant period only to 31 March 2022? Is there a reason, or is it just sticking a finger in the air and saying, “Well, that feels like a sensible date”? I note that that is a few days short of the normal financial year—certainly the tax year. I wonder whether that is the right date.
In the schedule that will become the new schedule 10 to the Act, paragraph (2)(c) refers to “excluded debt”. It may be that I am being stupid and that I do not know the legislation as well as I should, but will the Minister tell us what “excluded debt” is? Finally, and again this may be because I am stupid and do not understand—I thought that might unite the Committee—I note that the territorial extent of the regulations is England, Wales and Scotland. Why is Northern Ireland not included? Of course, we have considered the regulations, but we are not approving them.
Paul Scully
I thank hon. Members for their interesting and valuable contributions to the debate. Forgive me, Dr Huq, for not using your correct nomenclature earlier.
We have been helping companies throughout all of this, and we continue to do so. I am not sure whether I said at any time that it was the end of covid. As I have been saying for many months, this is not like a zombie film where the baddie is killed—end of covid and roll the credits. That is not the case. We will be living with it for some time, hence why the hon. Member for Rhondda is wearing a mask and why we are extending the measures before the Committee. We must ensure that, whatever happens in the next few months, we can keep businesses trading as best we can.
I did ask the Committee to approve the regulations because, yes, it will have considered them, but I want it to approve them. That is why I am begging the Committee—
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman says that we are not, and that is fine, but I want to be able to go back to businesses and say that we are four-square behind them in helping them through the crisis.
On what we have done for businesses, which was mentioned in a couple of contributions, we have been in close dialogue with businesses, professional groups and other organisations such as the Insolvency Service right the way through the process of these regulations about their likely impact. Indeed, on insolvencies, I am not sure of the exact figures now, but throughout the majority of the emergency they were at a 40-year low. We were clearly supporting businesses. However, that will have an impact down the line when business that would probably have been insolvent in normal times but have been held up by the suite of Government’s emergency measures start to fall by the wayside. That is the normal business cycle and landscape. None the less, there are clear signs from our feedback from businesses, business representative groups and the Insolvency Service that this measure has been useful and helpful.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston asked about what happened within the two-year window. When we spotted the drafting error, we laid the new SI. There were no winding-up petitions within those two days. On what happens if a repayment proposal is rejected, a court cannot force a company to accept a repayment proposal, but it will be able to refuse to issue a winding-up order where a creditor may be attempting to abuse the winding-up process, for example.
We continue to work with businesses on a number of measures. The hon. Lady asked what other support we are giving to small businesses, especially as we go through the winter. We are continuing to flex with, and listen to, businesses. Indeed, once I leave this sitting I will speak to really hard-pressed businesses from the hospitality sector, to listen to them and see how they are getting on. We regularly check in to see what businesses conditions are like. Clearly, the Budget is coming up shortly; we will see what their feedback is afterwards, and how it will affect them. We continue to ensure that we can flex our support, help and measures within that sphere, having had that feedback.
Importantly, what we are doing is extending these measures. We picked a six-month extension. To date, we have been going in three-month chunks, so that creditors in particular do not feel that we are only looking after debtors, and not looking after their interests as well. As I said, it is really important that we get a balanced, proportionate view between the two sides.
Seema Malhotra
May I remind the Minister about the question on court fees? It would be helpful if he could come back to me on that. Also, no statutory review clause was introduced as part of the instrument. The explanatory memorandum says that
“the Government will continue to monitor the need for these measures”
and that
“the provisions in this instrument will automatically expire”,
I think on 25 March. Would it not be helpful to have a statutory review clause? Otherwise, it feels like we get bounced at the end, and sometimes after the event. It would be helpful to have some time to consider the changes made in advance.
Paul Scully
As I say, it is ongoing. We will not set a particular arbitrary date for a statutory review because things can change very quickly. We have seen that right the way through the past 18 months. We do not want to be bounced, as clearly happened at points last year when we were chasing the virus, which affected the decisions made. We have learned a lot of lessons from that, but putting in an arbitrary review date is not particularly helpful when we are ensuring that we continue to speak to businesses on a day-to-day basis. On court fees, this is a modification of the usual court process for winding up, so no new fees are involved.
The hon. Member for Rhondda asked about Northern Ireland. It has laid its own regulations extending the same temporary consultancy measures as the rest of the United Kingdom.
Chris Bryant
This starts on 31 October. Today is 27 October. How is that providing sensible provisions for businesses, when there are only four days before it comes into operation?
Paul Scully
We laid the SI before then, and there is a clear direction from the Insolvency Service and other business groups on the intention of what is happening. The courts are obviously aware of the landscape. Yes, the measures are coming to us for discussion only today, but they were laid before the House and are known to business groups, with which, as I say, we continue the conversation so that they can see the constant direction. Clearly, when the measures end on 31 March 2022 it is envisaged that the insolvency regime will return to its normal operation; however, as I have been stressing, as the effects of the pandemic continue to be felt the Government will keep the requirement for the measures, as we do for all measures, under review.
Seema Malhotra
May I just clarify the dates? I think some things have been 25 March, but this says 31 March. Are today’s measures retrospective, so from 1 October, and will they expire on 31 March?
Paul Scully
We have re-laid the SI so that there is no gap in provision. That is the key thing. It goes to 31 March 2022. I should say to the hon. Member for Rotherham, who spoke about debts—
Paul Scully
No, this was about the debts over and above rent. Utilities, tax and supplies are the three obvious ones that I probably should have mentioned. I think I have gone through most of the issues that were raised.
Sarah Champion
I do not know about these sorts of courts. I know about all the other courts, which have a massive backlog at the moment. Has the Minister estimated how long it would actually take to take this to court, and therefore how realistic the timeframe of the instrument is?
Paul Scully
Not in terms of the court cases themselves, but it is about the issuing of winding up. If someone starts issuing demands and then winding-up petitions, that blows a hole in the confidence of other suppliers and customers for businesses. It is the process of the petition itself, which can be done with paperwork, rather than the court hearing, which may come some way down the line, that is really key in the protection here. That is why we need to get it operative very quickly. We have all highlighted the importance of tapering the effects of the instrument, and ensuring that businesses can trade with confidence, and the certainty that we are living with covid.
Mark Pawsey
It is important to get it on the record that when we talk to businesses in our constituencies they are incredibly supportive of the measures that the Government have introduced to tide them over during the most difficult trading period for any business in a generation. Today’s measures are a proportionate step in getting us back to normality.
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for that. He is right, and he brings his own business experience to bear here. With these balanced and proportionate measures we are reiterating and emphasising that we want creditors and debtors to come together to solve their issues in a way that suits both of them, so that they have a trading relationship in the future and we protect as many businesses, consumers, jobs and opportunities as possible, so that we can continue our strong recovery. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1091).
Committee rose.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission—apart from me, who may have to speak at any moment. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room. I also ask Members to please send their speaking notes via email to our colleagues at Hansard. The address is hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers—the days of passing notes are gone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Huq. I beg to move that the Committee approves the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1091).
These regulations were laid before the House on 28 September 2021. We are here again discussing another snappily titled statutory instrument after the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduced a suite of permanent and temporary measures to help companies weather the effects of the pandemic. Most of those temporary measures, including the relaxation of wrongful trading, expired at the end of June this year. However, the restrictions on company winding-up protections were extended for a further three months until the end of September. Since their introduction, those restrictions—despite also being a severe restriction on creditors’ right to enforce recovery of their debts—have helped to protect from unnecessary insolvency the many businesses that were unable to trade due to the national lockdown periods.
Now that we are back to full trading, following the successful completion of the Government’s four-step road map out of lockdown on 19 July, the signs are indicative of a strong economic bounce back. However, many businesses—particularly those in the hospitality, retail and travel sectors that were most affected by the lockdown restrictions for over a year—have been acutely affected, and their solvency will be threatened by accrued debts and low cash reserves before they have been given a chance to trade their way back to financial health. They therefore need a further period of protections to allow them to do so, but as businesses are now trading normally and have been able to do so since the middle of June this year, it is right that any further period of protection given should recognise that fact and bring back some creditor rights.
As such, these regulations introduce a new form of restriction on winding up companies that is tapered from the version that has been in place since last year. To put it another way, we are still protecting those businesses that most need it; we are also promoting a gradual return to the normal functioning of the insolvency framework.
This instrument replaces the previous high bar for winding-up petitions on the ground of inability to pay debts introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act—which required that petitioners should satisfy a court that those debts were not covid-19 related—with new targeted criteria for creditors that seek to encourage dialogue with their debtors prior to pursuing a winding up. The new and temporary criteria for petitioning creditors that came into force on 1 October 2021 for a period of six months are threefold: a requirement for creditors to demonstrate that they have sought to negotiate repayment of a debt before seeking to wind a company up; that the debt owed must be at least £10,000; and that a company winding-up petition cannot be brought in respect of a commercial rent, as described by the provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020.
Starting with the first of the criteria, the new requirement for creditors to demonstrate that they have sought to negotiate the repayment of a debt, before presenting a winding-up petition, the creditor must send a notice to the company giving it 21 days to respond with proposals for paying the debt. Creditors will then be required to confirm to the court that they have sent the notice and whether they have received any proposals from the company, and if so, state why those proposals are not satisfactory. A creditor is not obliged to agree to the proposals put forward by the company. However, the court will be able to draw on its existing discretion to refuse to make a winding-up order where it appears that a creditor is attempting to abuse the winding-up process. The measure will reinforce the message that creditors and debtors should collaborate to find solutions to address arrears accrued as a result of the pandemic.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell us how many companies have taken advantage of this situation thus far, how many companies he expects to fall within this provision over the next few months, and how he has determined that this is the right process for us to adopt at this stage?
Paul Scully
It is difficult to assess that at the moment. We believe that it has helped companies to get through this process, but we are not able at the moment to ascertain an accurate figure.
The second of the temporary criteria is that, in order to present a company winding-up petition, the debt owed must be at least £10,000. For the most part, there is not normally a minimum amount that must be owed before a winding-up petition can be brought, although based on the statutory demand the debt must be at least £750. Analysis suggests that a temporary minimum debt level of £10,000 could prevent in the region of 15% of petitions that would otherwise be presented. They would largely be petitions against small and medium-sized enterprises, which are likely to have smaller debts and lower cash reserves and, as such, are most in need of additional support.
That £10,000 limit also aligns with the existing £10,000 limit for bringing a case to the small claims court, making it easily recognisable as a rule, to prevent winding-up petitions being presented for small businesses and small debts in the aftermath of the pandemic.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Will the Minister say whether those are debts that occurred before covid that are subject to the measures, or debts that have occurred since the commencement of the covid period?
Paul Scully
These are an extension of the existing provisions, which are specifically for covid-related debts.
The third and final criterion is that a company winding-up petition cannot be presented in respect of commercial rent until the end of March 2022. I should say that the point of the petition is not to stop companies that have accrued debt being wound up; it should be to allow the creditor the full rights to be able to do so. We are trying to give temporary relief to businesses that are otherwise hard-pressed, specifically because of the pandemic.
The Committee will be aware that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has announced an extension of the moratorium on the forfeiture of commercial tenancies until 25 March 2022. That is to allow time for the implementation through primary legislation of a rent arbitration scheme to help industry deal with the significant amount of commercial rental debts that have accrued during the national restrictions period.
The restrictions in the commercial rent arrears recovery scheme have been similarly extended. That measure serves not to undermine the proposed rent arbitration scheme before it is implemented, so commercial landlords will continue to operate under the previous restrictions for petitioning to wind up a company in respect of debts until the end of March 2022. We recognise that that measure might mean a further period of uncertainty for commercial landlords, who themselves might be struggling as a result of the pandemic. However, the rent arbitration scheme will deliver certainty to both the landlord and the tenant, where an agreement to pay down lockdown rent arrears has been unachievable.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am looking for clarity. I think the Minister said that this does not cover rent. Is that right? Could he give an example of the sort of debt that would be specific to this new extended legislation? Are we talking about a supplier not paying for goods that they have taken—that sort of thing? How is it proved that it is a covid-related debt under this legislation?
Paul Scully
I do not want to pre-empt deliberations on this, but if a business has been closed and is unable to trade, that would be more likely to be eligible. However, the commercial debt that was within the period that we have packaged and kept aside—effectively, from the beginning to the end of lockdown—has been bundled up and will be dealt with in the next set of legislation on mandatory arbitration, which we hope we will not need.
We hope that between now and completion of that legislation a lot of companies will be able to have those conversations between tenants and landlords, knowing that otherwise they will be forced into mandatory arbitration. We want people to be able to settle their own debts and have their own discussions. The rent debts that were accrued during lockdown are ring-fenced for the purpose of that arbitration scheme, but all commercial rents that are owed after 19 July 2021 should be paid in full, as and when they fall due.
In conclusion, these new targeted criteria demonstrate that the Government have listened to the concerns raised about the potential for a cliff edge for insolvencies, once the Government’s regulatory and fiscal support has ended. The new targeted criteria represent a balance between the rights of creditors and the further protections needed by the businesses most affected by the trading restrictions placed on them. The new criteria reinforce the Government’s clear message that discussion is absolutely crucial between creditors and the debtors, who should continue to negotiate where possible. If successful, those negotiations can result in both creditors and debtors achieving the same long-term goals of continued trading, repayment of debts and a return to profits, in turn bringing benefits to themselves, their employees and the wider economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question proposed,
That the Committee has considered the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1091).—(Paul Scully.)
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. May I thank the Minister for his opening remarks? I would be grateful to him if he could respond to some of my questions, either in response today or in writing. I want to know which business organisations the Minister spoke to before deciding to move forward with the tapering as it is and as proposed by the Government. How will he keep the measure under review? It is both an extension of some support and a withdrawal of other support in the way that it has been tapered, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda for the point he made in relation to that.
We believe that it is right to maintain restrictions on serving winding-up petitions under schedule 10 to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. It is vital that businesses that have sustained pressure during the last 18 months are supported right through to the end of the pandemic. We acknowledge and welcome the raised limit, and at least there is considerable protection for small businesses with debts below £10,000. That is important and is in line with the measures that we have called for since June, when other support was withdrawn, to ensure that there are effective ways to deal with debt through the period of recovery, so that we do not see the loss of viable businesses that are allowed to fail because of the impact of covid-19.
Let us face it: covid-19 is not over yet, and there is still uncertainty about what might happen going forward and whether there will be further restrictions. It is important that the Government make it clear to Parliament how there will be flexibility in relation to business support that will be in line with potentially changing health measures. In this context, the pressures facing businesses this winter must be taken into account as the Government keep the measure under review.
The challenges are numerous: rising energy prices, the Government’s supply chain crisis, price inflation and consumer confidence declining to its lowest level since April, compounded further by the Government’s cruel decision to cut universal credit for 6 million families. Why does that matter? Let me take my constituency as an example, with 18,000 households affected and £18 million coming out of the local economy—£18 million that would be spent largely in local shops. There is a relationship between the choices being made on cuts to universal credit and the support that there will be for small businesses as household income reduces, as people are able to spend less on looking after their families, which they do largely in community businesses.
This is a time when businesses should be experiencing their golden quarter—the quarter leading up to Christmas, when they can make the majority of their profits for the year in order to address the debt that they may have accrued during the periods before—but many businesses will still be fighting for their survival and having to respond to one crisis after another. I am sure that the Minister has received representations from affected businesses. I can state one example of a business that told me it had to refund £8,000-worth of customer purchases a month ago because the goods were not going to arrive due to the supply chain crisis.
This is affecting businesses up and down the country. The last two quarters have also seen more than 100,000 business deaths in each quarter—more than in any other subsequent quarters in the recent past. Without a more robust response, quarter 4 of 2021 and quarter 1 of next year will be worse. Against this backdrop, it is no wonder that business groups, including the Federation of Small Businesses, have warned of falling business confidence. The cash liquidity crisis, which is also facing various sectors of the economy, from aviation to retail and leisure, will continue well into 2022. It is important for us not to just assume and want to believe that things were suddenly magically better from July onwards, because a lot of the uncertainty remains.
That brings us to the extension of the restrictions, even with the tapering, which we do support, as we did last month with the extensions that we debated then. First, with regard to the two-day gap that was created by the initial version of this instrument, how many businesses were issued with winding-up orders on 29 and 30 September? Does the Minister have those figures? Will those businesses now benefit from the protections that they should have had?
Last time, we also noted our concern that the Government were legislating for businesses to be protected from eviction but not rent-induced liquidation. The Minister then spoke of legislation being introduced to support the resolution of commercial rent arrears for tenants that were affected by the restrictions during the pandemic. What is the status of that? Rent debt will remain an anvil around the necks of many businesses, particularly those in the hospitality and retail sectors, which have been impacted—sometimes most—by the pandemic.
That can also be the case in areas of tourism that were very significantly impacted. Some of that picked up this summer, but aviation has seen a very stuttering recovery. In relation to the aviation supply chain across the country, which includes hundreds of thousands of businesses, the Minister will know that there is still huge uncertainty as international travel and even domestic travel are still recovering. It is estimated that the hospitality sector alone is facing billions of pounds of rent debt.
Therefore, when it comes to lifting the measure of support, along with the business rate and VAT reductions and the eviction restrictions, much of which will happen in March, this could well lead to a real risk of a cliff-edge scenario for businesses, particularly those that have been hit hardest by the pandemic and are not in those sectors that are recovering more quickly. The tail of the recovery is set to continue well into next year and even the year after, so what assessment is being made of what the additional support might be and how that can be tailored to deal with the slower recovery of particular sectors?
Will the Minister also provide an update on the arbitration process that, I think, has been brought forward? On the detail of that in relation to rent arrears, I would be grateful for an update.
I will express just a few concerns about today’s SI. The legislation note describes the process, which the Minister outlined, of notice needing to be given, 21 days of consultation, and allowing a response from the debtor to then be taken into account. What happens if, unreasonably, the creditor does not wish to accept the proposal? Would that then be for the courts to decide? Could any court fees then be payable? If the debtor does not win the case against them, will they then be having to pay court fees as well? Perhaps the Minister can provide clarification, because I am not sure of the detail of that.
Could the Minister clarify one point? If the 21 days begins just a few days before the measures are due to end in March of next year, what does that mean for any of the disagreements going through between a creditor and a debtor? Will the 21 days that might start before the end of these provisions continue with those rights secured?
People may be concerned about their business, which might otherwise be viable but has been hit by covid and the continuing uncertainty over recovery. What are the Government doing to ensure that those who are concerned about the ending of the temporary insolvency measures seek effective early advice? I agree with R3 that businesses that seek advice early often have the best options open to them and the best advice to make decisions about their next steps. That often results in a more favourable outcome than if those businesses had waited and let problems spiral. What are the Government doing to make businesses aware of such advice? That may mean the involvement of grassroots business organisations.
If the Government are forced to introduce new measures this winter as a result of a health crisis that restricts business operations, will they review those measures and amend them as required? At a time when businesses need us most, the House should focus on how we support businesses not just to survive but to recover and thrive. They will be looking to us to make sure that support is not removed from businesses prematurely. That would have a catastrophic impact on businesses, high streets and communities across the country.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
The Scottish National party is happy to support the regulations but with a note of caution. If we allow a company to continue to trade in the circumstances outlined, we must be mindful of the potential impact that may have down the line on the cash flow of other companies that are not protected and may find their own position weakened. It is also important to recognise the limitations of the insolvency Act, because of itself it does very little to support indebted firms to insulate themselves from the impact of rising prices elsewhere in the economy, particularly in the months ahead. It is certainly no substitute in economic terms for the stimulation of overall aggregate demand and finding ways to reduce business outgoings in other ways.
I will be brief because there is a much, much bigger economic event happening later today, and I am certain that there are at least one or two dots and commas that have not been pre-trailed to the press that we will all be desperate to find out about. I wait in hope rather than in any great expectation, but we will see what develops. What the Chancellor should be doing is delivering the full £350 billion of coronavirus business interruption loan scheme support to the businesses that need it. That needs to happen. For those businesses that are in genuine difficulty those loans should be converted to grants. If the Chancellor does that this afternoon, he may find that the measures in the regulations before us this morning will be needed much less frequently than they might otherwise be in the months ahead. But those months are bound to be extremely difficult on a number of fronts for families, individuals and businesses.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I thought the Minister started admirably with the first half of his first sentence, when he said that it was a delight to sit under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. It then went all horribly wrong.
Chris Bryant
It did, because his next sentence was, “I beg to move that we approve this measure.” That is not what we are considering; we are only considering whether we have considered the matter.
I have a problem with secondary legislation, and it is an important point not least because we have considered so many pieces of secondary legislation in the past 18 months. I understand that there has been a pandemic but no other country in Europe, or anywhere else in the world, has used so much secondary legislation, which has gone through effectively on the nod, as we have in the UK. The problem with secondary legislation is that even if every single member of this Committee were to decide to vote against it, including the Minister, it would none the less go through, because we had “considered the matter” . It is just a fact that we would have considered the matter. I just wish that Ministers would get into their heads that we need a proper legislative process in this country. We have far too extensive use of secondary legislation and Henry VIII powers and it is time that we rolled back to legislating properly.
I specifically asked the Minister how he knows whether this is the right thing to do. Of course, the regulations say:
“Further to section 22(1) of that Act, the Secretary of State has considered the effect of these Regulations on persons likely to be affected by them.”
However, he just said that he has no idea whether the process we have been through has been useful. He thinks it might have been, but he does not know—he has no evidence to bring before us.
The regulations continue:
“Further to section 22(2) of that Act, the Secretary of State is satisfied that…the need for the provision made by these Regulations is urgent”.
The Minister has not proved that to the Committee in any shape or form. They then say that
“the provision made by these Regulations is proportionate to the purpose for which it is made”.
Again, he cannot assert that because he has no evidence on which the regulations are based.
The Minister referred to the end of covid and the Government successfully taking us through the process as if, in July, liberty day—whatever the Prime Minister called it—suddenly meant that we were all free and there was no need for any further restrictions. That we now have the highest level of infections of any country in Europe and the highest number of deaths due to covid should suggest to the Government that we are not quite through this yet. The Minister might say, “That’s one of the reasons why we still brought forward this legislation,” and that is undoubtedly why most of us would not want to oppose it, but I have important questions for him.
Why are the regulations extending the relevant period only to 31 March 2022? Is there a reason, or is it just sticking a finger in the air and saying, “Well, that feels like a sensible date”? I note that that is a few days short of the normal financial year—certainly the tax year. I wonder whether that is the right date.
In the schedule that will become the new schedule 10 to the Act, paragraph (2)(c) refers to “excluded debt”. It may be that I am being stupid and that I do not know the legislation as well as I should, but will the Minister tell us what “excluded debt” is? Finally, and again this may be because I am stupid and do not understand—I thought that might unite the Committee—I note that the territorial extent of the regulations is England, Wales and Scotland. Why is Northern Ireland not included? Of course, we have considered the regulations, but we are not approving them.
Paul Scully
I thank hon. Members for their interesting and valuable contributions to the debate. Forgive me, Dr Huq, for not using your correct nomenclature earlier.
We have been helping companies throughout all of this, and we continue to do so. I am not sure whether I said at any time that it was the end of covid. As I have been saying for many months, this is not like a zombie film where the baddie is killed—end of covid and roll the credits. That is not the case. We will be living with it for some time, hence why the hon. Member for Rhondda is wearing a mask and why we are extending the measures before the Committee. We must ensure that, whatever happens in the next few months, we can keep businesses trading as best we can.
I did ask the Committee to approve the regulations because, yes, it will have considered them, but I want it to approve them. That is why I am begging the Committee—
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman says that we are not, and that is fine, but I want to be able to go back to businesses and say that we are four-square behind them in helping them through the crisis.
On what we have done for businesses, which was mentioned in a couple of contributions, we have been in close dialogue with businesses, professional groups and other organisations such as the Insolvency Service right the way through the process of these regulations about their likely impact. Indeed, on insolvencies, I am not sure of the exact figures now, but throughout the majority of the emergency they were at a 40-year low. We were clearly supporting businesses. However, that will have an impact down the line when business that would probably have been insolvent in normal times but have been held up by the suite of Government’s emergency measures start to fall by the wayside. That is the normal business cycle and landscape. None the less, there are clear signs from our feedback from businesses, business representative groups and the Insolvency Service that this measure has been useful and helpful.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston asked about what happened within the two-day window. When we spotted the drafting error, we laid the new SI. There were no winding-up petitions within those two days. On what happens if a repayment proposal is rejected, a court cannot force a company to accept a repayment proposal, but it will be able to refuse to issue a winding-up order where a creditor may be attempting to abuse the winding-up process, for example.
We continue to work with businesses on a number of measures. The hon. Lady asked what other support we are giving to small businesses, especially as we go through the winter. We are continuing to flex with, and listen to, businesses. Indeed, once I leave this sitting I will speak to really hard-pressed businesses from the hospitality sector, to listen to them and see how they are getting on. We regularly check in to see what businesses conditions are like. Clearly, the Budget is coming up shortly; we will see what their feedback is afterwards, and how it will affect them. We continue to ensure that we can flex our support, help and measures within that sphere, having had that feedback.
Importantly, what we are doing is extending these measures. We picked a six-month extension. To date, we have been going in three-month chunks, so that creditors in particular do not feel that we are only looking after debtors, and not looking after their interests as well. As I said, it is really important that we get a balanced, proportionate view between the two sides.
Seema Malhotra
May I remind the Minister about the question on court fees? It would be helpful if he could come back to me on that. Also, no statutory review clause was introduced as part of the instrument. The explanatory memorandum says that
“the Government will continue to monitor the need for these measures”
and that
“the provisions in this instrument will automatically expire”,
I think on 25 March. Would it not be helpful to have a statutory review clause? Otherwise, it feels like we get bounced at the end, and sometimes after the event. It would be helpful to have some time to consider the changes made in advance.
Paul Scully
As I say, it is ongoing. We will not set a particular arbitrary date for a statutory review because things can change very quickly. We have seen that right the way through the past 18 months. We do not want to be bounced, as clearly happened at points last year when we were chasing the virus, which affected the decisions made. We have learned a lot of lessons from that, but putting in an arbitrary review date is not particularly helpful when we are ensuring that we continue to speak to businesses on a day-to-day basis. On court fees, this is a modification of the usual court process for winding up, so no new fees are involved.
The hon. Member for Rhondda asked about Northern Ireland. It has laid its own regulations extending the same temporary consultancy measures as the rest of the United Kingdom.
Chris Bryant
This starts on 31 October. Today is 27 October. How is that providing sensible provisions for businesses, when there are only four days before it comes into operation?
Paul Scully
We laid the SI before then, and there is a clear direction from the Insolvency Service and other business groups on the intention of what is happening. The courts are obviously aware of the landscape. Yes, the measures are coming to us for discussion only today, but they were laid before the House and are known to business groups, with which, as I say, we continue the conversation so that they can see the constant direction. Clearly, when the measures end on 31 March 2022 it is envisaged that the insolvency regime will return to its normal operation; however, as I have been stressing, as the effects of the pandemic continue to be felt the Government will keep the requirement for the measures, as we do for all measures, under review.
Seema Malhotra
May I just clarify the dates? I think some things have been 25 March, but this says 31 March. Are today’s measures retrospective, so from 1 October, and will they expire on 31 March?
Paul Scully
We have re-laid the SI so that there is no gap in provision. That is the key thing. It goes to 31 March 2022. I should say to the hon. Member for Rotherham, who spoke about debts—
Paul Scully
No, this was about the debts over and above rent. Utilities, tax and supplies are the three obvious ones that I probably should have mentioned. I think I have gone through most of the issues that were raised.
Sarah Champion
I do not know about these sorts of courts. I know about all the other courts, which have a massive backlog at the moment. Has the Minister estimated how long it would actually take to take this to court, and therefore how realistic the timeframe of the instrument is?
Paul Scully
Not in terms of the court cases themselves, but it is about the issuing of winding up. If someone starts issuing demands and then winding-up petitions, that blows a hole in the confidence of other suppliers and customers for businesses. It is the process of the petition itself, which can be done with paperwork, rather than the court hearing, which may come some way down the line, that is really key in the protection here. That is why we need to get it operative very quickly. We have all highlighted the importance of tapering the effects of the instrument, and ensuring that businesses can trade with confidence, and the certainty that we are living with covid.
Mark Pawsey
It is important to get it on the record that when we talk to businesses in our constituencies they are incredibly supportive of the measures that the Government have introduced to tide them over during the most difficult trading period for any business in a generation. Today’s measures are a proportionate step in getting us back to normality.
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for that. He is right, and he brings his own business experience to bear here. With these balanced and proportionate measures we are reiterating and emphasising that we want creditors and debtors to come together to solve their issues in a way that suits both of them, so that they have a trading relationship in the future and we protect as many businesses, consumers, jobs and opportunities as possible, so that we can continue our strong recovery. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1091).
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. Yesterday, it emerged that the Prime Minister’s pleading at the G7 and the United Nations to deliver £100 billion of climate finance has failed. With that, we had another example of the waning global influence of this Government in retreat. I had hoped that the new Foreign and Development Secretary would have put a stop to that, but her first act was to sign off on savage aid cuts to climate programmes and climate-vulnerable countries, disproportionately impacting women and girls, weeks before the most important climate summit of our lifetime. Does the Secretary of State agree that cuts to programmes such as the green economic growth initiative to preserve Papua’s 90% forest cover, and cuts to the aid budget, have actively undermined the UK’s ability to deliver not only at the conference of the parties, but on the world stage, exposing global Britain as little more than a slogan?
Elizabeth Truss
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis at all. We are making very positive progress on COP26; only this morning, we heard Australia’s announcement about its commitment to net zero. I am looking forward to attending COP in Glasgow next week and presenting a very ambitious finance package. Only a few weeks ago, when we were in the United States, we saw it commit to over £11 billion of climate finance. There are trillions available in the private sector that we will be unlocking to deal with the climate crisis.
[Official Report, 26 October 2021, Vol. 702, c. 134.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill).
The correct response should have been:
Elizabeth Truss
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis at all. We are making very positive progress on COP26; only this morning, we heard Australia’s announcement about its commitment to net zero. I am looking forward to attending COP in Glasgow next week and presenting a very ambitious finance package. Only a few weeks ago, when we were in the United States, we saw it commit to over $11 billion of climate finance. There are trillions available in the private sector that we will be unlocking to deal with the climate crisis.
Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Bill
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good morning. Before we begin our scrutiny, I have to make a few preliminary remarks. I remind members of the Committee to switch off or silence any electronic devices. I encourage hon. Members to wear masks when they are not speaking; this is in line with the current guidance of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give one another and members of staff space, both while seated and when entering and leaving the room. I remind everyone that they are asked by the House to have a lateral flow test twice a week if they are coming on to the parliamentary estate; this can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if hon. Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes @parliament.uk.
My selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available online and in the Committee Room. No amendments have been tabled.
Clause 1
Extension of duty to provide careers guidance in schools
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am grateful to you and to fellow Committee members for joining me today. We have an opportunity to drill down into the finer detail of this important legislation, which will ultimately make a positive difference in the lives of young people across England.
At present, the statutory duty to provide careers guidance falls on maintained schools, special schools and pupil referral units, but not academies, although many academies now have that duty through their funding agreement. The Bill would address that anomaly by placing the same requirement on all types of state-funded secondary school.
Addressing these disparities will ensure consistency across the board, and is central to the creation of a more level playing field. We cannot leave the future of our young people to blind chance. Whether a child succeeds or fails cannot be determined by a postcode lottery. If we mean what we say when we talk about levelling up—if the phrase is to be more than a political slogan—we are duty-bound to address these anomalies and embrace the spirit of greater fairness.
Equality of opportunity must be embedded in the education system. Advice must be consistent, of the highest quality and accessible to everyone. It is also important that we give our young people the best careers advice as early as possible. It has to start at the very earliest opportunity, and it must be regular and ongoing as they make their journey through school towards their chosen career. Such early, regular interventions will not only equip them for the world of work, but stop them straying down a dead end. It will light their way to greater things.
Many of us spend much of our life in work. It is therefore important that we give our young people the tools to find a career that suits their personality and talents and that they find rewarding. Choices made at school help to define what we achieve, and even how happy and fulfilled we are later in life.
I am not surprised that many young people are anxious and uncertain about their education and employment prospects in these unprecedented times. Covid has brought huge disruption and forced many young people to re-evaluate their options. Unexpected change and challenges can open new doors, encourage us to be adaptable in our goals and help us to discover reserves of resilience and even talents that we did not know we had, but we must also have the appropriate support and guidance in place to help young people negotiate the obstacles and encourage them to make the most of their talents.
I am deeply conscious of the stark disadvantages facing many young people who have so much to contribute but are often written off too soon. Giving children access to good careers advice is one of the most effective ways of addressing that inequality. Providing enhanced careers guidance also makes financial sense as we build back better, because it will contribute to the high-skills, high-productivity recovery that we seek to develop. It will support all young people in developing the skills and attributes to succeed in the workplace, and in some cases it will nurture the community leaders of the future. The Bill would therefore extend careers guidance from year 8 down to year 7 to ensure that our children are given the best information to make the best choices.
Creating this level playing field will also give Ofsted the tools that it needs to guarantee that our children benefit from first-rate careers advice. As a direct result of the Bill, approximately 650,000 year 7 pupils across England will be entitled to additional careers guidance. The Bill will introduce additional provision for 2,700 academies. It will put into statute the Government’s commitment in the White Paper, “Skills for Jobs: Lifelong Learning for Opportunity and Growth”, to the UK’s post-pandemic recovery, and it will build on the important work already under way to develop a coherent and well established career guidance system.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this private Member’s Bill forward, and thank the Minister for his hard work in this field. As we know, the matter of skills in schools is absolutely, utterly vital. The extension of careers guidance to those in year 7 is important, because as my hon. Friend said, quite often, children and teachers do not really know what opportunities are available on their doorstep. In seats such as mine of Great Grimsby, and in Workington and other red wall seats, we see a disparity: children do well in primary school, but we lose that impetus when they get into secondary school. Careers guidance, making school relevant to young people, and teachers interacting more effectively with local business leaders and companies will make a real change to progress and attainment in schools. I congratulate and support my hon. Friend wholeheartedly.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
It is the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I am grateful for the chance to do so. I again pay tribute to the hon. Member for Workington for bringing forward the Bill; I did so on the Floor of the House, and am happy to repeat the compliment today, because it is a real tribute to him that he has got the Bill this far. Speaking as a relatively new MP, I have to say to him that getting a private Member’s Bill past Second Reading on the Floor of the Commons and into Committee is the political equivalent of getting a golden ticket to Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory—not that I am calling anybody here an Oompa-Loompa, and especially not you, Mr Davies.
At a time when businesses around the country are facing massive skills shortages, it is vital that careers education matches the scale of the challenge, and the hon. Member for Workington understands this. We welcome the Bill. It is short, but its significance is not dampened by its brevity—if anything, it is enhanced by it.
For years, both main parties have been gripped by the debate on structural reforms in schools. Academies were, after all, a Labour invention spearheaded by Lord Adonis and others as a way of turning around failing schools. We stood against the forced academisation of large swathes of schools throughout the 2010s, and do not support universal academisation now, but given the years of disruption caused by structural reform, our immediate focus now must be on making sure that all schools deliver top-quality preparation for life, no matter their governance arrangements. Many academies have replaced local authority control with governance by a multi-academy trust that pools expertise and resources among a group of similar schools. Most of these trusts are highly effective, but a minority has been marred by accusations of off-rolling and high executive pay.
All schools, regardless of their governance structure, should provide excellent careers education. That is the outcome that the hon. Gentleman’s Bill seeks to deliver. The Labour party will always welcome steps towards embedding careers education in schools, and elevating its position and importance, yet only 30% of schools and colleges have stable careers programmes. That is not in the interests of pupils, schools, businesses or the whole economy—a point worth making on Budget day.
Expansion of the legal duty is welcome, but the Government must go further. Cuts to schools’ budgets have had a real-terms impact on the ability to provide high-quality careers education. When budgets are tight, school leaders are forced to prioritise traditional academic subjects. That is not helped by the Government’s narrow curriculum reforms over recent years. Where is the Government’s engagement with business? Where is the strategic vision? During the Labour conference, the Leader of the Opposition laid out an ambitious programme to ensure that every child leaves school job-ready and life-ready. Now is the time for the Government to meet that ambition for young people. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Workington.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this, my first Bill Committee as a Minister, Mr Davies. I hope it is not my last. I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Workington; he is, as the hon. Member for Hove said, the boy with the golden ticket. He may remember what happens to the boy who finds that golden ticket: Charlie goes on to run the chocolate factory. I can think of no finer job for my hon. Friend. It is a real achievement to get this Bill into Committee, and we in the Government are delighted to support it, because it really supports the aims of our skills reform agenda, which will drive up the quality and availability of technical skills for young people, and that will help them to get the great jobs that they deserve—the great jobs of tomorrow.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who has gone on to an even greater job, in the Department of Health. I cannot hope to match her panache and stylishness, but I promise the House that I will do my best for this agenda, because it is something I believe in deeply. I also thank the Opposition for their support for the Bill and the cross-party consensus that has broken out over this important agenda. I hope such consensus will continue throughout the day, as we go on to the Chancellor’s statement.
The Government support the Bill because we want to level up opportunity. The reforms set out in our “Skills for Jobs” White Paper will give people a genuine choice between a high-quality technical route and a high-quality academic route. As part of that, it is vital that everyone has access to careers guidance of the very highest standard.
Alex Burghart
I am honoured to give way to my opposite number for the first time.
Mr Perkins
Does the Minister agree that in order to meet the careers guidance needs of every child, we need to meet every child, and so every child should be entitled to face-to-face careers guidance during their career journey?
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I know that we will not always agree as we stand opposite each other, but I know that he cares deeply about the prospects for young people, and I hope he respects that I do, too. Obviously, it is important that young people get high-quality careers advice, and it would be difficult to justify giving that without a degree of face-to-face support, but we respect schools’ abilities to find new, interesting ways of delivering this agenda.
As we emerge from the pandemic, it is important that we make sure that all young people have access to high-quality guidance, because if they do not, they will not know whether they are making the right choices and taking the right opportunities.
Sally-Ann Hart
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the fact that the Bill has been extended to alternative provision academies matters a lot, because some of the most vulnerable children from disadvantaged backgrounds are in alternative provision, and we really need to get them the same opportunities as all other children?
Alex Burghart
I could not have put it better myself. It is very important that everyone in state education, particularly young people with the most disadvantaged starts in life, has these opportunities, and that is what the Bill will achieve. Having at different times of my career worked closely with those who run alternative provision, I know, as does my hon. Friend, that they have an extraordinary job on their hands. The contribution that they make to young people’s lives is often really remarkable.
Now more than ever, good-quality careers advice, information and guidance is essential to build a workforce that is dynamic and flexible. It is critical that young people are provided with good-quality information about future labour market opportunities in growth sectors, so that they can learn the skills that they need to be successful in our fast-paced, changing jobs market.
Many in-demand jobs and sectors are a product of the modern world, including space exploration, green energy, digital architects and data scientists. As new technologies and industries emerge, young people need insights into the breadth of careers and opportunities available to them, so that they can make informed decisions about the future, including, crucially for my brief, the value of technical and vocational pathways to employment. Good-quality careers advice is essential if we are to ensure that we meet the higher technical skills needs in our country. That is why the Government are investing over £100 million in the financial year 2021-22 in the direct delivery of careers information, advice and guidance. That funds the direct delivery of careers advice to people of all ages through the National Careers Service. We also support the development of careers infrastructure through the Careers & Enterprise Company to help schools and colleges to improve their careers programmes in line with the world-class Gatsby benchmarks. The Bill will support the Government’s wider skills reforms, and will provide a legal framework for guaranteeing high-quality, independent careers guidance to all young people in state secondary schools.
It takes a wise man to devise a simple Bill, and this is a simple Bill. Clause 1 amends the scope of section 42A of the Education Act 1997—the statutory duty on schools to secure independent careers guidance. The Bill extends career advice provision to all pupils in state secondary schools, bringing year 7 pupils into scope for the first time. It also extends the duty to all academy schools and alternative provision academies. Clause 2 covers consequential amendments and revokes 2013 regulations that extended the careers guidance obligations to pupils aged 13 to 18; they are no longer needed, because the Bill extends to all secondary-age pupils.
What the clauses mean in practice is that all pupils, in all types of state-funded secondary school in England, will be legally entitled to independent careers guidance throughout their secondary education. That means high-quality guidance for every single child in every single secondary state school in every single local authority, without exception.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I would like to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington for bringing the Bill to the House and to this Committee. I want to clarify a point: page 6 of the explanatory notes says that the provisions do not extend to Wales—I speak as a Welsh MP—but where the notes say,
“Would corresponding provision be within the competence of Senedd Cymru?”,
the answer is “Yes” for both clauses 1 and 2. Has the Minister had any contact with the Welsh Government to see whether they are bringing in a similar programme of careers guidance in Wales?
Alex Burghart
We are in constant contact with our colleagues in Wales, but I am as yet unaware of whether they have similar plans. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend if I discover that they do.
By extending the lower age limit to those in year 7, the Bill brings the career guidance duty in line with the Government’s careers framework for schools, the Gatsby benchmarks, which apply from years 7 to 13. This fulfils a commitment in our “Skills for Jobs” White Paper and will reach over 600,000 pupils in year 7 every year. By starting in year 7, we can give children early exposure to a range of employers, so that they gain experience of the workplace, ask questions and develop networks. They can begin to learn about the local labour market, because the skills needs of Cumbria may be different from those of Essex. Early careers guidance can support important decisions that need to be made from year 14 —for example, on the choice of GCSE subjects or on whether to go to a university technical college.
The Bill will establish consistency by applying the statutory careers duty to all types of state-school settings. This will bring approximately 2,700 academy schools and 130 alternative provision placements into scope. We support the Bill’s intention to require all academies via statute to have regard to statutory careers guidance. That is already the case for maintained schools. If the Bill is passed, we will make it easy for schools to understand the changes to the law, and what actions they need to take. These changes to the law will allow Ofsted to focus clearly and consistently on how every school is meeting its statutory duty by providing independent careers guidance to every pupil throughout their secondary education.
Mark Jenkinson
May I put on record my thanks to everyone who has contributed to this short, constructive debate, and to all Members who agreed to serve on this Committee? I thank all those who contributed more widely to the small but incredibly important changes in the Bill, and ask that everyone continues their cross-party support until we get the Bill over the line.
I thank my local enterprise partnership, careers hub and education leaders for their input as the Bill took shape. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) and the Minister for their support throughout, and Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Hove. May I also thank you, Mr Davies, the officials from the Department, the Hansard writers, and the Clerk, Adam Mellows-Facer, who has been incredibly supportive throughout the process? I look forward to Third Reading, hopefully on 14 January.
The Chair
Well done.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Health and Care Bill (Eighteenth sitting)
Wednesday 27th October 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2021 - (27 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we resume, it might be helpful for me to give the Committee a few preliminary reminders. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. No food or drink are permitted during sittings of the Committee except for the water provided.
I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering or leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
I remind Members and staff that they are asked by the House to take a covid lateral flow test twice a week if they are coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home.
Clause 130
Power to make consequential provision
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 130, page 111, line 15, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4),”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 115.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 115, in clause 130, page 111, line 25, at end insert—
“(4) Regulations may only be made under this section with the consent of—
(a) the Scottish Ministers insofar as they make provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament,
(b) the Welsh Ministers insofar as they make provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru, and
(c) The Northern Ireland Ministers insofar as they make provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the consent of the relevant devolved government before powers in this clause falling within the legislative competence of a devolved institution are exercised.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 131 to 135 stand part.
Dr Whitford
I rise to speak to amendment 115, which is the main amendment. Amendment 114 is consequential on it. The amendment comes back to the main theme: the clause contains significant Henry VIII powers for the Secretary of State to change the Bill or any Act of the devolved Parliaments relating to it.
When the Minister rises to speak, he will say that the power is only for tiny things such as changing names or tidying up, but the Bill is so extensive that the power to introduce some of the themes and policies contained in it into the NHS in Scotland is something that people in Scotland—and, I am sure, in Wales and Northern Ireland—would not be happy with. There is no limitation to this power.
Again, there is no mention of consulting, let alone consenting. It has been the convention for over two decades that if the UK Government legislate in clearly devolved areas, there should be legislative consent. Before this Henry VIII power is used by a Secretary of State, legislative consent should be sought from the devolved Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Mrs Murray, it really is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning. I echo the comments from the Scottish National party spokesperson. She is correct that the Bill gives the Secretary of State extensive powers—almost carte blanche in some areas—to change the law. We think that taking back control means Parliament taking back control. Elected politicians are meant to serve the people, not the other way round. Some very valid points have been made about the themes and issues across the Bill, and we echo those.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mrs Murray, and to hear of the inadvertent promotion of the shadow Minister. I am sure it is only a matter of time, certainly if his longevity in his current post and being master of his brief are anything to go by.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire for raising this matter. I will address amendments 114 and 115 together, as one is consequential on the other, and then I will address the clauses. As the hon. Lady rightly says, she has raised this matter with me not only in this Committee but outwith it. I would have been surprised had she not wished to air it in Committee, which is exactly what we are here for.
The amendments would require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of Ministers of the relevant devolved Administrations before making a consequential amendment to any matter that falls within the competence of the devolved legislature. Provisions such as clause 130—she suggested I might say this—are perfectly common in UK Acts of Parliament, and we believe they remain within the spirit of the devolution settlement. The UK Government’s clear position is that, in and of itself, clause 130 would not give rise to the legislative consent motion process, for reasons that I will set out. We deem that a requirement for the consent of the DAs for its use would therefore be inappropriate.
This power will enable the UK Government to make consequential amendments that might be necessary following the passage of the Bill. That includes most of the amendments that need to be made to secondary legislation as a consequence of the Bill’s provisions As such, amendments were not included in the Bill. There may also be minor changes, such as amendments to names of particular bodies—the hon. Lady knows me and the position that Her Majesty’s Government take on these things extremely well—as a result of measures in the Bill.
It is also prudent to retain the power to amend legislation in the event that anything has been missed. It is important for everyone concerned that we have the ability to make such amendments should they be needed to ensure that the legislation works as intended and that we are able to do so quickly, as required.
As I said, this power is quite common in UK legislation, particularly in a Bill as large as the Health and Care Bill, which—as we know, as we reach the end of the current set of clauses—comprises 135 clauses and 16 schedules. There are many examples of similar powers to clause 130 in existing legislation. Perhaps the one with the greatest relevance, giving the most directly analogous example, is section 303 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
As a general principle, it is appropriate that the authority passing the legislation makes the consequential provisions that flow from it, as that authority will be most familiar with the provisions of the legislation and the changes to other legislation that it necessitates. We are seeking legislative consent from the devolved Administrations in respect of a number of provisions in the Bill and we have debated those in recent days, but clause 130 does not, in and of itself, give rise to the LCM process. It is the substantive provisions in the Bill, on which any amendments under clause 130 would be consequential, that do or do not, as the case may be, give rise to the LCM process.
Finally, although this power will enable the UK Government to make consequential amendments to devolved legislation, in practice, any amendments would be discussed with the DAs, officials and legal advisers prior to and throughout the drafting process. These arrangements follow wider good practice and expectations of collaborative working.
Edward Argar
Yes, but I am not sitting down just yet, so the hon. Lady will have more opportunities to intervene.
Dr Whitford
I just remind the Minister that the Cabinet Secretaries in the devolved nations saw this huge Bill the day before it was launched, so although there may have been engagement with officials, that does not suggest that there was engagement with the Governments, which he is saying we should depend on, along with close working.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point but, on engagement with officials, I would argue that it is in a sense a matter for officials in the Scottish Government whether they communicate with the Cabinet Secretary. They were not prohibited from doing so. I will not go into the inner workings of the Holyrood machine, just as, I suspect, the hon. Lady would not wish to go into the inner workings of the Department of Health and Social Care. However, that dialogue has taken place since February this year. I appreciate that there has been a slight challenge with that, given the Holyrood elections and purdah, where, although officials can continue to talk, there was rightly a bit of stepping back at a political level so that democracy could take its course. It took its course and the same party continues to run Scotland, so those conversations resumed. My point is that those discussions at official level have been long standing and extensive, I would hope. I suspect that officials have shared elements with the Cabinet Secretary—perhaps not the entirety, but they have been very much engaged.
I hope that that explanation provides some reassurance to hon. Members, although I suspect that it may not. I suspect that the hon. Lady anticipated that explanation, and it may therefore not add further reassurance, but I hope that it does to a degree.
Let me move on to clauses 130 to 135 stand part of the Bill. As we heard in the foregoing debate, clause 130 allows the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations, which is consequential on the Bill. The Bill contains a significant change to the legal framework of the health service. As a result, numerous consequential amendments to other pieces of primary and secondary legislation are required to reflect those changes.
The power is limited to making amendments consequential to the competence of the Bill and is therefore a narrow power. It is, as I said, a standard provision in a Bill of this size and complexity. A considerable amount of secondary legislation will require amendment following the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement and the change from clinical commissioning groups to integrated care boards. It would not be appropriate to use primary legislation to list all of those secondary legislative changes. Therefore, the consequential power will be used to make such changes in secondary legislation.
The power extends to making consequential amendments to primary legislation passed by the devolved legislatures, because devolved legislation contains references to UK legislation or bodies that may need to be amended in consequence of this Bill. The power applies only to existing primary legislation—this Bill itself, or primary legislation passed during this Session—and therefore future primary legislation may not be amended under the power conferred by this provision.
Clause 131, again, is a common part of a Bill. It sets out the scope of regulation-making powers in the Bill generally and the parliamentary procedure for making such regulations. Subsection (1) provides that regulations made under the Bill may include
“consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision”
and can make
“different provision for different purposes.”
Subsections (3) and (4) set out the parliamentary procedure for making regulations under this legislation.
Clause 132 is also a standard clause concerning financial provision. It simply provides that any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act shall be paid out of the consolidated fund, in accordance with the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2021.
Clause 133 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions of the Bill. It provides that while most of the provisions in the Bill extend only to England and Wales, a small number extend UK-wide. In addition, the bulk of the England and Wales-only provisions—in particular, the vast majority of part 1—will in fact apply only in England, as they concern the health service in England only. The following provisions, listed in subsection (2), extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: the renaming of NHS England in paragraphs 1(3) and 1(4) of schedule 1; the Secretary of State’s powers to transfer and delegate functions in part 3 of the Bill; and the carve-out of the health services safety investigations board from any legislative provision to require disclosure of information in clause 109.
In addition, the amendments to other legislation made by the Bill will have the same territorial extent as the provision that is being amended. Examples of this include clause 120, which makes provisions about reciprocal healthcare arrangements, and clause 85, which allows provision to be made for the establishment of medicines information systems. A full analysis of territorial extent and application in the UK can be found in the explanatory notes. In earlier sittings, we debated the consequences of the Bill in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and any issues relating to devolution as and when they have arisen. I suspect we may return to those issues on Report, and that their lordships may wish to debate them in the other place.
Clause 134 sets out when the provisions in the Bill will come into force once it has been passed. Most of the Bill will be brought into force on a date to be set in regulations, as provided for in subsection (3). Again, that is a common approach for a Bill of this type, and allows for flexibility. While the Government are committed to implementing the vital reforms to the health service that are contained in the Bill, we will be able to confirm the precise date on which provisions will come into force when it has completed its parliamentary passage—clearly, we cannot pre-empt Parliament. It is likely that it will be appropriate to bring different provisions of the Bill into force at different times.
Finally, clause 135 provides that, once passed, the Bill may be cited as the Health and Care Act 2021. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Dr Whitford
I appreciate that the vast majority of consequential changes that might be made by the Secretary of State would be minor, and most of them would apply to England. However, I am sure the Minister will also understand that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which has taken away powers over certain aspects of public health, environmental control, infrastructure and so on, is felt in Scotland as a direct threat to devolution. Such clauses are therefore seen as threatening, in that the Bill is so big that it would allow extensive consequential amendments, particularly—as the Minister referred to himself—under clause 131(1)(b), which allows for
“different provision for different purposes.”
Many Opposition Members find the undefined scope disquieting, and we have seen this extensively over the past three years. I would therefore wish to press amendment 114 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
That completes line-by-line consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill, and we will now consider new clauses. New clauses that were grouped for debate with amendments to the Bill will not be debated again, but if the Member who tabled the new clause indicated in their speech that they wished to divide the Committee, they will have the opportunity to do so. I remind Members who wish to press a grouped new clause to a Division that they should indicate their intention when speaking to the clause. We start with Government new clause 59, which was debated yesterday.
New Clause 59
Care Quality Commission reviews etc of integrated care system
“(1) Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (quality of health and social care) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 46A (inserted by section 121 of this Act) insert—
‘46B Reviews and performance assessments: integrated care system
(1) The Commission must, in accordance with this section—
(a) conduct reviews of—
(i) the provision of relevant health care, and adult social care, within the area of each integrated care board, and
(ii) the exercise of the functions of the following in relation to the provision of that care within the area of each integrated care board: the board; its partner local authorities; and registered service providers,
(b) assess the functioning of the system for the provision of relevant health care, and adult social care, within the area of each integrated care board (taking into account, in particular, how those mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii) work together), and
(c) publish a report of its assessment.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) must set, and may from time to time revise, objectives and priorities for the Commission in relation to assessments under this section, and
(b) must inform the Commission of the objectives and priorities.
(3) The Commission—
(a) must determine, and may from time to time revise, indicators of quality for the purposes of assessments under this section, and
(b) must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State in relation to the indicators.
(4) The Secretary of State may direct the Commission to revise the indicators under subsection (3).
(5) Different objectives and priorities may be set, and different indicators of quality may be determined, for different cases.
(6) The Commission—
(a) must prepare, and may from time to time revise, a statement—
(i) setting out the frequency with which reviews under this section are to be conducted and the period to which they are to relate, and
(ii) describing the method that it proposes to use in assessing and evaluating the functioning of the system for the provision of relevant health care, and adult social care, within the area of an integrated care board, and
(b) must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State in relation to the statement.
(7) The statement may—
(a) make different provision about frequency and period of reviews for different cases, and
(b) describe different methods for different cases.
(8) Before preparing or revising a statement under subsection (6) the Commission must consult—
(a) NHS England, and
(b) any other persons it considers appropriate.
(9) The Secretary of State may direct the Commission to revise the statement under subsection (6).
(10) The Commission must publish—
(a) the objectives and priorities under subsection (2),
(b) the indicators of quality under subsection (3), and
(c) the statement under subsection (6).
(11) For the purposes of this section—
“adult social care” means social care for individuals aged 18 or over;
“partner local authority”, in relation to an integrated care board, means any English local authority whose area coincides with, or includes the whole or any part of, the area of the integrated care board;
“registered service provider” means a person registered under Chapter 2 as a service provider;
“relevant health care” means—
(a) NHS care, or
(b) the promotion and protection of public health.
(12) Regulations may amend the definition of “relevant health care” to include health care which is provided or commissioned by a public authority (but which does not amount to NHS care).’
(3) In section 48 (special reviews and investigations), in subsection (2), after ‘46A’ (inserted by section 121 of this Act) insert ‘or 46B’.
(4) In section 50 (failings by English local authorities), in subsection (1), after ‘46A’ (inserted by section 121 of this Act) insert ‘or 46B’.
(5) In section 162 (orders and regulations: parliamentary control), in subsection (3), after paragraph (c) insert—
‘(c) regulations under section 46B(12) (amendment of definition of relevant health care),’.”—(Edward Argar.)
This new clause imposes a duty on the Care Quality Commission to carry out reviews and assessments into the overall functioning of the system for the provision of NHS Care and adult social care services within the area of each integrated care board.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 60
Default powers of Secretary of State in relation to adult social care
“(1) In section 7D of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (default powers of Secretary of State as respects social services functions of local authorities)—
(a) in subsection (1), for the words from ‘imposed’ to ‘2002’substitute ‘referred to in subsection (4)’;
(b) after subsection (3) insert—
‘(4) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a duty imposed by or under—
(a) the Children Act 1989,
(b) section 1 or 2(4) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999,
(c) the Adoption and Children Act 2002, or
(d) Part 1 of the Care Act 2014.’
(2) The Care Act 2014 is amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).
(3) After section 72 insert—
“Default by local authority
72A Default power of Secretary of State
(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a local authority is failing, or has failed, to discharge any of its functions under or by virtue of this Part to an acceptable standard, the Secretary of State may give to the local authority any directions that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of addressing the failure.
(2) The directions may include provision requiring the local authority—
(a) to act in accordance with advice given by the Secretary of State or a person nominated by the Secretary of State,
(b) to collaborate with the Secretary of State or a person nominated by the Secretary of State in taking steps specified in the directions, or
(c) to provide the Secretary of State or a person nominated by the Secretary of State with information of a description specified in the directions, on request or otherwise.
(3) If the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purpose of addressing the failure, the directions may include provision—
(a) for specified functions of the local authority to be exercised by the Secretary of State or a person nominated by the Secretary of State for a period specified in the direction or for so long as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
(b) requiring the local authority to comply with any instructions of the Secretary of State or the nominee in relation to the exercise of the functions.
(4) So far as is appropriate in consequence of directions given by virtue of subsection (3), a reference (however expressed) in an enactment, instrument or other document to a local authority is to be read as a reference to the person by whom the function is exercisable.
(5) If directions given by virtue of subsection (3) expire or are revoked without being replaced then, so far as is appropriate in consequence of the expiry or revocation, a reference (however expressed) in an instrument or other document to the person by whom the function was exercisable is to be read as a reference to the local authority to whom the directions were given.
(6) The Secretary of State may, for the purposes of cases in which directions are given under subsection (3)(a), make regulations disapplying or modifying an enactment which confers a function on the Secretary of State in respect of a function of a local authority.
(7) Directions under this section may require the local authority to provide financial assistance to the Secretary of State, or a person nominated by the Secretary of State, for the purpose of meeting costs incurred by the Secretary of State or the nominee as a result of the directions.
72B Default power of Secretary of State: supplementary
(1) Before giving directions under section 72A the Secretary of State must give the local authority concerned an opportunity to make representations about the proposed directions, except so far as the Secretary of State considers that it is impractical to do so for reasons of urgency.
(2) The power to give directions under section 72A includes a power to vary or revoke the directions by subsequent directions.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to proposed directions varying previous directions if the Secretary of State does not consider the variations to be significant.
(4) Directions under section 72A must be in writing.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish—
(a) any directions given under section 72A, and
(b) the reasons for giving them.
(6) Directions under section 72A are enforceable, on the Secretary of State’s application, by a mandatory order.”
(4) In section 125(4) (regulations and orders subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (k) insert—
‘(ka) regulations under section 72A(6) (modification of enactments where local authority functions are exercised by the Secretary of State or a nominee);’.”—(Edward Argar.)
This new clause would create a new power for the Secretary of State to intervene where local authorities are failing in the exercise of functions under Part 1 of the Care Act 2014 (adult social care) and make consequential amendments.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Edward Argar
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 62 adds to section 164 of the National Health Service Act 2006, enabling regulations to be made that would allow further products to be centrally stocked and supplied free of charge to community pharmacies without the need for reimbursement under the standard NHS arrangements. This would allow Ministers to create limited additional exemptions to the exemptions that can already be created by the regulation-making power introduced in 2017 for unlicensed medicines, more commonly known as “specials”.
As was recognised in 2017, the legislative framework for pharmaceutical remuneration established by section 164 is predicated on the basis that community pharmacies will be reimbursed for the products they supply. Unique conditions required the unlicensed specials medicines amendment to be tabled in 2017 due to an unconventional supply chain. Unusually, there was no competition and, therefore, no incentive for community pharmacies to seek value for money for unlicensed medicines.
Under normal conditions, a virtuous competitive circle would encourage community pharmacies to try to source the lowest cost product and, in doing so, force overall prices down. The 2017 amendment allowed for regulations to be made so that the process of sourcing the relevant products could be by central procurement and subsequently there could be direct supply to community pharmacies. No such regulations have yet been made, but the matter remains under review.
The amendment only seeks to further add, in a limited way, to the current powers to make regulations to provide for an exemption from the ordinary requirement to reimburse. The only products that it will cover are vaccines, pandemic treatments, and associated products such as diluents and syringes. There are various reasons why we may seek to procure centrally vaccines or products used to treat a pandemic, for example when the typical competitive supply chain and reimbursement arrangements cannot be relied on, because pressures from global demand mean that central purchasing and direct supply to community pharmacies is critical to maintaining continuity of supply for UK patients.
In those circumstances, if centrally purchased products, rather than being supplied directly to pharmacies, were sold to wholesalers, that would risk wholesalers exporting or selling the stock at a much higher price than is usually paid, thereby playing the market. In this example, that would defeat the original purpose of the central stockpile.
When supplying products directly to pharmacies free of charge, we do not want to reimburse pharmacies as well as purchasing the stock, as that would mean the Government or taxpayer paying twice. Currently, as I have indicated, the legislative framework only makes provision for the reimbursement price of specials to be set at zero. We are restricting those to vaccinations and immunisations, medicinal products used for the prevention or treatment of disease in a pandemic, and associated products. By carving out these niche, critical—but understandable, I hope—exceptions in the legislation in that way, we recognise the importance of not undermining the supply and reimbursement arrangements more generally and broadly across the piece. Furthermore, the legislation will also ensure that in the case of pandemic treatments, once the disease is no longer a pandemic, the appropriate arrangements will be put in place to transition back to normal supply and payment arrangements.
The new clause is important to ensure that centrally purchased stock of essential medicines intended for patients in England can be distributed to community pharmacies to meet clinical need and support patient access, whether that applies to a vaccination or treatment in connection with a pandemic. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to support the new clause.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve again with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. As I said yesterday, we are grateful for the Minister writing with his explanation of this and the other new clauses ahead of time. That was helpful.
As the Minister explained in his letter, the new clause will simplify and safeguard the process of remuneration where the Government centrally procures vaccines, immunisations or products used to treat a pandemic, as well as other listed products, replacing “special medicinal products” under the previous legislation, in particular when there is significant international demand. That is very topical and we have a rich understanding of it given the events of the past 18 months, so it makes sense to the Opposition and we will not dwell on it long, nor will we press the new clause to a division. However, I seek clarity from the Minister on a couple of issues.
In the Minister’s letter, he cited the risk of wholesalers exporting the products or selling them at a much higher price if they were fed into the conventional supply chain. He characterised that as market failure. Community pharmacies would then be claiming reimbursement from the NHS based on the drug tariff determinations. I do not doubt the risk of that, and it is a foreseeable one, but am keen to hear from the Minister whether he is able to quantify the risk or demonstrate examples in either case. For example, during this pandemic, did that happen at the beginning? What was the cost if that took place? Have there been examples of profiteering preventing necessary products from reaching the patients for which they were intended?
In a second point, I am curious about the arrangements put in place to transition back to normal payment arrangements, once the disease in question is no longer pandemic or at risk of becoming pandemic. Again, I think we would always want restoration of normal circumstances at the first appropriate moment. In his letter, the Minister describes the arrangements as “appropriate”, while the new clause reads:
“Where…the Secretary of State considers that the disease to which it relates is no longer a pandemic disease or at risk of becoming a pandemic disease, the Secretary of State must revoke that provision within such period as the Secretary of State considers reasonable”.
Given that section 164 of the National Health Service Act 2006 also allows the Secretary of State to determine remuneration, that feels a little like the Secretary of State being allowed to mark their own homework. It could leave such measures in place for as long as suits them, rather than for as long as necessary, because the only determination of their need sits with that person. Will the Minister offer some reassurance that the power is for an emergency and is exceptionally limited, and give the Committee some comfort about the oversight and how Parliament perhaps will be given the chance to challenge the Secretary of State, so that the measures are not kept in place for any longer than necessary?
Dr Whitford
I have a small comment following on from the hon. Gentleman, who was asking for evidence of profiteering on specials. I was on the Committee considering the Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Act 2017 and brought the issue of specials before the Committee. These are often personalised medicines. In Scotland, they are produced centrally by the NHS, but there is certainly huge evidence of profiteering on them within NHS England, with hundreds of pounds being charged for simple ointments. While we may not have evidence on vaccines, evidence of profiteering on specials is long standing.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for helping to reduce the number of the shadow Minister’s questions that I need to answer. The hon. Lady makes her point well. We saw early on in the pandemic the challenges of a globally competitive market and the incentives and disincentives that can create around supply. I will not go into other aspects of supplies purchased for the NHS during the pandemic, but we have seen what happens when a market becomes super-saturated with demand versus a very limited supply, hence why we believe the steps in the new clause are prudent.
The shadow Minister will be familiar with approach in the new clause; it was used, for example, for covid vaccines, which were centrally secured and supplied directly to pharmacies. While we felt that supply could be justified on the basis of conventions of statutory interpretation that allowed us necessary flexibility in those exceptional circumstances, we think it is appropriate that we put such measures on a proper legal footing—through debate and, if necessary, Division in the House—to future-proof our arrangements. We are not trying to radically alter NHS pharmaceutical service provision or the payment mechanism. The aim is actually to strengthen the legal basis, and indeed the democratic oversight of that legal basis, through this debate in this Committee, for scenarios in which usual supply routes need to be bypassed.
The shadow Minister also raised a couple of other points, mainly about the Secretary of State’s power and Parliament’s role going forward, if I may paraphrase it in that way. I take his point. Judgments will obviously be based on advice from officials and legal and scientific advisers, but to a degree it is in the nature of ministerial accountability that there is an element of subjectivity when the Secretary of State is obliged to make a judgment. I appreciate the point, which I echoed in my remarks, on the need to turn these arrangements off or transition out of them as swiftly as possible, but we can see this pandemic declining and coming back at various times—that is the nature of the lifecycle of a pandemic; there are ups and downs before it finally burns itself out—and therefore the Secretary of State will ultimately need a degree of discretion and subjectivity in their judgment about the right moment, although obviously they will take advice.
On the House’s ability to challenge that, as the shadow Minister will possibly expect me to say, he and his colleagues and other Members will have ample opportunity, not only at Question Time but also, as I have discovered, through urgent questions, which I have answered on behalf of colleagues in the Government on occasion. There are plenty of opportunities for Members to summon Ministers to the Dispatch Box, or through written questions, to challenge and to probe and hold Ministers to account. I hope that hon. Members feel that this is a pragmatic and proportionate measure to address something we have identified in the course of the pandemic as needing resolution, and in so doing to put it on a surer and clearer statutory footing.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 62 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Prohibition of virginity testing
“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if they attempt to establish that another person is a virgin by making physical contact with their genitalia.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if they provide another person with a product intended for the purpose, or purported purpose, of establishing whether another person is a virgin.
(3) A person is guilty of an offence if they aid, abet, counsel or procure a person to establish that another person is a virgin by making physical contact with their genitalia.
(4) No offence is committed by an approved person who performs—
(a) a surgical operation on a person which is necessary for their physical or mental health; or
(b) a surgical operation on a female who is in any stage of labour, or has just given birth, for purposes connected with the labour or birth.
(5) The following are approved persons—
(a) in relation to an operation falling within subsection (4)(a), a registered medical practitioner; and
(b) in relation to an operation falling within subsection (5)(b), a registered medical practitioner, a registered midwife or a person undergoing a course of training with a view to becoming such a practitioner or midwife.
(6) There is also no offence committed by a person who—
(a) performs a surgical operation falling within subsection (4)(a) or (b) outside the United Kingdom; and
(b) in relation to such an operation exercises functions corresponding to those of an approved person.
(7) For the purpose of determining whether an operation is necessary for the mental health of a girl it is immaterial whether she or any other person believes that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.
(8) This section applies to any act done outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national or resident.
(9) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, to a fine, or to both.
(10) The court must refer the case of any person guilty of an offence under this section who is subject to statutory professional regulation for investigation by the relevant regulator.”.—(Alex Norris.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Prohibition of hymenoplasty—
“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if they undertake a surgical procedure for the purpose of re-attaching membrane tissue, creating scar tissue or otherwise attempting to re-create the hymen in the vagina of a patient.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if they advertise the service of hymenoplasty or any service that purports to ‘re-virginise’ or otherwise re-create or re-attach the hymen of a patient by way of surgical procedure.
(3) A person is guilty of an offence if they aid, abet, counsel or procure a person to undertake a surgical procedure for the purpose of re-attaching membrane tissue, creating scar tissue or otherwise attempting to or re-creating the hymen in the vagina of a patient.
(4) This section applies to any act done outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national or resident.
(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
(6) The court must refer the case of any person guilty of an offence under this section who is subject to statutory professional regulation for investigation by the relevant regulator.”.
Alex Norris
I want to speak to new clause 1 in my name and seemingly in the name of half the House. With pleasure, we have reached the new clauses. A central theme runs through the new clauses that my colleagues and I have tabled. If the Government are adamant that now is the time for this Bill, and we have well-established issues with that, then given the significant and growing challenges facing health and social care in this country we really ought to put things in the Bill that will make a difference. Too much of what we have discussed over the previous 18 sessions—give or take—has been about structures and moving things around; this is fundamentally likely to make little to no difference on the frontlines to practitioners or the people that we work for. These new clauses, and the new clauses in general, seek to try and redress that balance and put things in the Bill that will make an impact in this country.
Dr Whitford
I rise to support new clauses 1 and 2. Although this issue would be within the devolved space, as a doctor, I think that any practice that is in essence being called a medical practice but is not for the benefit of the patient is unjustifiable. I have to say, I think that extends to X-raying child refugees’ teeth or exposing their limbs to radiation for no clinical reason; I find that unjustifiable. The difference with what these two new clauses deal with is that both involve absolute violation of women and girls, and therefore they are way beyond what we would discuss in other spheres. Although these measures would not apply in Scotland, they are about things that are indefensible, as are other practices that we have heard about, such as female genital mutilation, and so on, which some have tried to disguise as cultural, religious or other practices. Therefore, I totally support the principle and the idea behind these new clauses.
Edward Argar
While, on occasion, there has not been unanimity in this House, I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North.
I am grateful, first to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for his private Member’s Bill on this issue, which originally raised it, and I am also grateful to the shadow Minister. I do not always say that about some of his amendments, but I am grateful to him and his colleagues for tabling this new clause, which gives us the opportunity to debate this issue in Committee. I am aware of the work that my hon. Friend has done to raise the issue and I know how strongly the shadow Minister feels about it as well.
First, I want to reassure the Committee that safeguarding vulnerable women and girls is a key priority for the Government, which is why on 21 July we announced our commitment to ban virginity testing in the Home Office-led tackling violence against women and girls strategy, so I think we are of one mind on the principle. I will talk a little bit about the mechanism, the drafting and similar, but it is fair to say that we are of one mind on the principle here. Such tests are, as the shadow Minister said, a violation of human rights and are clearly known to have an adverse and long-term impact on women and girls’ physical, psychological and social wellbeing.
New clause 1, which the shadow Minister tabled and spoke to, gets to the very heart of what we intend to do with regard to virginity testing: ban it. I wholly agree with the spirit of new clause 1; however, I fear that we cannot accept it as drafted. There are several reasons for that, which I will outline. Nevertheless, I hope that in my opening remarks I have reassured him that we are of one mind on this issue, and I will set out the next steps.
By way of further reassurance, may I also say to the Committee that the Government have clear plans to introduce our own legislation, at the appropriate moment and at the nearest opportunity, to criminalise virginity testing? There is work to be done on the drafting and, as the shadow Minister would expect, through discussions within Government. However, I can put on the record in this Committee that it is absolutely our intention to legislate in this space.
While the wording of that legislation will differ slightly from the wording of the new clause, I want to reassure the shadow Minister and other Members that the policy intent and policy outcome will be exactly aligned. Parliamentary drafting is not only an art but a significant skill, and a very technical one. Therefore, we are utilising the best drafting we have available to see how we might achieve the outcome in the appropriate way, subject to cross-Government approvals.
I will also say that the Government absolutely share the shadow Minister’s concerns about how virginity testing is essentially driven by a repressive approach to female sexuality and is a form of violence against women and girls that must be eradicated.
Our concerns about the drafting of the new clause include that it does not specify where in the United Kingdom the offence would apply. It is unclear whether the offence would apply in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom or in England only. That is a drafting technicality, but we think that clarity is important. We are in the process of seeking four-nation-wide agreement on virginity testing in each of the nations, and we are working through options on what that might look like, reflecting our shared view that virginity testing has no place in any part of our United Kingdom, and that the safety of women and girls is paramount wherever they are in the four nations.
Another concern about the drafting is the inclusion of defences. The new clause would provide that in certain circumstances, such as in the course of a surgical procedure undertaken by an appropriate medical professional, an offence would not be committed. The Department’s internal review of virginity testing and hymenoplasty found that virginity tests have no clinical or scientific merit, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North said. There is no reliable way to establish virginity, nor is there any clinical reason to know if a woman or girl is a virgin. As such, we are clear that there is no clinical reason for such an examination or operation to be carried out, and we therefore question the legitimacy of including such a defence in the new clause.
I have set out some of the key drafting challenges in the new clauses and I hope that I have given a flavour of the Government’s thinking. The drafting detail of our policy approach is being carefully considered, with the safety of vulnerable women and girls as our guiding principle. The hon. Gentleman may be reassured that the spirit and policy intention of the new clause will be reflected in future legislation as swiftly as we can draft it and secure agreement to bring it forward.
New clause 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham and supported by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, seeks to ban hymenoplasty in the United Kingdom. While the Government share the concerns underpinning the new clause—that hymenoplasty is driven by a repressive approach to female sexuality and closely associated with virginity testing, so it is right that we debate the new clauses together—we also have concerns about timing and process.
After the Department of Health and Social Care conducted an internal review of virginity testing and hymenoplasty, the Government announced in the tackling violence against women and girls strategy that they would convene an expert panel to explore the clinical and ethical aspects of the procedure in more detail. The Government’s primary concern after the initial review was that there was no clearly defined consensus on whether hymenoplasty should be banned. As a Minister, I will not go as far as the hon. Member for Nottingham North while a review has been commissioned, or comment on what that review might say in detail. Arguments have been made on both sides. The hon. Gentleman has a clear view, and he may suspect he knows what my view is, but it is right to allow the expert panel to do its work swiftly and clearly and to use it as our evidence base.
It is fair to say that the overwhelming majority of stakeholders are clear that hymenoplasty perpetuates harmful myths about virginity and could constitute a form of violence against women and girls. Concerns have been expressed about whether banning the procedure could push the practice underground. It is important that the expert panel bottoms out those arguments and gives us a clear basis for proceeding. My challenge with the new clause is simply a matter of timing: it is important that we have the report from the expert panel.
To ensure balance and impartiality, the expert panel is co-chaired by Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and Dr Pallavi Latthe, both of whom are well respected in their areas of expertise. Both have extensive experience in this area of health ethics, and it is important that we let them do their work and then consider what they say. We will consider their recommendations as soon as they are brought forward, and I hope that will happen swiftly.
The recommendations will need to be fair, objective and based on evidence, so I hesitate to go beyond that in expressing a view on the substance of the new clause until I have that expert panel report before me. It will be presented for Ministers’ consideration, and I assure the hon. Gentleman—I can see where he might go with this—that the intention is to publish it before the Christmas recess. It is a swift piece of work. We will consider the report and, depending on its contents, bring forward legislation if or as appropriate, considering everything it contains in the context of vulnerable women and girls’ safety.
Alex Norris
Let me come back briefly on a couple of issues. First, I am grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and, in particular, her point about non-medical practices dressed up as medical practices. That is a particularly insidious way to inflict abuse on another person, and I completely agree with her that that is an absolute violation—it is as totemic as that.
We will all have taken great encouragement from the Minister’s response. I am grateful for that. I associate myself with the comments he made about the hon. Member for North West Durham—I should have said that in opening. Between us, we will ensure that he sees a copy of the proceedings, and he can take great encouragement from what the Minister said.
It was particularly welcome to hear that the Government intend to legislate in this space, with the intent for that to be at the earliest opportunity. That is good news, and the Opposition will support them in that process. I gently say—I know he enjoys these exchanges—that we are currently considering primary legislation, so this is definitely the earliest opportunity. If there are moments for the Government to revisit this issue on Report or in the other place, he will find colleagues very welcoming of that.
I do not want to shatter the consensus that has grown by dividing the Committee, so I do not intend to press either new clause to a Division. However, on new clause 2, we will look at what the expert panel says. I will be interested to see the divisions in opinion—I have not been able to find them. We look at these things on their merit, but the commitment to see the report before Christmas was welcome and will give great heart to campaigners in this space. The Opposition look forward to seeing the proposals and will be keen to support them if they can achieve the goals that we seek. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Annual parity of esteem report: spending on mental health and mental illness
“Within six weeks of the end of each financial year, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on the ways in which the allotment made to NHS England for that financial year contributed to the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—
(a) in the mental health of the people of England, and
(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make an annual statement on how the funding received by mental health services that year from the overall annual allotment has contributed to the improvement of mental health and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
The Minister referred to my longevity in post, which gives me the advantage of having had this debate with him previously. That does not make it any less important; in fact, the subject has only risen in importance in the intervening period. That is why the Opposition were pleased to put our name to the new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris).
In March, the Centre for Mental Health reported:
“There are…many areas where parity of esteem has not yet been realised. Mental health problems account for 28% of the burden of disease but only 13% of NHS spending.”
Parity of esteem is the principle by which mental health must be given equal priority to physical health. Many of us assumed that it had always been there, but debates have gone on over the years and, as that figure suggests, it is still some way from being achieved. The founding National Health Service Act 1946 spoke of a comprehensive health service, securing the improvement of both physical and mental health, and the National Health Service Act 2006 said the same. That principle was enshrined in the Health and Social Care Act 2012—at least, the parts of it that remain.
In operational terms, the Government require NHS England to work for parity of esteem for mental and physical health through the NHS mandate. However, there are reports that this requirement falls down at a local level. Certainly as a constituency MP, I have a whole range of stories of people not being able to access treatment in a timely manner, or being pushed around the system with very little effect and discharged from care before it was appropriate, with consequences we can all imagine. It is difficult to overestimate how challenging that is, not just for the individuals, but for the local commissioners when they face competing pressures.
We are not suggesting that the 20% to 30% gap should be closed entirely, but we should be looking to at least get on the road towards delivering true parity. There was a missed opportunity earlier in this Bill when we suggested that one of the mandated positions on the integrated care board should be a mental health representative. Should that have been accepted, the ambitions behind the new clause would have been much easier to achieve. It is about not just getting on the road to financial parity, but actually changing the culture so that disparities can be addressed. It does sometimes seem that mental health is the Cinderella service: the one that gets cut first at the expense of the more visible services where people, understandably, can see if a particular service is shut down.
It should go without saying that it is part of the Secretary of State’s normal duties to promote mental health care, but that is something that has been sadly missing. While we do not want to get into an exact science on spending, we do think that much more can be done in terms of delivery and outcomes. Looking at some of the hard facts, it is clear how far we have to travel. One in four mental health beds has been cut since 2010; just last year, 37% of children referred by a professional to mental health services were turned away. That is a shocking statistic, and I am sure most Members will have similar stories from their own constituencies of people in desperate need of help—young people whose entire lives could change by getting the right help at the right time, but who are not able to access services despite there being an obvious clinical need.
That must change. We need parity to mean something in practical terms. We hope that the new clause would create a shift in culture by requiring the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament addressing whether the aim of parity of esteem has been delivered.
Dr Whitford
The shadow Minister speaks about people who have been referred to mental health support but are not able to get it. Is there not a need to be moving that further upstream? Young people in particular struggle to access child and adolescent mental health services, and often that is because there is not resilient support within schools and there is no counselling at an early point when they are struggling that might mean they do not need to go to a specialised service. As there is none of that, their mental health may deteriorate until the only option is to join a long queue to attend a hospital unit. Therefore, should we not shift to looking at wellbeing—both physical and mental wellbeing—and the resilience of children and young people who have suffered over the past 18 months?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the intervention—that is a very fair point. I recently spoke to a CAMHS worker who made that very point. One of their frustrations was that problems were not being addressed by early interventions, which only stores up more difficulties for later. Again, that is a symptom of the fact that we do not have parity of esteem, because early interventions can ultimately make a huge difference. We would like to see better access to services and appropriate waiting times being established for a wider range of mental health services, so that people with mental health problems know the maximum time for treatment, as is the case for people with physical health problems. I know the Department has been consulting on that fairly recently, and we think it would be a step change in how we assess and prioritise mental wellbeing.
Parity of treatments is required. Psychological therapies that are approved and recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence should be delivered as per the NHS constitution, and they should be put on a par with NICE-approved drugs. People need 24/7 access to mental health teams. The A&E presentations that we hear so much about have to be considered—that is probably not the optimum way to deal with such issues. There is a whole range of matters that really could make a practical difference in delivering parity of esteem, and we think that the report proposed in the new clause would be a way to drive through some of those changes.
I will not push for a vote on new clause 3, but we wanted to highlight the urgent need for more support for mental health services throughout the UK. Hopefully, the Minister will at least acknowledge that more needs to be done in this area.
Edward Argar
I welcome the spirit in which the shadow Minister brings this issue to the Committee. He is right to highlight not only the words “parity of esteem” but what they mean in practice, the importance of mental health services—particularly after the past year and a half with the rise in people suffering from mental health problems—and the challenges posed every day to our mental health services, irrespective of the pandemic. I suspect that throughout their time in this place, all Members present will have had multiple pieces of constituency casework relating to this issue, and particularly to CAMHS.
It is absolutely right that the shadow Minister has focused our debate on ensuring that mental health services are sufficiently funded to improve access, care and outcomes for patients. We know that, historically, mental health services under successive Governments have not received the same level of funding as NHS-funded services for physical health. By virtue of section 1(1) of the National Health Act 2006, which was inserted by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the Secretary of State has a “duty to promote comprehensive health service” in England
“designed to secure improvement—
(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and
(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.”
Although there may be many things in the 2012 Act that I suspect Opposition Members do not agree with, I suspect they will agree with that clear objective. Given what the shadow Minister said, I am sure they do.
In line with that duty the Secretary of State, through the NHS mandate, ensures that NHS England must seek to treat mental health with the same urgency as physical health. That is monitored through three metrics: mental health services’ real-term expenditure growth, the number of people accessing Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services, and the number of children and young people accessing NHS-funded mental health services. The Secretary of State has a legal duty to keep under review the progress in meeting mandate objectives. NHS England and NHS Improvement provide reports on the above metrics for the Government’s review on a regular basis, and they have governance mechanisms in place to monitor both mental health spend and service delivery.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. If the investment standard is being met across the board, perhaps it is the investment standard that needs looking at rather than the services themselves. We are all aware that there is a lot more to do in this area. As the Minister rightly says, no doubt we will return to it, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Support provided by the NHS to victims of domestic abuse
“(1) Each Integrated Care Board must—
(a) assess, or make arrangements for the assessment of, the need for support for victims of domestic abuse using their services;
(b) prepare and publish a strategy for the provision of such support in its area;
(c) monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy;
(d) designate a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead; and
(e) publish an annual report on how it has discharged its duties relating to the provision of services to victims of domestic violence under the Care Act 2014.
(2) An Integrated Care Board that publishes a strategy under this section must, in carrying out its functions, give effect to the strategy.
(3) Before publishing a strategy under this section, an Integrated Care Board must consult—
(a) any local authority for an area within the relevant Integrated Care Board’s area;
(b) the domestic abuse local partnership board appointed by the local authority for an area within the relevant clinical commissioning group’s area under section 58 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; and
(c) such other persons as the relevant local authority considers appropriate.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (4), “local authority” means—
(a) a county council or district council in England; or
(b) a London borough council.
(5) An Integrated Care Board that publishes a strategy under this section—
(a) must keep the strategy under review;
(b) may alter or replace the strategy; and
(c) must publish any altered or replacement strategy.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the preparation and publication of strategies under this section.
(7) The power to make regulations under subsection (7) may, in particular, be exercised to make provision about—
(a) the procedure to be followed by an Integrated Care Board in preparing a strategy;
(b) matters to which an Integrated Care Board must have regard in preparing a strategy;
(c) how an Integrated Care Board must publish a strategy;
(d) the date by which an Integrated Care Board must first publish a strategy; and
(e) the frequency with which an Integrated Care Board must review its strategy or any effect of the strategy on the provision of other provision in its area.
(8) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) all Integrated Care Boards; and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require Integrated Care Boards to publish a strategy for the provision of support for victims of domestic abuse using their services and designate a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
For Opposition Members in Committees of this type, as we assemble the issues that we prioritise in proceedings, we have to be a bit of a magpie and pinch things along the way, so I want to recognise that this new clause is pinched from the hon. Member for Newton Abbot. I am grateful to her for tabling this and for the level of thought that she put into the amendment, which is a very good one.
Earlier in the proceedings, we discussed integrated care board plans and their responsibility to engage with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I was grateful for the commitments that the Minister made. There was a common understanding that the health and social care system has a crucial role in both preventing and tackling domestic abuse and in supporting victims and survivors. That sounds self-evident, but we are not in that position in this country yet, and we could do much better. I hope we can build on that consensus with the new clause, which requires integrated care boards to publish a strategy for the provision of support for victims of domestic abuse using their services and to designate a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead.
I will not repeat the arguments that I made earlier regarding the scale of domestic abuse, but it is worth reiterating top lines, particularly the global statistics from the World Health Organisation, which show that 30% of women have experienced some form of physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. In this country it is one in four, so it is of a similar order of magnitude. The Government’s own estimate is that it costs health services £2.3 billion annually. A common refrain from the sector, with which I meet a lot, as I did before coming to this place, concerns the impact it could make with a fraction of that money if it was put into statutory services or the services that it provides. We should think about that investment model.
In discussing the new clause, I want to take the opportunity to cover something that we have not previously considered, namely domestic abuse, which tends to be against women but also concerns people with disabilities. According to Stay Safe East, disabled people and, most specifically again, disabled women, experience higher rates of domestic abuse than those who do not have disabilities. Abuse against women with disabilities is likely to be more violent and to happen over a longer period before the victim discloses it or can access help. The really sad thing is that if the victim––who is living with a disability––is not heard, there is a significant risk that they will then be sent home by the system to be cared for, in the very loosest sense, by their abuser. None of us would want that but it is the sort of thing that happens at the moment because we do not have a strong enough grip. I hope that we can use the new clause and the Bill generally to take more active steps to address that problem.
There is clearly a significant need for specialist domestic abuse services, which are crucial to enable women’s recovery in particular. Often, such services take on the work of statutory services and provide vital advocacy for women facing health exclusion, particularly in respect of services supporting black and minoritised women. It came out strongly in the debate on what is now the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 that we need specific and specialised services for those who are at greatest risk of being excluded. We did not quite get there in those provisions. I confess to using every legislative and parliamentary opportunity to keep pushing at this because it is really important and we can do much better.
We know that medical staff receive some training in adult safeguarding and, in a few hospitals, even on domestic abuse and sexual violence. But the skills and time to communicate with people with, say, learning disabilities or cognitive issues, with deaf survivors or with very elderly people who might be less likely to disclose personal information are not always available, and certainly not universally. The new clause seeks to put the onus on the integrated care system to get organised around this, to specialise and to prioritise it. It should be a priority across the system.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman think that we also have a job to do socially in reducing the stigma? I have worked in casualty departments and as a surgeon facing women who had clearly been abused but were standing or lying there making excuses for their abuser and saying why it was their own fault. As well as women with disability, there are women with insecure immigration status or insecure financial status who have no money of their own and feel that they have nowhere to go. I support the principle here, but we have a much bigger job to do around domestic abuse, which is endemic across the UK.
Alex Norris
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention and completely agree with everything she said. For my part, and that of many of our colleagues, our way to tackle all those different barriers is to seek to put this in every bit of legislation. Most domestic legislation touches on these issues.
What is pertinent to this debate is thinking about the barriers to reporting. One barrier is the fear of not being believed. Of course, there is a bigger fear around prosecutions, which the Minister took a personal interest in when he was a Justice Minister, but it is clear from the evidence that we are not making enough progress. We have heard lots of positive sounds from the Government but no concrete proposals for change. We could do much better there.
On the barrier of not being believed, one way to create a better environment for a survivor to disclose what has happened to them is by their knowing that the person they are talking to in that healthcare setting has had training and works in a system that prioritises the safe disclosure of abuse. That would do a lot to build confidence. On the hon. Lady’s point about migration status, it is important that we talk about that. It was a key theme in the Domestic Abuse Act. There must be safeguards in place so that the disclosure of abuse trumps immigration status. The practitioner that they work with must be someone whose role is to help them address those issues, not someone who will be speaking to the Home Office. That first knock on the door will be someone trying to help them deal with the abuse and its impact on their life; it will not be from someone trying to resolve their migration status. That is an important principle.
Returning to the new clause, meeting with a professional social worker who ought be trained in assessing risks, including domestic abuse, might be the significant moment that an older or disabled person discloses domestic or other abuse. If given time and asked skilful questions in a safe environment, the person may disclose or express their fears, knowing they can do so in a protect manner. But across the country, such interventions are not falling into place on their own.
Women’s Aid’s data shows that in 2019-20, no refuge services responding to its survey were commissioned by their CCG, and just 10% of community-based services were. This is a multi-agency issue. I fought very hard to persuade the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler) when she was Housing Minister that there ought to be investment and support going into the services through local government. She took that on, which was a good thing. Local authorities alone cannot tackle this issue. The picture that emerges from the evidence is that health agencies are not delivering as they ought to.
To be clear on what our modest ask is, subsection (1) states that each board must
“assess, or make arrangements for the assessment of, the need for support for victims of domestic abuse using their services”.
That is pretty basic. Following that, it must prepare a strategy, monitor that strategy and have an annual report on it, but particularly, under paragraph (d), it must
“designate a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead”,
because we know that in organisations such as the police or health organisations, where they have designated such a person, that person has been impactful. Those are pretty basic requirements. On many occasions the Minister has said that the point of the system is to be a permissive one and to let local areas shape services in the interests of their population, depending on the challenges they face; but the reality is that this problem is in every community, and we ought to be clear to ICBs that we expect this kind of activity. Subsection (3) includes a modest ask for consultation, which is reasonable and desirable.
Women in particular, and all our communities, desperately need this issue to be given deliberate focused attention. There is a high degree of consensus on it, but that does not lead to action frequently enough. The appointment of a Domestic Abuse Commissioner, which we have discussed, was a welcome step, but from a health and social care perspective we need to do more in the system. At the moment, that is not happening. That is not because I think that commissioners, leaders and decision makers do not think it is important, but they have an awful lot on. This can be a hidden crime that goes on behind closed doors, and as such drops down the list of priorities because of the urgent pressures on them; but we cannot let it go. As well as the leadership that we try to display on a national scale, we must do more to encourage this on a local scale. In this case, that is in the strategies and plans of the ICBs. We should make sure that happens.
To conclude—this is in the same vein as what I said when we debated new clauses 1 and 2—we should in our remaining time seek to put in the Bill things that will change people’s health outcomes, and outcomes in life more generally. New clause 5 is one of those things, so I hope the Government are in listening mode.
Edward Argar
I put on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and to the hon. Member for Nottingham North for enabling this discussion to take place in Committee today. I find myself in deep agreement with the idea that the NHS can play a vital role in protecting vulnerable people and, as part of that, it must have strategies and processes in place for supporting victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and other forms of harm.
The hon. Gentleman was kind to refer to my stint at the Ministry of Justice, when as Victims Minister I took a close interest in this issue with Dame Vera Baird, the former Member for Redcar, in her role as Victims’ Commissioner—I pay tribute to her—and with the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). My hon. Friend and I worked on the early stages of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and she saw that work through—I had moved to this role by then—before receiving a well-deserved promotion. I took a close interest in this issue when I was in the MOJ, and hon. Members from across the House will have found that it is not forgotten or left behind; we always reflect on it and see how we can continue to play a part when in other roles.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was right to highlight the challenges that many people feel. The stigmas are completely unjustified, but people feel them because of the nature of the abuse and the controlling and coercive behaviour to which they have been subjected. When I was at the MOJ, I discovered the limitations of legislation in this space. We can and should legislate in certain areas, but a lot of this is about how services work on the ground, how we talk about this as a society, and how we break down the stigmas. One of the key things that I took away from my time at the MOJ was that tackling domestic violence and abuse is not just the responsibility of the justice system or the NHS; it is our responsibility as a society. I hope I can reassure the shadow Minister. On some areas, we tend to find ourselves in agreement rather more than is perhaps good for either of our political careers, but on this I entirely share his sentiments.
Turning to new clause 5, I hope to reassure the Committee that placing in the Bill a formal duty on ICBs to develop a separate strategy is unnecessary and not the best approach, but I hope the Committee will allow me to expand on my reasoning. There are already several duties on CCGs to consider the needs of victims of violence, including victims of domestic abuse, through the joint strategic needs assessment process. CCGs must respond to identified needs through health and wellbeing strategies. The duties will be transferred to and continue to apply to ICBs once CCGs are abolished, and will be further strengthened by the requirement on ICBs to develop system level commissioning plans. Through the Government’s landmark new Domestic Abuse Act 2021—it would be churlish of me not to recognise the Opposition’s work on it—local healthcare systems will be required to contribute to domestic abuse local partnership boards.
I slightly caution against requiring ICBs to create further additional strategies and plans, separate from those already in the Bill. I recognise the impulse to require NHS bodies to do this, because the theory is that a separate strategy will attract particular attention. My note of caution is because in doing so, we are saying, “We will put that over there, in that strategy” rather than having it as a thread that runs through all the strategies, underpinning strategic documents and plans of the local NHS and the ICB. We risk separating it and putting it in a different compartment from the wider span of integrated responsibilities, which is where it should sit.
The new clause also places a requirement on ICBs to have a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead. We agree with the principle, but we believe we can do that effectively through existing legislation and guidance. As set out in the Government’s recent violence against women and girls strategy, the Department of Health and Social Care will be engaging with integrated care systems and providing guidance to promote best practice in addressing violence against women and girls, domestic abuse and sexual violence. That could well include advice on designated leads and those internal structures and processes.
Beyond ICBs, I see a huge opportunity for integrated care partnerships to support improved services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and other forms of harm through better partnership working. I am sure we have all undertaken visits to women’s refuges or to other charities that support women who are victims of domestic abuse. I should just say that it is, of course, true that men and women can be victims of domestic abuse. I refer to women in this context because an overwhelming number of victims are women, but it can happen to anyone, irrespective of gender.
In my previous role, I had the privilege of meeting survivors of domestic abuse, who were willing to talk to me about what had happened and their recovery from and survival of domestic abuse. In those conversations, people would often say, “I dealt with one agency, but it did not talk to this agency and this bit did not join up.” There is a real opportunity for the ICPs to work with housing providers, local authorities, the NHS and other voluntary and third sector organisations to help to bring together a more coherent and joined-up approach.
More broadly, I assure the Committee that the NHS will be at the forefront of stepping up to its responsibility to play its part in tackling domestic abuse, sexual violence and violence against women and girls. NHS England is developing enhanced trauma-informed mental health support for victims with the most complex needs within the sexual assault and abuse pathway. The DHSC’s new office for health promotion will work with the newly merged NHS England to review and build on workforce policies to ensure safe, effective processes are in place to support staff affected by domestic violence and sexual violence.
I hope I have reassured the Committee that we take this issue extremely seriously. Although we do not think that the approach proposed in the new clause is the right one, I am open-minded and happy to work across the aisle to see if there is more we can do in this space, in keeping with the strategy set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle when she was at the Home Office, and to see if there are other ways to achieve essentially the same objective.
Alex Norris
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I agree with significant elements of it. I take the point about existing duties on CCGs, and I am very mindful of those. The reality is that they do not work, or they certainly have not worked to date. I have no confidence that anything will change if current arrangements are just ported over to integrated care boards, which is what will happen. I do not think anything will change. I cannot imagine what will have changed in that moment to make it different, and I cannot therefore agree with the characterisation that the new clause is unnecessary.
I accept that we would not want to see a proliferation of further strategies. By making it a requirement, the new clause seeks to put the treatment, assessment and care of domestic abuse on the same footing in integrated care as elective care or major diseases. It should have that status, and at the moment it does not. It needs to be elevated to that level. I do not disagree at all with the Minister’s point about domestic abuse being a thread that runs through all policies. The reality is that we have been saying that for a really long time. What actually happens is that it is in everything and, as a result, it is in nothing, and things do not change. Certainly, they are not changing quickly enough in the health space.
Finally, on the point about integrated care partnerships, I hoped that the Minister would not say what he did, because that is the problem. The fundamental issue is that those who are making the direct daily decisions about health and care in our communities are downgrading the issue by considering what they do not as operational, daily, immediate, crucial decisions—in the way they would with elective care or cancer care—but instead as partnership work.
I would never talk down the pledges that we sign or the awareness days we do. I have signed all the pledges and gone to all the awareness days, and I will keep doing that because it is an important way of keeping the pot boiling. However, I am not convinced that they have done enough to make my constituents safer or give them a better health service. I have seen no evidence of that yet. This is not partnership work, but daily, crucial work that ought to be done by system decision makers, who ought to be prioritising it every day, but I do not think that is the case.
Edward Argar
If I was unclear, I apologise; that was not the intention of what I was saying. I sought to say that that partnership work brings together organisations that, I believe, do focus on the issue day to day and have it as an operational priority, but often still operate in silos. In some of the best partnerships in the best local authority areas, those silos are much less evident. My point about the ICP was not as an alternative to making this front and centre, and asking “What are you doing in your operational decision making?”—be it about elective care, cancer or domestic abuse, and treating them the same—but that often it operates in a way that is internal to those organisations, rather than across them.
That was the point I was trying to make about partnership: not only do we need that internal process and urgency—I totally share the hon. Gentleman’s view on that—but we need the ICPs to offer an opportunity to do that by bridging organisations. I hope that adds a little clarity, if I was unclear.
Alex Norris
It does, and of course I would not want to misrepresent what the Minister said. My point is that, while of course we should seek to work across the partnership and have a cross-partnership approach to tackling this issue in our communities—that is a very good thing to do—the problem currently is that that means we are not doing enough in the health and care space. There has to be something that says to health leaders, “Yes, work in partnership, but there are bits that you have to do yourselves that at the moment you are not doing well enough, so please do them.” This is my “something”. That was my logic in tabling this new clause, and it is why I intend to push it to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I think I tabled these new clauses back in August; recalling my brain to that time, summer seems like a long time ago now.
New clause 7 may seem self-evident, and I think the Minister may respond, “Yes, we are happy for them to do this, and parts of this have been included in the Bill.” I will not seek to press the clause to a vote, but I had a short conversation with the Minister to indicate that this is really good practice and that we need some assurance that the NHS will abide by the Government’s rules. That is all I seek to do with this new clause. It is self-evident that papers should be published in advance and made available to people, and that due process should be followed, but we all know that that often does not happen. Sometimes there are emergency reasons for that, but in my experience, it rarely needs to happen at the last minute.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South, who said what should not really need saying, but still needed to be said, because being open and transparent is the highest form of accountability. Given the history of the NHS as the archetypal public service, one would expect it to be the model of openness and transparency. Maybe it was at one point, but we are a long way from that now. In a public service on the scale of the NHS one would expect the sharing of best practice to be the norm and openness to be the standard. Unfortunately we know that it is not, and one has to ask what it is people want to hide from others.
We know of classic examples of how a secretive approach has made matters far worse than they were. The various inquiries have shown that these methods have not only prevented things from being released, but have actively protected colleagues, units and even trusts from what might, at the very least, be considered reputational damage. Many have said that the best disinfectant is sunlight—or words to that effect—and the best governance comes when things are open and transparent. The best checks and balances are only possible if all information is shared properly.
I will quote from the code of conduct for NHS boards, agreed two decades ago between the NHS Appointments Commission and the Department of Health. I believe it is as valuable today as it was then. It says,
“Health needs and patterns of provision of health care do not stand still. There should be a willingness to be open with the public, patients and with staff as the need for change emerges. It is a requirement that major changes are consulted upon before decisions are reached. Information supporting those decisions should be made available, in a way that is understandable, and positive responses should be given to reasonable requests for information and in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”
I think we all understand what that seeks to achieve: be open and transparent, listen and engage. History suggests that this has been applied patchily at best.
One of the inevitable consequences of the shift to a belief in the markets was the idea that bits of the NHS were only semi-attached to the greater body and had their own paths to travel and own priorities. Some of these bodies were expected to behave like businesses and were given the illusion of having a bottom line or a surplus. They were told that their incomes depended on how many customers they had through their doors and that they would win more through competition with other providers in a quasi-market. That led them to become more insular, self-serving and closed. Why would they want to share information with their competitors? That may sound a little extreme, but there are plenty of examples of that kind of behaviour, which tips over into, essentially, reputational management—being seen to be good and one of the best, but actually covering up some of the worst.
Openness and transparency have been eroded as a result. We saw in the Francis report a renewed focus on openness and transparency, which was meant to lead to better patient outcomes—in theory, at least. The renewed interest in openness gave rise to this statement from the report:
“It is a basic and just expectation of the public that organisations are open, honest and transparent about their performance standards, about the rights of patients and about what happened, and why, if things go wrong. This is the only way to begin to restore full public trust in the NHS.”
Sadly, that was not the end of the matter.
The Lansley Act—the Health and Social Care Act 2012—pushed, I am afraid, many trusts in the opposite direction. Despite the Francis report and talk of duties of candour, we still have horrific reports of failures within the NHS. Those failures often illustrate a refusal to be open and honest, showing a scant regard for whistleblowers and a culture of denial and refusal to accept the challenges. In part, this is another remnant of the Lansley Act. Once the emphasis is on competition, reputation management and business-like behaviours and away from public services, we begin to lose openness and transparency.
Let us go back to the key principles of the NHS as a public service that is accountable to us all, as public services should be. NHS business should be conducted in a way that is socially responsible. The NHS is one of the largest employers in many communities, and it should be forging an open, positive relationship with local communities, working with staff, partners and stakeholders to set out a vision for the organisation in line with the expectations of their communities, patients and the public. None of that can be done in secret, behind closed doors. NHS organisations should not only discuss but demonstrate to the public that they are concerned about and determined to deal with the wider health of the population, including how it relates to the organisations’ own impact on the local economy, the local environment and so on. They should reflect the values of engagement, which should be at the forefront of all decision making, and transparency, which should be there in all dealings.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol South for tabling this new clause. Much of what we discussed in relation to amendment 34 is relevant here as well. She says she seeks to be helpful by tabling the new clause. I take it in that spirit and will seek to respond in that spirit, although we may not agree on our conclusions.
As I said when we debated amendment 34, we agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and the hon. Lady that it is right that ICBs involve the public in their decisions in a transparent way. That also holds true for NHS England, NHS provider organisations and special health authorities. The new clause would require NHS trusts, foundations trusts, proposed ICBs, NHS England and special health authorities to hold their meetings in public except if it would be prejudicial to the public interest to do so. It would also require those bodies, when making major decisions—defined by thresholds of cost or impact on patients or staff—to do so having produced a business case, undertaken a stage gate review or similar external assessment, and considered comments from the public, patients or staff representatives. The comments, business case and review could not be considered commercially confidential under the FOI Act.
As I mentioned when discussing amendment 34, much of that is already the case. First, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 places a similar and analogous set of requirements to involve the public in meetings as the new clause. NHS England and NHS trusts are already included in the schedule to the 1960 Act, so are subject to the requirements of that Act. Schedule 4 to the Bill provides for integrated care boards to be added to the schedule to the 1960 Act as well, thereby bringing their activities within its competence.
The position of special health authorities is that where the regulations establishing them provide as such, they are to be subject to the requirements of the 1960 Act. That gives the flexibility to include them as appropriate. For example, NHS Blood and Transplant and the NHS Trust Development Authority—which the Bill proposes merging with NHS England—are included at present.
By having the requirements for public notice of, and attendance at, meetings of those bodies set out in the 1960 Act, we keep NHS bodies in line with the requirements placed on other public bodies, meaning that everyone is clear about the legal requirements and what the public can expect from them. Foundation trusts are not formally covered by the 1960 Act, but it is mandatory that they make provision in their constitutions that their board of directors’ meetings and their annual meeting of members be held in public. They are also under the same duty as NHS trusts to involve those who use their services in their decisions regarding service provision, as set out in section 242 of the National Health Service Act 2006. In practice, therefore, foundation trusts are guided by similar principles to other NHS bodies.
Turning to the point about setting in legislation a decision-making process for “major decisions”, we of course agree that it is vital that NHS bodies follow a robust process when making decisions. Integrated care boards, for example, have clear duties to use their resources efficiently and effectively. For practical reasons, however, we would not want to subject every major decision to a single fixed approach, not least because there is no provision in the amendment for responding to emergencies or rapidly emerging situations, including those related to patient safety.
I hope that I can, however, give some degree of reassurance that there are, as set out in the 2006 Act, broad duties on NHS bodies in respect of consultation and public involvement. NHS England involves those who are affected by decisions about commissioning in the decision-making process, either by consulting them or by providing them with information in other ways. A similar duty will be imposed on ICBs by clause 19. NHS trusts and foundation trusts have a similar duty in respect of public involvement and consultation when making decisions about the services they provide, again set out in the 2006 Act.
The Committee is also aware that the Treasury is committed to seeing business cases where capital spending, or whole-life cost spending for IT, is more than £50 million, and we expect ICBs to align with that standard. Furthermore, NHS England has a broad range of powers to issue guidance on how ICBs and others make decisions, spend capital and involve patients and the public in those decisions. Placing those processes in guidance, rather than on the face of the Bill, gives not only the flexibility to set different approaches in different circumstances, but the ability to respond to changing best practice.
On procurement and transparency, as we have discussed, the Bill introduces a power to bring forward new procurement regulations, which will set out the new provider selection regime. Regulations and statutory guidance will set out rules to ensure transparency and scrutiny under the new regime, which will be designed to ensure open, transparent and robust decision making, and will require decision-making bodies to demonstrate the rationale for their decisions. The decision-making process will be recorded internally by NHS bodies and audited annually. While decision-making bodies will be required to publish contracts awarded and intentions for the method of procurement, with a rationale for both, the bodies will not be required to publish every detail of their decision-making process.
Regarding FOI requests, I recognise the impulse to be as transparent as possible and agree that, unless exemptions apply, information should be released under the FOI Act. I am advised that confidentiality, which is an absolute exemption, and commercial confidentiality, which is a qualified exemption, are two separate exemptions already in that legislation. Where parts of the decision-making process are exempted on the grounds of commercial interests, those exclusions exist to protect the release of information that could prejudice a commercial decision. That could put NHS bodies at a disadvantage in ongoing negotiations and would be detrimental to the public purse.
I am advised that this is a qualified exemption and therefore disclosure would still be required unless the public interest in withholding disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure being made. I recognise that that is a tricky balance to strike, but I do not think it is to the benefit of the NHS that information held by NHS bodies that could be commercially damaging and does not meet a public interest test should be released.
I hope that that offers some reassurance to the Committee. I encourage the hon. Lady not to press her new clause to a Division.
Health and Care Bill (Nineteeth sitting)
Wednesday 27th October 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2021 - (27 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we start, I remind hon. Members about electronic devices, masks and notes to Hansard.
New Clause 7
Transparency of decision-making by NHS bodies
“(1) All meetings of NHS bodies must be held in public and reasonable provision must be made for access to meetings other than by physical attendance.
(2) All—
(a) agendas; and
(b) other papers
to be considered at meetings of NHS bodies must be published at least 10 days before the date of the meeting.
(3) For the purposes of this section an NHS body is—
(a) NHS England;
(b) an Integrated Care Board;
(c) an NHS Trust;
(d) an NHS Foundation Trust; and
(e) a Special Health Authority.
(4) An NHS body may, by resolution, exclude the public from the whole or part of a meeting if it considers that publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest because confidential business is to be transacted at the meeting or for other reasons stated in the resolution.
(5) A resolution to exclude the public from a meeting under subsection (4) must be published at least five days before the date of the meeting and must explain—
(a) what is covered by the resolution; and the reason publication is not in the public interest.
(6) Any responses from the public to the publication of the resolution under subsection (5) must be considered in public at the meeting.
(7) All major decisions taken by an NHS body must be based on—
(a) a business case prepared to the standards required by HM Treasury and published at least one month before the decision is to be considered;
(b) a Stage Gate Review or similar external independent assurance review, the summary of which must be published at least one month before the decision is to be considered; and
(c) consideration of any responses from the public, patients or staff representatives to the business case.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7) neither the business case nor any part of it nor any record of the consideration of the case by the NHS body may be considered to be commercially confidential under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (7) a “major decision” includes, but is not restricted to, any proposal for—
(a) capital expenditure in excess of £5m; the award of any contract with a value in excess of £1m to any organisation that is not an NHS Trust or NHS Foundation Trust; and
(b) any change in the organisation of the provision of services that will involve or may involve—
(i) more than 10 staff; or
(ii) more than 10 patients or service users.
(10) NHS England may publish guidance on the consideration of major decisions under subsections (7) to (9).”—(Karin Smyth.)
This new clause requires all NHS organisations to hold meetings and make decisions in an open and transparent manner and allows the public and patients to express views on important proposals.
Brought up, read the First time, and Question proposed (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments, but I am a bit disappointed. The Minister basically set out what was already required, but that was not the issue. Many Members will have found that what is required is not our experience. Meetings are held in private. In my comments this morning I said that increased throughout the ’90s and the noughties. That is not a party political point: it is to do with the increasing competition. The Minister cites Acts from the 1960s, but that is not our experience.
Some foundation trusts have taken the view that they can hold private meetings for their own reasons. It is our experience that decisions are regularly taken before consultation even begins. The consultation that those bodies embark on is often simply about the how, when it should be about the what. The major projects go ahead and procurement commences without what anyone would recognise as a proper business case, with no proper external validation by a gate or any other review. Again, that is the Government’s own policy.
Trusts regularly ignore freedom of information guidance. Businesses cases are withheld because they are contentious, not because they threaten commercial confidentiality—that is a screen behind which people hide. The new clause tries to send the message that the NHS should try harder. The Minister’s response should be to completely agree. He should tell his Department to behave in the way that the Cabinet Office and the Treasury expect, and send that message to the NHS much more strongly.
What does the Minister thinks he has done on compliance? Who is enforcing this? What do MPs and members of the public do when those bodies do not do what we expect them to do? In my experience of recourse to the Secretaries of State, there is no monitoring and compliance, and no real sanctions on people who flaunt the requirements expected. Thankfully, we are not talking about markets and competition, so all the need for secrecy should have gone. I hope the Minister can be stronger within his Department and with the NHS about the standards we expect. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr McCabe. Today, new guidance was published in the House that all members of staff in Parliament should wear masks. I am truly shocked that, given we are debating the Health and Care Bill, the majority of the Members on the Government side cannot put on a mask and set an example. Is there anything we can do to remind Members that we all have a duty of care to everyone who works here and their safety?
The Chair
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I should point out that this is not a matter for the Chair. Mr Speaker has encouraged everyone to wear masks when they are not speaking. It would be extremely helpful if people were to abide by that. The hon. Lady’s point is on the record and I am sure it will be drawn to Mr Speaker’s attention.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr McCabe. I understand that it is out of your hands, but this is an important matter for the safety not only of Members but of all staff here. We are in a smaller room than we have been recently, so circulation is probably not as good as we would like. When was the most recent risk assessment on this Committee meeting, and what did it say about the wearing of masks?
The Chair
I have just been advised that there was a statement from the Commission yesterday, but I do not believe there has been a specific assessment in relation to the Committee meeting in this room or any update on that. Again, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is not an issue for me. His point is on the record and it will be drawn to Mr Speaker’s attention. I am not sure there is a great deal more that we can achieve at this stage.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Further to that point of order, some Members may have medical conditions that we do not wish to disclose meaning we cannot wear masks. I have been sitting in the Chamber for three hours now, and I struggle with wearing a mask for a specific medical reason. I would therefore like to put on record that it is not necessarily a political decision not to wear a mask—sometimes it is for a medical reason. That needs to be understood.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Lady for that further point of order. I have to say to all of you: this is not the venue for this debate. If Members really want to have this debate, they need to speak to Mr Speaker. I have heard what people have said and it is on the record. You are entitled to take it up with Mr Speaker. I am going to move on.
New Clause 8
NHS Good Governance Commission
“(1) Regulations must provide for the establishment of an NHS Good Governance Commission as a Special Health Authority.
(2) The Commission has responsibility for ensuring that anyone appointed to, or elected into, a non-executive role on an NHS body—
(a) is a fit and proper person for that role; and
(b) has been appointed or elected by a process that the Commission considers appropriate.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) a Chair or ordinary member of an Integrated Care Board must be considered to be a non-executive role.
(4) NHS England may publish guidance, which must be approved by the Commission, about how appointments are made to NHS bodies.
(5) The Commission must publish an annual assessment of diversity and inclusion in decision-making by NHS bodies and in appointments to executive and non-executive roles in NHS bodies.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (2) an NHS body is—
(a) NHS England;
(b) an Integrated Care Board;
(c) an NHS Trust;
(d) an NHS Foundations Trust; and
(e) a Special Health Authority.”—(Karin Smyth.)
This new clause returns to the position prior to 2012 by recreating a body with independent oversight of important NHS appointments.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Karin Smyth
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
At the risk of my career, I am again trying to be helpful to the Government. During the debate, we have come round in a circular way about the lack of accountability in the Bill and the quite astonishing levels of power taken directly by the Secretary of State. Those may be two separate things, but, in terms of the culture that we want to embed in the health system, they are really quite worrying.
The Bill puts into law the organisational changes of the last few years—based on what the NHS, I agree, has been asking for—on a population basis, not on competition or autonomy. Most of us genuinely welcome that: we want to see better population health, people working together, and services rooted in the community; we want to empower local people and guarantee service levels locally. We want to ensure transparency on funding to see if one area is funded more favourably than another. Historically, there have been problems with that and we want to understand that. We want to know why certain services operate in one area and not another.
Opposition Members often talk about a postcode lottery. I do not always agree with that terminology because if the population shows that it needs different levels of services in different parts of the country, then the local NHS needs to reflect that. My own city, Bristol, is a very young city; we have a very small population of over-85s. Further to the south-west, in nearby Torquay and Torbay, that situation is reversed. I would expect to see different population levels of healthcare in Bristol and Torbay.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
When we talk about a postcode lottery—something I have worked against my entire career—it does not really refer to the area of the postcode, but the access of individuals. At the end of the day, 85-year-olds in Bristol should get the same service as 85-year-olds in Torbay, even if there are fewer of them. Everyone should get the mandate of the service both health and social care deliver, even if it is delivered in a different way because of geography or demographics.
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I do not disagree. The terms are bandied around and people often do not know what we mean by them, which is why, without going back into the past too much, I was a strong supporter when we were in Government of the national service frameworks and certainly of guaranteeing a level of care and access, as she says.
However, it is the case that different health systems will have different demands on them, and therefore should respond differently. On that basis, my point is that that local difference should be reflected: it should make the system accountable to and understandable by local people, and should involve them in the decisions made on their behalf. That seems self-evident.
We often hear in this Committee about the Minister’s, the shadow Minister’s and my other colleagues’ experiences in local government, but I think people would agree that the experiences of people involved in local government and people involved in the health service are so far apart as to be completely unrecognisable, in terms of the national accountability that the health service seems to have and the local accountability that local government has.
These bodies are deeply troubling. I have called them local cartels, in their form as integrated care boards. They have no accountability to the local people they serve, or nationally through Parliament. We have heard that the chair and chief executive are to be chosen in London according to criteria we know not, with all power vested in the Secretary of State and some promise of further detail in secondary legislation.
However, the logical conclusion of the Bill, and the way out of the problem for the Government, is a system, as we have tried to suggest, of elected chairs akin to the police and crime commissioners or metro Mayors. Elsewhere in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and I have highlighted the vast discrepancy in money and powers that exists between police and crime commissioners, or even my local Mayor, and the health service. Health service spending dwarfs both of them.
I will not press the new clause to a Division, because I would like to see it picked up elsewhere in the debate as the Bill progresses through this place, and I would like to leave it as something helpful for the Government to keep considering. If the Government do not want to go down the election route, and we heard the reasons from the Minister, bringing back some form of the Appointments Commission, which disappeared in the coalition’s bonfire of the quangos, would be very helpful. There, we had clear role descriptions and person specifications for people who sit on those bodies, a transparent recruitment and interview process, and performance oversight and accountability. I was subject to that when I was a member of the primary care trust in Bristol North some time ago.
The other vital change is to try to bring in some genuine openness and transparency and some independent oversight of the process of appointment. The new boards and integrated care systems are a radical departure from the past 30 years. Earlier in the Committee, I made us pause momentarily as we saw off section 75, autonomy and competition. This is a big moment, and the new systems will need very highly skilled and experienced people to develop them to their potential, because, as we have heard, it is not clear how they are to be run.
The Government keep talking about permissiveness. The systems will be run by people on the ground, and the sort of people we want in charge must be imbued from the off with the culture that we want to see. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire talked the other day about the safety board being strangled at birth, and there is a danger that these bodies, some of which have been operating quite well, will not fulfil their potential and will be strangled at birth, because that culture of feeding up accountability just to NHS England and not to local populations will make them not work in the way they should, and certainly will make them not work well with local government.
This huge culture change is a culture change for clinical leaders as well as managers. There are some great opportunities here for population-based health, but we are asking clinical leaders—clinical leadership is already a real problem in these bodies—not to look to their own departments in the first instance and their own institutions in the second, but to look outwith their institutions, working with clinicians across the primary-secondary interface, and at a population-based approach rather than their own specialty-based approach. Again, that is a massive sea change for them. Having the clinical leaders doing that at the board level and giving them the support they need to do that in their specialities requires people who are highly skilled and who will be respected locally for their experience and skills, and for, I would argue, their independence from not being hand-picked by the Secretary of State.
The Government continue to lurch from one cronyism charge to another. A transparent process would help them get over that problem—again, I kindly offer the Government some help through their difficulties. The NHS should be seen as an exemplar for appointments and recruitment. The NHS has a terrible problem with diversity. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on social mobility on the work the civil service is trying to do around improving recruitment, particularly at the higher levels, of people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and black and minority ethnic backgrounds. The NHS has also failed that test over many years, and I believe that a more representative local selection—I would like it to be elected, but it could be selected through an appointments process— would help.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South, who gave a superb analysis of why the new clause is important and she picked up on many of the themes that we have already debated. The topicality of NHS senior management is there for all to see, with some of the recent headlines being orchestrated to divert from the growing waiting list crisis in the NHS.
Our view is that NHS senior management cannot be all that bad because they have seriously outperformed the private sector on efficiency for nearly a decade. If the NHS is one of the most efficient services in the world as many international studies have demonstrated, that is a credit to the managers who form a relatively small proportion of the overall workforce. I hope the Minister will join us in congratulating NHS managers, along with all the other brilliant staff, who have got us through the pandemic over the last 18 months—although, as we know, we are not through it yet. The contrast with some of the political decisions made has been exposed recently by the joint report by the Health and Social Care Committee and the Science and Technology Committee.
As we have discussed on a number of occasions, the Bill seems to specialise in the centralisation of power, with more and more being explicitly given to the Secretary of State. Do we want the Secretary of State appointing every chair, non-executive and chief executive, even in bodies that are meant to be independent from the Department? Amendment 18, which we debated earlier, would have gone some way to addressing that: alas, it was not to be. This is a serious issue that needs tackling. My hon. Friend is an expert on these matters through her own knowledge and experience, and I absolutely support what she has said.
While good governance might sound a little cheesy, I am sure that we could spend a lot of time discussing what exactly this new clause should be called.
I think we can all understand what good governance means and what it should look like, because we have certainly seen what it does not look like in how the Department operates at the moment. As my hon. Friend said, there was something similar in place previously, before it was burned in the bonfire of quangos under the coalition Government. Something should be in place, be it a revitalised appointments commission or even some independent standing committee or panel—something that has independent oversight of these very senior positions.
As we have said before, we would like more direct democracy in our integrated care boards. We are not going to get that, by the looks of it, but we would at least like some independence in appointments. When my ICB chair is finally appointed, I want him or her—it is a “him” at the moment, and it is an interim position—to be looking outwards, not upwards to NHS England all the time. That is something that a good governance panel would help facilitate.
A fit and proper person test should be applied independently, even to get on a shortlist, and there should be some process for removing those who should not be on there. This needs to be applied by people who are independent and competent, and not people who are already on the lists or making the appointment decisions. Perhaps we should even have some people who have oversight of how people in senior positions are appraised, trained and supported. There is a lot of experience and expertise out there that we could harness. I hope that, whatever this body ends up looking like, it can assist the NHS in dealing better with issues such as diversity, succession planning and leadership—all areas on which we can always strive to do better.
I hope that nobody mentions bureaucracy or cost as an excuse to leave things as they are. We know from published NHS experience that having an appointments commission was not really an overhead; in fact, it was a valuable resource that, in the end, saved money. We know how much it costs to replace someone who has proved unsuitable, and to undo the mistakes that they made. Appointing the right people in the first place is the best solution. The Minister will, of course, be aware of the importance of recruitment and retention across the whole NHS. I think that we can do more in respect of senior leadership roles.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, transparency is key throughout the systems. Where the funding goes is a key question that will become even more key as we move into the ICBs, with larger areas and different funding streams merging into one. Transparency will be important there. Of course, there will be local differences, as she said, but there should still be accountability to someone for where that money goes and who is taking those decisions. We have what we have described as a permissive approach to running ICBs at the moment, but that does not mean that we cannot have transparency and accountability. That is why we support the new clause.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is nice to see you back in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol South. Although we may not fully agree, again I take the new clause in the spirit in which she tabled it. I will reflect on what she said, but I will also set out why I cannot accept what she is proposing. I will always reflect on what she says and proposes; when she proposes things, they are well thought out. We may come to different conclusions, but the points she made are certainly deserving of reflection. I can give her that assurance up front.
As in our oral evidence sessions, I join the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister in paying tribute to those in our amazing NHS and care workforce. It is also important that we recognise, as I think she said during questioning of witnesses, that the complexity of the organisations we are talking about—the complexity of an acute trust, for example—means that strong and effective leadership, both financial and administrative, are hugely important to the overall success of the enterprise of our NHS. I therefore join her in paying tribute to those staff who often find themselves, particularly in media commentary and similar shorthand critiques, on the receiving end of criticism. People may ask, “What are they there for?”. They are hugely valuable—just as much as frontline clinicians, nursing staff and those who work in the canteens or clean the wards. It is a team.
Edward Argar
I will give way to the hon. Lady, as I am sure she will amplify this point. She has worked in clinical settings and will know that a whole team is needed to make things work.
Dr Whitford
I cannot resist the opportunity to amplify that point. Having spent over three decades working in hospitals as a surgeon, I know that it is a team sport that depends on everyone. Sometimes when cuts are made we hear the definition of “frontline” or “back-room” services. If I am in a clinic on my own without the patient records, the patient or the laboratory results, I am a complete waste of space. It is critical to recognise that. To get all the moving parts working well, really good managers are worth their weight in gold. They are part of the team and should be valued as such.
We heard with reference to fit and proper persons that the Kark review did not go far enough and should have suggested suggest registration or licensing of senior managers. Sometimes when the system does not work, we see the same people move out of one place and into another in this kind of revolving door manner.
Edward Argar
Although I do not always agree with the hon. Lady, I find myself in complete agreement with her. She made a couple of points that referred back to those made by the hon. Member for Bristol South. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the system needs high-calibre, high-quality people with the right skills, particularly given what we are seeking to do with integrated care systems. We must foster an environment in which those high skills are valued, continually reinforced and refreshed.
On the point about the Kark review, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is right. How should I phrase this delicately? People may move on, or be moved on, from posts because it was not a success for whatever reason; I will phrase it like that. We need to look at the challenge posed by those people suddenly reappearing in another equivalent senior post in a different part of the country. There may be a reason why someone has not been a success that is not due to particular circumstances or something beyond their control, and we need to look at the recycling of those people who have not been found to have hit the mark. We need to look at that carefully.
Edward Argar
I see the look on the shadow Minister’s face, which makes me wonder what is coming.
Justin Madders
I am not trying to catch the Minister out. I can think of a specific example where what he mentioned has happened. I am, frankly, angry that this individual has been able to do that. What does the Minister think can be done to ensure that the revolving door is shut on those whom it deserves to be shut on?
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister is right. It is a challenge, and it is something I continually reflect on, because it intersects with legal employment rights, the nature of the terms on which someone leaves, how these matters work and the fact that NHS trusts around the country are individual. It is not a simple issue. It is one that I continue to reflect on. I hasten to add that it is not just the shadow Minister but Members from both sides of the House who have, on occasion, raised the issue. It requires further thought and reflection.
New clause 8 would involve creating a new special health authority, effectively, to provide independent oversight of NHS appointments. I recognise the importance of such appointments, and everyone would agree that good governance arrangements should and must be in place for managing them. Appointments to NHS trusts, NHS England and special health authorities are public appointments; they are managed in line with the principles of the governance code for public appointments and are regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The chair of an ICB would be appointed by NHS England, with the approval of the Secretary of State. That reflects a point that has been considered on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill, namely that the ICB is accountable to NHS England and, through it, to the Secretary of State and, ultimately, Parliament, as part of a national health service.
I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Bristol South said about the need for people to be answerable and responsive to their local community. The counter-challenge is avoiding the fragmentation of the national health service and the vertical arrangement. She mentioned police and crime commissioners, and although our police forces operate in a similar way, the difference is that we have never had a national police force. Each force is based on a county—or a city, in the case of the Metropolitan Police Service—and works on a locality basis, as local authorities do.
Justin Madders
This is a slightly cheekier question than my last one. Has the Minister conducted a similar exercise in his own Department?
Edward Argar
In respect of Ministers or senior civil servants? When it comes to Ministers, though I suspect that is not the point he wishes to push—
Justin Madders
I think we can see who the Ministers are, at least this week. I was referring more to the senior civil servants.
Edward Argar
I like to think that I am a constant in the Department, this week and in previous weeks. It is piece of work that we have done. If one looks at the very senior civil servants—the directors general and permanent secretaries—there is a good gender balance. He is absolutely right, however; having assumed responsibility for workforce more broadly a few weeks ago, it is a piece of work that I want to do. I was responsible for the implementation of the Lammy review and race disparity audit when I was at the Ministry of Justice, and it is an interest that I have taken with me to my new Department. The last year has been a little bit busy, but it is something of which I have not lost sight.
I do not believe that it is necessary to create a new body to oversee appointments, given that good governance arrangements are already in place. I therefore remain unconvinced by the argument. As ever, and as behoves me when the hon. Lady proposes something, I will continue to reflect on it carefully.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. I will not press the new clause to a Division, but I hope to see this matter further debated during the passage of the Bill. I say gently to the Minister that the gender split for CEOs and managing directors in the health service may be 50:50, but the workforce, and certainly managerial post holders, are overwhelmingly women; however, that is not reflected further up.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady makes a point that I should have made earlier. When I was looking at this matter in the Ministry of Justice, I was not just looking at prison governors. We need to look at the layers below, the succession plan, and the mix coming up through the system—the next generation of leaders. She is right to highlight that; forgive me for not having mentioned it.
Karin Smyth
I am afraid that these bodies have not proven themselves good at doing that, and it is not good to have them police themselves, so we need to progress the debate. On the national/local question, I am generally more Morrison than Bevan, so I will continue to plough that furrow, but this is also about being seen to do things properly for local people. My fundamental point remains that as we ask people to spend more money—we are talking about a huge proportion of our GDP, and it will be increasingly so under any Government—we need to be able to demonstrate to them what is done with it, and how and why it is done, and we need to involve the public.
That is my view of the future of the health service, and that is why I will continue to pursue this argument. When it comes to cost, it is a moot point whether this is done quietly in the corridors of NHS England; whether it is done by the Secretary of State; whether names mysteriously appear in the local economy; or whether there is due process. I am not saying that the old system was perfect. It is quite hard to recruit people to these bodies, but they are powerful people, spending billions of pounds of local money in the local economy. They need to be more representative and accountable, and we need to know who they are. As I said, I will not pursue the matter now, but I would like to see it debated further over the passage of the Bill, and we will come back to it another time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Duty to promote research
“For Section 1E of the National Health Service Act 2006 substitute—
‘Duty to promote research
The Secretary of State must—
(a) support the conduct of research on matters relevant to the health and care system,
(b) provide funding for research on matters relevant to the health and care system, via ring-fenced funding for the National Institute for Health Research, and
(c) promote the use in the health and care system of evidence obtained from research.’”—(Chris Skidmore.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to have a duty to support, fund and promote the use of research in the health and care system in England, via ring-fenced funding for the National Institute for Health Research.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause would introduce for the first time a duty to promote research, particularly on the Secretary of State. The Committee may remember that in discussion on clause 19, I spoke extensively on integrated care boards’ duties to promote research. This reflects the importance that research plays in our healthcare system. We recognise the value of being able to carry out real-term clinical trials in the single health ecosystem that is the NHS. That not only enormously benefits patients, in terms of health outcomes, but underpins a whole life sciences industry, in which, as we have seen from the pandemic and our vaccine response, the UK is truly world leading.
It is not simply because of profit that I wish to speak to the new clause. It is also clear, as I discussed on clause 19, that research can underpin and strengthen the healthcare ecosystem. It can help with retaining staff, who become inspired by the research that they do in the course of their careers. It also improves health outcomes for patients, and the investment in research is ploughed back into healthcare services. Everyone benefits from spending money on research and development. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made the point to me that research also plays an important part when it comes to the accountability and transparency of the NHS by underpinning clinical auditing processes, by which we can then demonstrate healthcare inequalities and map out where NHS services need to improve. That can drive better integration of services by seeking to identify where the inequalities are and closing them.
Promoting research is not simply about R&D and big pharma; it is about changing how we look at our health service. We need to move from a healthcare service that is still primarily reactive to one that can recognise patient population issues around chronic disease, and identify which interventions can be made earlier. That is something that we are beginning to understand far better through the application of genomics and precision medicine. The UK became the first country in the world to code 100,000 genomes in the 100,000 Genomes project, and there is the Biobank project. That has all come about thanks to initial investment in research and development, and it has opened up a whole new area of healthcare services that the NHS will benefit from in decades to come.
It is very important to invest in R&D. Since our morning sitting, the Chancellor has announced an additional £44 billion of investment in the NHS over three years to 2024-25, taking total spend in the NHS up to £177 billion. I welcome that huge investment in healthcare services. It is not yet clear exactly what investment is to go into healthcare R&D, although the Budget leaks in The Sunday Times and beyond suggest that roughly £5 billion of that will be spent on health R&D over five years. I welcome that funding. There was also mention of additional money being spent on genomics.
If it is the case that healthcare research is to receive £5 billion over three years, it is not just about the money; it is about the use that money is put to, and making sure that it goes as far as possible and has the best possible outcomes. We can only do that by ensuring that we have the structures and frameworks in place to make sure that the money is well spent. New clause 9 places a duty on the Secretary of State to
“(a) support the conduct of research on matters relevant to the health and care system,
(b) provide funding for research on matters relevant to the health and care system, via ring-fenced funding for the National Institute for Health Research, and
(c) promote the use in the health and care system of evidence obtained from research.”
The positive feedback mechanism is important. We do not want to commission research that will gather dust on the shelves. We want to make sure, through real-time evidence and clinical trials, that the R&D money goes as far as possible, for the benefit of patients.
I said that paragraph (b) would ringfence funding for the National Institute for Health Research—a long-term ask of research organisations and companies involved in the active process of healthcare R&D. If I am honest with you, the process has often been a hand-to-mouth exercise. NIHR has received about £1 billion a year to spend on R&D. The most important thing in R&D is to provide not simply the funding, but the long-term certainty over that funding. When I was Science Minister, one reason why I was so committed to ensuring that the UK was associated with Horizon Europe was that it is a seven-year multiannual financial framework—those researchers have security for seven years. The level of participation is a different question, but the scientist or healthcare researcher commits to research projects that last several years at a time. What they cannot have is uncertainty, every year, that the research might suddenly be pulled. That leads to the disintegration of research partnerships and a lack of commitment at the start to even beginning to understand what might be achievable.
Ringfencing funding for the NIHR will provide the certainty as well as the money, so it will make the money go further. Individuals will be able to commit to projects, knowing that they have funding not for one year, but several years.
Dr Whitford
I spent a few years in cancer research while doing my doctorate. Does the Minister recognise that when there is that hand-to-mouth need to get a publication so as to get another grant, researchers are taken away from what we might call blue-sky or imaginative research that may not work out? People end up researching something they virtually already know the answer to, because that way they will get a publication and then get another grant. It is not just about their personal insecurity—it skews the type of research that gets done.
Chris Skidmore
Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for making that point. When I was Science Minister, we recognised the need to look again at some of the processes that underpin research applications for UK Research and Innovation, for instance. We have the bureaucracy review that is currently being chaired by Adam Tickell, current vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex who is moving on to the University of Birmingham. We need to end this cyclical process of time—which is ultimately the greatest commodity that anyone has to offer—being taken away from researchers whose expertise is far better spent focusing on their research in the laboratory or performing clinical trials, and ensure that they can get on with what they do best rather than having to worry about the administrative burden of applying and form-filling every year.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to resume with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I commend the right hon. Member for Kingswood for his new clause and for the persuasive case that he made for it. I will cover much of what he said in my contribution, but I highlight his point about long-term certainty, because I was not going to cover that. Those points were very well made. If we want to embed a culture of research in this country and to be world-leading, as surely we do, we must give our researchers that long-term certainty.
I am going to start with the National Institute for Health Research, which was, of course, established by the previous Labour Government in 2006. We are very proud of that, and since then, in partnership with NICE and other organisations, it has delivered on its mission to improve on the health and wealth of the nation through research. I refer any colleagues who have not had a chance to look at it to the 2016 RAND report, which identifies 100 examples of positive change resulting from the institute’s research. You may be pleased, Mr McCabe, to hear me say that I do not intend to read out all 100, but I do want to highlight the role that it has played since in fighting covid-19 by funding, enabling and delivering lifesaving research throughout the pandemic and now in this current phase. I will not list all the ways in which that has been done, but I will highlight the recovery trial that discovered dexamethasone. That was the first drug to reduce covid-19 mortality in hospitalised patients, cutting deaths by one third, and it was funded and supported by the NIHR. It is a great organisation, which we should be backing and should be very proud of.
On research more generally, there is a shared vision and a shared ambition across this place: the UK should be at the very forefront in science more generally, and particularly in research on health and care. We have all the assets to do that, if we link everything up and invest in it, and to make the UK the destination of choice for clinical research. The new clause offers the Government the chance to put that on a statutory footing, and to make good that commitment, ringfencing funding and mandating the Secretary of State’s support and interest in leadership. As the right hon. Member for Kingswood said, we would expect the Secretary of State to make many things a personal priority. We would argue that this is one of those things.
As in many of our proceedings, we are tidying up on the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and this is a good opportunity to do so again. The Minister smiles; I am always here to offer those opportunities. My hon. Friend and I have been ever so accommodating in that regard. The 2012 Act only included the duty for clinical commissioning groups to promote research. I would direct colleagues to the cross-sector written evidence headed up by the Academy of Medical Sciences, which said that the NHS’s lack of ability
“to prioritise the resourcing and delivery of research has been a major impediment to improving the UK’s clinical research environment over the last decade.”
According to that submission, that has subsequently been a contributing factor to wide-ranging disparities in opportunities for patients to engage in research. When it talks about that, we should listen. As with so many things, we have chance to right that wrong in the 2012 Act and to show in the Bill that we want an active research culture in the NHS, building on the last 18 months.
Evidence shows that a strengthened research mandate would bring many benefits. First, patients treated in research-active NHS organisations have improved outcomes. They have lower mortality rates and higher confidence in the care they receive, which really is a big prize. Secondly, at a time when the NHS is dealing with many work force issues, this increases job satisfaction, with most doctors surveyed by the Royal College of Physicians wanting to be more involved in research and two thirds more likely to apply for a role with dedicated research time. We know it is what our excellent clinicians want too. Thirdly, it brings economic investment into this country; £2.7 billion was generated by NIHR clinical research network-supported activity in 2018-19, making the NHS around £350 million from life science companies. So we win here both coming and going; it is better for our patients, better for clinicians and better for our economy.
There really is a lot in this very good new clause with regard to both the NIHR itself and research more generally. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause. If he does not, I hope that he will give the Committee comfort on how this will be not just a broad priority for the entire system, where it is not quite clear who is responsible, but something that he as a Minister, and the Secretary of State, will be driving personally and taking as a personal responsibility. As I say, the prizes are very great indeed.
Dr Whitford
Although this would obviously apply in England and not Scotland, and the NIHR does not generally fund a lot of clinical research that comes from Scotland, I absolutely support the principle. When I was lead clinician in the west of Scotland, we put trial support staff into all 13 breast cancer units around the west of Scotland. That drove up participation in trials, which, as the hon. Gentleman just said, is what generates confidence among patients and results in better outcomes. Most trials come with a lot of bureaucracy, and people working in very busy clinical jobs in district generals often do not engage because of that. Putting trial staff out in district generals can actually mean that, instead of research being within academic units, it is suddenly available to all patients. That is really important.
Having a questioning mind should be part of being any doctor. All junior doctors are encouraged to develop auditing and clinical ideas as an approach. The hon. Gentleman—I have forgotten the constituency, I am afraid.
Dr Whitford
I was going to guess some other city and get it wrong, but it is somewhere north. The hon. Member said that having access to research time as a clinician, which the right hon. Member for Kingswood mentioned is a way of retaining staff, is quite important. My local health board now employs younger, as opposed to older, doctors as clinical fellows, and they have a day a week as part of their contract. It is not just one or two doctors; the board are doing it as a standard approach. It has become really popular and has certainly helped with our workforce issues in Ayrshire and on Arran. It is important to see laboratory and trials research and frontline outcome audit and clinical ideas research from all young clinicians, and we should encourage that. The money is great, but we then have to work out how the money feeds into the health service to generate the biggest impact.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. It behoves me to pay tribute to his work as Science Minister in the past. He is correct to have mentioned that he is the only person to have held that post and my current role one after the other. In fact, I think he sandwiched my current post between two stints as Science Minister, so he knows a lot about the subject and has done a lot of work on it. I pay tribute to him for that.
The amendment seeks to legislate for an additional duty for the Secretary of State with respect to research and to ringfence funding for the National Institute for Health Research—the NIHR. The NIHR is the delivery mechanism through which the Department of Health and Social Care funds high-quality, timely research that benefits the NHS, public health, and social care. I understand and appreciate the intention behind new clause 9. When discussing previous amendments, I alluded to the fact that I can recognise what my right hon. Friend is seeking to achieve. The benefits of research funded through the NIHR have proved invaluable to us during the pandemic, and the great work of the NIHR is addressing much-needed research into better ways to tackle a host of other health and care challenges that we face.
However, referring to the NIHR in primary legislation and proposing ringfencing of the research budget would not be appropriate, as the NIHR is not a legal entity separate from the Department and funding for the NIHR needs to be considered in the round alongside other elements of the Department’s funding—of which it is a component part—all of which are aimed, ultimately, at improving health and wellbeing.
New clause 9 seeks to broaden the wording of the Secretary of State’s duty to promote research, so that it includes the care system in addition to the health service. I recognise that the intention of my right hon. Friend is to ensure that social care is considered a priority area and does not get neglected in the face of demands from health. However, the NIHR already funds both health and social care research. Adult social care is a strategic priority for the NIHR and its research for patient benefit programme has an annual competition specifically for social care proposals.
The amendment seeks to modify the existing duty of the Secretary of State to “promote research”, and to become a duty to
“support the conduct of research”.
It imposes a requirement for the Secretary of State to
“promote the use in the health and care systems of evidence obtained from research”.
We consider that the existing statutory duty has ensured that research has been championed, and that evidence obtained from research has been well and correctly used. The Secretary of State already supports health and care research through funding to the NIHR, and NIHR research evidence is widely used to underpin improvements across the health and care system. Many examples of NIHR impact have been documented in published NIHR annual reports.
For those reasons, I gently encourage my right hon. Friend not to press the new clause to a Division, but I am happy to reflect on the matter further and I suspect that their lordships may well return to this theme in the other place as well.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the Minister for his forensic dissection of the new clause; it is greatly appreciated. He makes a strong point about the legal status of the National Institute for Health Research potentially making the new clause defective, and there would be little point in pressing the measure to a vote for that reason. However, to reiterate what I said earlier, it is a goose that will continuously lay golden eggs for the Minister. If he went away to look at how the new clause might be better shaped to deliver on the priorities and frameworks that he has just mentioned, I am sure that he would be richly rewarded in turn, particularly by all the organisations that recognise the value that research can bring, and by patients and staff, who would welcome the certainty arising from placing future research operations on a statutory footing.
I am a generous person. I remember tabling a ten-minute rule Bill back in February calling for the banning of essay mills in universities and other educational settings. The Government gave a similar response—the proposals were slightly defective in who they covered—but they have now tabled their own amendment to the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill to ban essay mills. That goes to show what can happen when we take the time to table amendments, either through ten-minute rule Bills or in Committee. I say to any Back Bencher, “You are not going to get in trouble with the Whips, trust me.” It is important that we use our parliamentary and democratic duty to push ideas forward, because someone will eventually take them up, whether in this or another Government.
I hope that, when the Bill reaches the Lords, the Minister will reflect on and look at this as an opportunity to deliver significant reform to the health service. For the reasons that I have outlined, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
The Chair
Therein lies a lesson for us all.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Consultation with staff and patients on service changes
“(1) The Secretary of State must consult staff, staff representatives and patient representatives on any changes in services which fall within the definition of reconfiguration of services or which impact on the roles of more than 20 staff and publish the results of the consultation.
(2) NHS England, ICBs, NHS Trusts and FTs must publish a response to the results of consultations undertaken under subsection (1) and have due regard to the outcome of any consultation.
(3) Where significant changes to services are proposed by any NHS body, that body must produce a business case using the Five Case Model recommended by Her Majesty’s Treasury, or other requirements as set out in guidance prepared and published by the Secretary of State under this section.
(4) The business case mentioned in subsection (3) must be published for consultation and the responses to the consultation taken into account when a decision is taken whether to implement the change.”—(Justin Madders.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have wandered down the avenue of reconfiguration before in this Committee, and I am sure that we will do so again. The Opposition have been far from reassured about the Secretary of State’s ability to intervene at any moment when there is the slightest hint of movement in a podiatry clinic or a change of hours at a walk-in centre, but that is where we are.
We all know that in a few more White Papers’ time, there will be more changes in the NHS and in social care, and possibly more integration—who knows what is in store for us? There will be changes in the way that services are delivered, with, we hope, the aim of making them better. For more than three decades, there has been an acceptance that changes to services can be of vital interest to the patients who receive them and the staff who deliver them.
The Committee has already discussed several times the importance of involving people in those debates, and there is an acceptance that there must be a process that engages with patients and all service users. That is what we are trying to achieve through new clause 11. I hope we all agree that any proposals to change the way that services are delivered have to be subject to consultation with patients and, as we have seen in other parts of the Bill, with carers. I hope that we start from that uncontentious common ground. The big issue is just how well that consultation is delivered in practice.
At this point, I take the Committee to the Cabinet Office guidelines of 2018 and the consultation principles, particularly paragraph D, which states:
“Consultations are only part of a process of engagement. Consider whether informal iterative consultation is appropriate, using new digital tools and open, collaborative approaches. Consultation is not just about formal documents and responses. It is an on-going process.”
The NHS does not always understand that they should consult before making a decision, and not on a decision that has already been made, using consultation as a tick-box or rubber-stamp exercise. Genuine consultation, with open dialogue on both sides, before decisions are made almost always results in a better decision in the end.
Of course, the Minister will tell us that the NHS constitution talks about those things and pledges,
“to engage staff in decisions that affect them and the services they provide, individually and through their representative organisations and local partnership working arrangements, and empower all staff to suggest ways to deliver better and safer services for patients and their families.”
That is a pledge, not a requirement, and those fine words are often ignored when it comes to consultations with staff groups.
Even the Health and Social Care Act 2012—the Lansley Act—accepted that there were issues, because it states:
“In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must have regard to the NHS Constitution.”
Having due regard to the constitution also formed part of the licensing conditions for NHS Providers.
We know what “due regard” means and we have already debated its limits. We know that it means that there must be some sort of formal documentation to demonstrate that consideration has been given to representations. Even that sometimes does not happen, or it happens after a decision has been made. On a number of occasions, no attempt has been made to empower staff and proactively ask for their views on how to deliver the service in a better or safer way for patients. A decision is made and presented as a take it or leave it.
A helpful factsheet that was issued for the 2012 Act states:
“Our reforms will enable change to be driven from the bottom-up, by the clinicians who know the health needs of their patients best, and underpinned by proper local engagement, partnership working and effective local authority scrutiny.”
I draw the Committee’s attention to the words “partnership working”. Again, the NHS can do better in respect of that.
In the new clause, we are trying to codify something that the NHS should be doing anyway when we look at the documents, guidelines, explanatory notes and good intentions, but on a number of occasions fails to do. We therefore move from “due regard” to an actual requirement. That is a beacon of best practice, which we should aim for rather than watering it down. What harm can it do? What is the disbenefit of involving the people who know the service best and deliver it on the ground? That is why there must be consultation with patients, their carers and staff.
The latter part of the new clause provides that there has to be an agreement to provide a business case. Any significant proposal should have a business case attached to it. Paragraph C of the Cabinet Office guidelines states:
“Give enough information to ensure that those consulted understand the issues and can give informed responses. Include validated impact assessments of the costs and benefits of the options being considered when possible; this might be required where proposals have an impact on business or the voluntary sector.”
It stands to reason that giving people the full pictures means that they can give a fuller and more informed response. That is at the heart of the new clause. It will mean delivering better outcomes, better services for patients and better engagement with staff. If we refer back to the evidence sessions––gosh, some six weeks ago; it seems longer but it was only six weeks––this was one of Unison’s highest priorities. Witness Sara Gorton said of principal staff involvement
“I think trade unions and staff would feel as though they had a stake and would be reassured that they had involvement in future decisions with workforce implications made by those new bits of the system if that pledge were placed in the legislation and were the underpinning principle.”––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 93, Q119.]
That is what we are seeking to do here.
It goes without saying that any significant service change should have the business case disclosed, as we discussed earlier with the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Business cases are where proposals are developed and where challenge, and teasing out of alternatives and improvements, can be found. That is the heart of what good consultation should be. We value our staff and the input they can have. We value the impact that service changes can have on patients and the importance of involving them at an early stage with full information. That will improve decisions in the long run and that is why new clause 11 should be supported.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue further. As he suggested, we have touched on it at various other points in the passage of the legislation, but it is right that we debate it again.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult staff, staff representatives and patient representatives on any reconfiguration of services or any service change impacting more than 20 staff. NHS bodies would be required to publish their response to the results of any such consultation and an NHS body proposing significant changes to services would need to produce a business case in a specific model to be published for consultation.
Health service bodies are already under wide-ranging duties on public involvement and consultation on proposals for changes in commissioning arrangements and the reconfiguration of services set out under the National Health Service Act 2006 and regulations made under the Act. In addition, the current guidance issued by NHS England makes clear the importance of engagement and appropriate consultation. That approach will continue to be reflected under new guidance produced under the reconfiguration provisions in the Bill, set out at paragraph 8 of new schedule 10A inserted into the 2006 Act.
Guidance can provide a level of detail that is not always suited to inclusion in primary legislation and allows for flexibility so that the system can work as efficiently as possible. That approach has worked well under the current reconfiguration system and guidance has played an important part. The Government are unconvinced that there is a need for an additional duty to consult patients’ representatives when NHS commissioners and providers must already involve service users in any proposals to change health services delivered to those users and which service users can access.
Moreover, it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation for each reconfiguration or service change affecting staff. To run national consultation for every local change would be disproportionate. It would not be the best use of resource or lead to the local level of engagement that is so important. It is right that NHS bodies responsible for arranging for or providing health services should lead the consultations on proposed changes. These should be done primarily at local level with local expertise. There is always a challenge between the national and the local. I was not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Bristol South was alluding to that when she said that she was more Morrison than Bevan, and suggested that I was more Bevan than Morrison in my approach. Neither comparison has been made about me in the past, but when I next see her, I will ask. There is a real challenge in the local-national balance that runs through several clauses and in respect of the way the NHS has operated for decades.
The new clause would require consultation not just of patients but of staff and staff representatives. Staff views are of course vital in the design of service changes. That is made absolutely clear in the current guidance issued by NHS England, which repeatedly emphasises the need to involve clinicians whose practices would be affected by proposed changes. This approach will not change in the future, and updated guidance will continue to reflect that position and ensure that affected staff provide meaningful input.
Justin Madders
We are not going to push the new clause to a vote, because we recognise when the Minister is not for turning—I am not sure whether he likes that comparison. But I have a couple of reflections on what he said. He was obviously very keen that the Secretary of State not get involved in lots of consultations, but of course he gives himself the power, under the Bill, to do that in relation to any reconfiguration of any size, anywhere in England. That does, I think, highlight a little bit of inconsistency.
The Minister said that there was plenty of guidance and the Government did not want the inflexibility that putting something in legislation would develop. We take the view that actually what we are trying to show is that the guidance does not work to the extent that we would want it to, which is why we think that having something in legislation is an important baseline. It does not prevent further guidance and flexibility from being built in on top of that. I know when we are not going to persuade the Minister, but I think that this is a matter that we will need to return to many times. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
NHS as the preferred provider of NHS contracts
“(1) The NHS is the preferred provider of NHS contracts.
(2) NHS contracts must be provided by NHS suppliers unless the NHS supplier is unable to fulfil the terms of that contract.
(3) Where the NHS is unable to fulfil the terms of a contract, a competitive tender must be held to identify an alternative provider.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) ‘alternative provider’ means private companies and independent sector treatment centres, and
(b) general practice and GP-led community services are NHS suppliers.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would establish NHS suppliers of services as the preferred providers of NHS contracts. Independent sector providers could hold NHS contracts after winning a competitive tender.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Regulation of the public display of imported cadavers—
“The Human Tissue Act 2004 is amended as follows—
In subsections (5)(a), (6)(a) and (6)(b) of section 1 (authorisation of activities for scheduled purposes) after “imported” insert “other than for the purpose of public display”.”
Alex Norris
In speaking to these new clauses, I stand on the shoulders of the inestimable work done in this place by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and in the other place by the noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is with us for a little while longer before he has an oral question to dispose of in the other place. I note my thanks to them for their leadership. I hope that we can move this important issue on as part of our consideration of the Bill.
In this country, since April, around 2,000 people have received an organ transplant. A person voluntarily deciding to give an organ in life or after their death gives the most precious gift of all. It is an incredibly selfless act that allows another person to live. It is a wonderful thing. We should be very proud of Britain’s record on organ donation over the years, of the research and development in that area and the work that I have no doubt we will yet do.
However, there is a sinister underside to organ donation that I ask the Committee to consider with these two new clauses. In some parts of the world organs are not given freely but are taken by force. Extensive research has shown organ harvesting to be prevalent particularly in China, where the number of organs transplanted swamps the official number of voluntary donations. The organs are generally destined for high-paying customers and come from people such as political dissidents, prisoners of conscience and ethnic minorities.
The Chinese Government say that it does not happen. The World Health Organisation has backed that up, based on a self-assessment made by the Chinese Government, which I did not find very credible. What I do find credible is that, in 2020, the independent China Tribunal found that forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China, on a significant scale. Falun Gong practitioners have been one source—probably the main source—of organ supply. Victims include both the dead and the living. There are whistleblower reports of corneas being harvested.
In January we made progress on the issue through the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021—I am sure the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire remembers the exchanges fondly. That opened the door to further regulation of human tissues and I hope that we can move further in this Bill.
Existing legislation does not deal with British citizens who travel abroad. New clause 14 attempts to close that loophole by making it a crime for British citizens, residents and other specified people to be involved in the kill-to-order organ trade. It would end the opportunity for someone to travel to pay for black market organs from a prisoner of conscience and to return to the UK for NHS-funded anti-rejection medication. We must make it clear that involvement in this trade is reprehensible and unacceptable. I think that is a point of consensus across the House, but I am yet to hear what the mechanism is to close the loophole—I think new clause 14 presents a very good one.
New clause 15 deals with the display of human bodies. I used the word “grim” earlier in proceedings, and this is very grim indeed. Regrettably, this is not a theoretical conversation. In 2018 the Real Bodies exhibition took place in Birmingham. Adults and children paid to look at deceased corpses that had been injected with silicon and transformed into real-life mannequins. The bodies were sourced from a lab in Dalian in China. The bodies were able to be displayed without any documents or proven consent, and from a lab that we know receives bodies from the Chinese police.
Whether that sort of exhibition counts as entertainment is a matter for individuals—it is certainly not my sort of entertainment. New clause 15 would ensure that the trade is tightly regulated, so that something like that could not happen again. It would prevent the display of dead bodies of political prisoners and guarantee that proper consent has been received, ensuring dignity and respect for the deceased and their families. I think this is a matter of interest to the Committee, which is why I am seeking to put it in the Bill. It is also of significant interest in the other place. I know there will be conversations on the issue as the Bill progresses.
I am keen to hear from the Minister on these two points. I do not doubt that we are of one mind on the matter. What I would like to know now is what the Government are going to do about it, because these are pressing issues and need action now.
Edward Argar
I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that I think there is a consensus across the Committee, and indeed across both Houses, condemning the reprehensible behaviours and practices that he has highlighted. As he says, the challenge is the mechanism, particularly given the concept of extraterritoriality that applies here, so I will talk about that a little bit. I fear we may have to return to this; I suspect, given the complexities, that it may well be their lordships’ House that grapples with it a little further. Although it is not normally the done thing to recognise those in the Public Gallery, as they are not in the Chamber, were there to be a distinguished Peer in the Public Gallery, I would also pay tribute to their work on this. I hope that just about keeps me in order, Mr McCabe.
New clause 14 seeks to extend the provisions in section 32 of the Human Tissue Act 2004, which prohibit commercial dealings in human material for transplantation. The amendment would make it an offence for someone to travel outside the UK to receive such material without free, informed, and specific consent or in exchange for a financial gain or comparable advantage.
We believe that much, albeit not all, of what the clause seeks to achieve is already covered by different aspects of existing legislation. I will talk first about those travelling from the UK, forcibly or otherwise, and the protections available for them from having their organs harvested, and then I will turn to those travelling from the UK to receive organs.
Provisions in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 make it an offence to arrange or facilitate another person’s travel, including travel outside the UK, for the purposes of their exploitation in any part of the world. Travelling covers the arrival or departure from any country, or within any country, and exploitation includes the supply of organs for reward. The Modern Slavery Act applies to the activities of UK nationals regardless of where the travel or the arrangements for it take place.
A person found guilty of that offence could be liable for life imprisonment, and those guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring it are liable for up to 10 years’ imprisonment. This means that existing extraterritorial legislation already makes it an offence for a UK citizen to purchase an organ for transplant overseas, provided that the purchase involves arranging or facilitating a person’s travel for the purpose of the removal of their organ for sale.
Furthermore, section 32 of the Human Tissue Act already prohibits the giving of a reward for the supply, or for an offer to supply, any controlled material. If a substantial part of an illicit transaction takes place in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, it will constitute an offence under this provision. It could, for example, be an offence to arrange a purchase and pay for an organ from a UK bank account and, likewise, it could be deemed against the law if somebody were to take steps in the UK to find someone who would sell them an organ overseas.
By adding an explicitly extraterritorial offence, as this amendment seeks to do, the interpretation of the existing provisions could be restricted, thereby potentially weakening our existing tools under those two pieces of legislation. As this amendment would prohibit travel outside the UK to receive an organ without the specific consent of the donor or next of kin, there is a chance that it could also inadvertently make it an offence for someone from the UK to receive an organ in a country with deemed rather than explicit consent provisions. This is at odds with our domestic position, where deemed consent is accepted as an appropriate form of consent for organ donation.
There is also the possibility of an unintended consequence of criminalising the recipient, as opposed to the supplier and buyer, of a trafficked organ. It is not difficult to imagine a case of a vulnerable person receiving a transplant abroad, perhaps through arrangements made by relatives, and having been misled as to the provenance of their organ. Under these circumstances, we believe that those who made the arrangements to purchase and supply the organ should be prosecuted and deemed liable, as they already can be under the Human Tissue Act and the Modern Slavery Act.
Dr Whitford
There is a problem with the shortage of organs for transplant generally within the UK. While making it an opt-out system will hopefully help with that, is there not a need to have legislation here so that the market is discouraged or prohibited, and therefore we do not have customers for those organs overseas? If there are customers, the business will exist.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point. I will turn to new clause 15 in a moment, but we are as one in our concern to ensure that the current legislation is as effective as possible and that it does what we want it to do. I will make some further remarks on my future thinking when I conclude.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for his full reply. I do not intend to stress the consensus we have by dividing the Committee. He has given others who may want to look at this at a later stage quite a bit to go at. On resolving the point made in new clause 14, I heard what the Minister said about the scattering of the different parts across the statute book, but a judgment may have to be made about whether that is an effective way to organise the powers. Perhaps creating a consolidated offence would be a more practical and meaningful approach. That is my personal view, but as I have said, there will be lots to go at elsewhere.
I got quite a bit of satisfaction from the Minister’s response to new clause 15. I will go away and look at the Human Tissue Authority’s work. Obviously, primary legislation is always best, but I will see whether that is effective.
Edward Argar
In that context, may I make the hon. Gentleman an offer? If he thinks there is anything specific that my officials could provide to assist him in his reflections, could he let me know and I will be very happy to facilitate it?
Alex Norris
That is a very kind offer and I am almost certainly going to avail myself of it. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Licensing of beauty and aesthetics treatments
“(1) No person may carry on an activity to which this subsection applies—
(a) except under the authority of a licence for the purposes of this section, and
(b) other than in accordance with specified training.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to an activity relating to the provision of beauty or aesthetics treatments which is specified for the purposes of the subsection by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) A person commits an offence if that person contravenes subsection (1).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about licences and conditions for the purposes of this section.
(5) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the representatives of any interests concerned which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) Regulations may, in particular—
(a) require a licensing authority not to grant a licence unless satisfied as to a matter specified in the regulations; and
(b) require a licensing authority to have regard, in deciding whether to grant a licence, to a matter specified in the regulations.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce a licensing regime for cosmetic treatments and makes it an offence for someone to practise without a licence. The list of treatments, detailed conditions and training requirements would be set out in regulations after consultation with relevant stakeholders.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It will be noted that new clause 16 has attracted considerable support from a wide range of Members across the House. I pay tribute to the beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing all-party parliamentary group, whose work in the area has been influential in producing the new clause. Many of the Members who put their name to it are also members of that group. I pay tribute to a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), Dawn Knight, who has been assiduous in this area, as has my right hon. Friend himself. Their tireless campaigning, which I suspect will continue for some time, has been vital so far. This is such an important area and it needs an awful lot of attention. We know there is a lot more to be done.
As we know, cosmetic treatments can include a wide range of procedures aimed at enhancing or altering appearance. Many common treatments are offered on the high street and include lip fillers, injectables, thread lifts, semi-permanent make-up, laser treatments, piercings and—one that we are more familiar with—tattoos. Perhaps one day the Minister will show us all of his. If the Minister wants to respond on that point, he is more than welcome to.
Justin Madders
Many of these procedures are becoming increasingly popular. There is a well-articulated concern that non-medically and medically trained practitioners are performing treatments without being able to evidence appropriate training, or the required standards of oversight and supervision. One need only look on Facebook, for example, to see the proliferation of adverts for all types of treatments. These are usually done by unlicensed individuals who call themselves doctors. We have talked recently about the lack of proper regulation of social media. Although such a debate is not for today and falls outside the scope of the new clause, it is a matter that also needs to be addressed.
Cosmetic treatments can cause serious harm if not carried out correctly, in a safe environment and by competent, trained practitioners. Anything that punctures the skin carries the risk of the transmission of blood-borne viruses. There are countless tragic stories of people who have had life-changing injuries and conditions as a result of poor treatments. The amendment seeks to put the protection of the public at the forefront by giving the Secretary of State power to bring into force a national licensing scheme for cosmetic procedures. It would be a departure from the wild west we face at the moment. We recognise that significant research and engagement with all stakeholders would be needed to develop a scheme that will work well for all cosmetic treatments, as well as providing a practical and efficient system that will be understood and adhered to by members of the public, regulators and practitioners.
Any new scheme would have to have some flexibility in order to capture new cosmetic treatments coming on to the market in future. It would need to be able to set standards for training, qualifications and competency requirements of practitioners, including, we think, periodic checks of premises. Importantly, it would provide for continuous professional development of the practitioner. There would be a requirement for indemnity insurance and access to redress schemes for members of the public to be provided, should complications arise as a result of any aesthetic procedure. There are a number of sad stories about supposedly reputable companies doing damage to their customers, going into liquidation and their insurers then refusing to pay out. I do not think any Member wants to see that happening anymore if we can do something about it.
We would hope that any licensing scheme would have the characteristics that I have set out, and there would be accompanying sanctions for those who contravene it. At present, there is no provision to ensure that prescription-only medicines, such as Botox and anaesthetic creams, adrenaline and hyaluronidase, which are prescribed by regulated prescribers, are actually prescribed in accordance with safe practice. For example, beauty therapists are reliant on registered prescribers prescribing injectables, such as Botox, which they are unable to obtain without a prescription.
Although doctors are required to have a face-to-face individual assessment of each service user prior to prescribing to third parties, such as beauty therapists, a significant body of evidence exists to confirm that individual assessments are not actually taking place in many cases and that telephone prescriptions are being provided remotely. The proposed licensing scheme would provide a requirement for all prescribers to be officially named and to operate in accordance with required practice standards.
Of equal importance is the need for a licensing scheme to close the loophole that currently exists relating to the import of unlicensed injectable products from Korea, such as Botulax. There is a registration scheme in England for certain specialist treatments, such as electrolysis, tattooing, piecing, semi-permanent make-up and acupuncture. However, some of the riskier and newer types of cosmetic treatment cannot be included within the scope of the current regulatory regime. The system also does not allow regulators to specify conditions, qualifications or competency requirements, or to remove anyone from the practitioner register.
Only a small handful of areas across England have introduced their own licensing schemes in order to protect the public—London, Nottingham and Essex are notable examples. There are currently two Professional Standards Authority-approved voluntary registers of accredited practitioners, and one voluntary register of approved education and training providers that operate in the sector. However, joining is not mandatory, which means there are many unaccredited practitioners providing treatments to members of the public without any checks.
The creation of a national licensing scheme in England for practitioners of cosmetic treatments would ensure that all those who practise are competent and safe for members of the public, and it would also cover some of the newer practices not covered by existing licensing laws. There is a large body of support for such a move, including the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Royal Society for Public Health, the Institute of Licensing, the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners, the UK Public Health Network, the Faculty of Public Health and Save Face, as well as about 90% of the public, accordingly to at least one survey.
The Minister is keen on giving the Secretary of State additional powers, but I know that he is also keen on finding savings wherever possible. Were he to support this new clause, there would undoubtedly be a saving to the wider NHS in the long run—for example, through reduced visits to A&E and GPs to correct mistakes made by poorly trained and unregulated practitioners.
Here are some examples of the impact on the NHS of that lack of regulation: outbreaks of infection at skin-piercing premises, resulting in individuals being hospitalised and, in some cases, disfiguration and partial removal of the ear; second and third-degree burns from lasers and sun beds; allergic reactions due to failure to carry out patch tests or medical assessments, which have led to hospitalisations; and blindness in one eye caused by the incorrect administration of dermal fillers. Those are all tragedies for the individuals involved and mistakes that could be avoided. They are a cost to the NHS and to wider society. I believe that a system of licensing would put a stop to a lot of those tragedies.
Dr Whitford
I rise to support the new clause. As a surgeon working in general surgery, I know that, as many of these new techniques emerged, the pressure on the NHS became obvious—for example, as a result of local infections and extensive necrosis. Fillers can also migrate. That might seem a minor side effect, but it can create a lot of psychological and mental health distress for the person who went ahead with the procedure and ended up disfigured because the filler was incorrectly administered. Botox has become ubiquitous, but we should remember that it stands for botulinum toxin, which is one of the most dangerous toxins on the planet. It is used in tiny doses, but it can still cause problems if incorrectly administered.
In addition to these aesthetic techniques, which have become extensive because they appear minor and are often delivered by people without significant training—part of their danger is that they are projected to the public as being very simple techniques—we have the issue of more extensive cosmetic surgery, such as breast surgery, abdominal uplifts, liposuction and so on, which involve anaesthetic—often a general anaesthetic—and major intervention. The public think that plastic surgeons and cosmetic surgeons are the same. Although a plastic surgeon, who is a trained and licensed NHS surgeon, may also carry out cosmetic surgery, there are many clinics providing cosmetic surgery that is not carried out by plastic surgeons. Here the side effects and repercussions for a patient can be quite extensive, and indeed they have previously led to loss of life, which in some cases has been well publicised.
If this issue is taken forward, I would like to see a recognition that both these minor aesthetic interventions and cosmetic surgery should be regulated.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for bringing this discussion before the Committee today, and I join him in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and the right hon. Member for North Durham. I know that both are tenacious campaigners, and both are due to meet me in the coming days to discuss their work in the context of the all-party group and the constituency case, exactly as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) for her success, within a year or so of coming to this place, in getting her private Member’s Bill through. It imposed some further restrictions in relation to botulinum toxin treatments or procedures, particularly in terms of the age limit from which they could be undertaken.
This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a licensing regime for beauty and aesthetics treatments, and make it an offence for a cosmetic practitioner to practise without a licence. I appreciate the intention behind the new clause, and I am sympathetic to its intended purpose. As we are aware, cosmetic treatments are an ever-expanding, multi-million pound industry, and we need to ensure that that industry operates in a safe way.
The breadth of the recent beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing all-party group inquiry into non-surgical procedures, which the shadow Minister alluded to, demonstrates that this is an extremely complex area to tackle and address. There is a huge range of non-surgical cosmetic procedures available, which vary in their level of complexity and invasiveness. The Government are carefully considering the findings of that report and the need for additional regulation in this area in the light of it.
We are considering the case for a licensing system alongside the other specific, and in some cases more narrow, recommendations made in the all-party group’s report. As part of that, we need to work further with stakeholders and within Government to clarify the scope of any further regulation and which procedures it might apply to. The private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks came into force at the start of October. It prohibits the availability of botox and dermal fillers to under-18s, apart from in a very narrow set of defined circumstances. We will consider the impact and effectiveness of this important legislation in parallel with the all-party group’s report in assessing whether to expand further the role of local authorities in overseeing cosmetic procedures.
I reassure the Committee that my priority is to ensure that the right regulatory framework is in place to provide consistent and high standards of practice, and the Government are committed to improving the safety of cosmetic procedures through better training for practitioners and clear information so that people can make informed decisions about their care. I hope I can reassure the Committee that we are actively considering whether increased oversight of practitioners performing some of the most invasive non-surgical procedures is the right way forward, and one that we could work with.
We continue to explore carefully how to achieve a proportionate system of practitioner regulation. The all-party group’s report is a very valuable contribution to that work and that active assessment. As soon as that work has been done, we will look to determine the need for and scope of further regulation in this area, and we look forward to reporting our conclusions from that assessment in early 2022. I therefore encourage the shadow Minister not to press the new clause to a Division, and I invite him to work with us in looking at the issue.
Justin Madders
I am encouraged by what the Minister has said. I am pleased to hear that he is meeting the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham shortly, and that we will hopefully have some progress on this in the new year. In the light of that information, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 17
Secretary of State’s duty to maintain safe staffing levels
“After section 1G of the National Health Service Act 2006 (but before the italic heading after it) insert—
‘1GA Secretary of State’s duty to maintain safe staffing levels
The Secretary of State has a duty to maintain safe staffing levels in the health and care service in England.’”—(Justin Madders.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a probing new clause, and I will not press it to a vote. I am not sure that this is the best legislation for it, but we are trying to make some points about the importance of patient safety. I hope we can all agree that for good care to be central, there need to be enough staff, not just notionally through some measure of the number of posts, but by ensuring that those people are actually in place at the time of giving care. We can have a debate about what level of staffing is enough. For a long time, the issue was left to the good sense of managing clinicians but, of course, that has always been strongly impacted on by the level of budget that could support staff.
Across the world, much attention has been placed on setting out what levels of staff and skill are needed in various settings to achieve the required levels of safety. The debate is not at any fixed point in time, because pathways, models of care, and staffing skills and mixes develop and evolve, but there will always be a correlation between safe staffing and levels of funding. It is a sad fact that our NHS, which should find planning easy as a single national system, has struggled for some time in almost every of aspect of workforce planning. It has shied away from asking questions about safety that come when the available workforce is not matched to the resources. At the end of the day, it is the patients who lose out when we are in that situation.
Much of the discussion on this topic historically has focused on the nursing workforce, which is by far the biggest of the staff groups. The Royal College of Nursing put out guidance pre-covid and during covid and set out where the legal responsibilities lie. It also pointed out recently:
“These are unprecedented times. Nursing staff in almost all settings are facing challenges beyond what were ever expected. Staffing levels are poor in many places, on most shifts and care is being compromised as a result”—
“care is being compromised” can be read to mean unsafe staffing levels.
New clause 17 calls for a duty to be placed on the Secretary of State to ensure that there are in fact safe staffing levels, even if there is not a specific legislative requirement in England. I say in England because in Wales, Labour has led the way with the Nurse Staffing Levels (Wales) Act 2016. In Scotland, the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019 became law, although I understand that covid has meant that there has been some delay in its implementation. I also understand that Scotland included social care staff in that remit.
A decade ago, research showed that low levels of nurse staffing are linked to worse patient outcomes and unsafe conditions. Before 2013, decisions to assess and review staffing levels were made locally, with little national guidance. However, the Francis inquiries in 2010 and 2013 identified nurse staffing as a patient safety factor that contributed to the care failings identified at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. They highlighted that decisions about nurse staffing were made without full consideration of the risks to patient safety. Francis said:
“So much of what goes wrong in our hospitals is likely, and indeed it was, in many regards, the case in Stafford, due to there being inadequate numbers of staff, either in terms of numbers or skills”.
In response to that statement and the Francis inquiries, the Department of Health developed four strands of policy that aimed to create safe nurse staffing levels in the NHS. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published guidance for safe staffing in all NHS acute hospitals in 2014. It endorsed the safer nursing care tool to help hospitals to plan their staffing. There was a National Quality Board report outlining the principles that NHS trusts were expected to apply in relation to planning staffing, and trusts were required to monitor the differences between planned and achieved nurse staffing levels and to report them through NHS Choices.
A lot of emphasis was placed on the providers of care, and rightly so. They should use their staff effectively and efficiently to keep patients safe. However, there is also a wider responsibility on commissioners—that is where I think we have fallen down—to ensure that providers do what is required, and on system managers and others who allocate the resources, to ensure that they do it in a way that permits safe levels of staffing. Community, maternity and learning disabilities are all nursing specialities where shortages are most acute. Our new clause makes it clear that all settings would have to adhere to the same standards, with no distinctions, because we believe that good and safe care should be for everyone.
In 2013, the National Quality Board set out 10 expectations and a framework within which organisations and staff should make decisions about staffing that put patients first. The document, entitled “Putting people first”, made it clear that safe staffing was both a collective and individual responsibility and central to the delivery of high-quality care that is safe, effective, caring and responsive. In England we have a website full of guidance, and NHS boards are required to take that guidance into account or have regard to it, but there does not appear to be anything similar for social care. Of course, the point I am trying to make, rather unsubtly, is that that is just guidance.
Looking more broadly, the NHS entered its new planning mode from 2015, and we had the emergence of sustainability and transformation partnerships. There was a requirement for them to design local plans to develop, recruit and sustain levels of staff with the right skills, values and behaviour in sufficient numbers, and in the right locations, to ensure the safety of patients. The plans were developed in great haste, but they did not actually go anywhere. Now we are to have more structured ICBs and new plans, but we still do not have a national workforce plan, which means that ICBs cannot plan properly either.
It would be good to know not just the levels of vacancies, but the gap between the staffing needed to maintain safe levels of working and what is actually in place. We touched on this aspect earlier, and we hope the Government respond positively even if they do not accept the new clause. I am sure the Minister will agree that safe staffing levels are better than unsafe levels. We should all agree that it is possible and desirable to enshrine in law guidance from experts on what constitutes safe levels of staffing in various settings and scenarios. We should absolutely be allowed to know when unsafe levels of staffing occur, especially when it becomes an endemic issue due to staff or funding shortages.
As we have mentioned before, we do not want to overburden the Secretary of State, because he already has a number of new powers under the Bill that will keep him busy. We have tried to remove the attempts to give him more work through the power grab, but it would not be for the Secretary of State to do the rotas or phone round for additional staff in the mornings. He just has to ensure that the duty to have staff levels of staffing is fulfilled by those delivering the service. Any wisdom that the Minister can provide on issues around defining, establishing and enforcing safe staffing, and on who carries the systemic responsibilities, will be greatly appreciated.
Dr Whitford
There is no question but that the workforce in both health and social care is one of the biggest challenges across all four nations of the UK. As the shadow Minister highlighted, both Scotland and Wales have passed legislation and aspire to having in law what level should be aimed at, which is quite important. Although covid has impacted in terms of staff leaving the service and the demand on the service, Brexit has also had a huge impact, in that there was an almost 90% drop in European nurses coming to the UK within just months of the referendum. The situation has not recovered, and that impacts right across the system and indeed in social care, where European citizens represented a significant part of the workforce.
When I first came to this place, the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), talked very much about patient safety but claimed that, in essence, doctors were not really available in the NHS outwith nine to five, and that this was causing what were called “weekend deaths”. Having worked long hours for over three decades, I was a bit afraid that my husband would think I was having serial affairs if I was working only nine to five in the hospital, so I refuted that utterly. However, the evidence available at the time was that the only staff ratio that had any provable impact on patient outcome was that of fully trained, registered nurses—not trainees, not associates and not assistants—to patients. Obviously, that ratio changes, based on the dependency of the ward—whether it is an ordinary ward, a high-dependency ward or an intensive care ward. That is what leads to the basic formula in safe staffing legislation, and England does not have it.
Although covid, Brexit and other things have impacted on the ability of Scotland and Wales to achieve what they aspire to, the guidance has been there for years and it has not been achieved, as the shadow Minister said. Having safe staffing ratios in hospitals is critical, but what action should be taken if that safe level of staffing is not there? What work should not be done so that patients with emergencies can be cared for properly? Otherwise, there is pressure on management to get things done where they want to see throughput. Sometimes, staff simply end up between a rock and a hard place, and that drives staff out of the service. Ultimately, coming home after an exhausting shift feeling that they have delivered poor care because they were covering too many patients is demoralising. It undermines the retention of staff and adds to the problem.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, for his framing of the new clause in his opening remarks.
The new clause would place the Secretary of State under a statutory duty to maintain safe staffing levels in the health and care service in England. I fear that its effect would be to detract from the responsibility of clinical and other leaders at a local level to ensure safe staffing, supported by guidance—I certainly take on board the point about guidance made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire—and regulated by the Care Quality Commission. I am afraid that the Government cannot agree with the new clause as worded for a number of reasons, which I will enunciate for the shadow Minister to illustrate my thinking.
First and foremost, we do not believe that there is a single ratio or formula that could calculate what represents safe staffing. It will differ across and within an organisation and, indeed, across organisations. Reaching the right mix requires the use of evidence-based tools and, crucially, the exercise of professional judgment and expertise and a multi-professional approach.
Consequently, we think that responsibility for staffing levels is best placed with clinical and other leaders at a local level, responding to local needs and supported by guidelines, all overseen and regulated by the CQC. Those guidelines, notwithstanding the challenges posed by the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister, are issued by national and professional bodies such as the National Quality Board and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. They are based on the best available clinical evidence and are designed to ensure patient safety.
Appropriate staffing levels form a core element of the CQC’s registration regime for health and social care providers. Providers are required by the CQC to provide sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced staff to meet the care and treatment needs of the people using the service at all times. Staff must also receive the support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisals necessary to carry out their role and responsibilities.
Secondly, the new clause would require the formulation of safe staffing ratios against which performance could be assessed. I fear that that could be a retrograde step and inhibit the development of the skill mixes needed for a more innovative and productive future workforce, which will be crucial to the successful implementation of the new models of integrated care that the Bill is intended to support. Just as there is no one-size-fits-all approach for the new models of care, there will be no identikit approach to the mix of staff needed. The ultimate outcome of good quality care is influenced by a far greater range of issues than how many of each particular staff group are on any particular shift, according to a prescribed ratio. It requires the professional expertise and judgment of those who know the situation best in a given circumstance. The point I seek to make is that, although those numbers are a key part, they are not the only part.
This is, perhaps, more of a technical point than a point of substance, but the specific wording of the new clause is incredibly broad. It would potentially require the Secretary of State to assess safe staffing levels across all healthcare settings across the whole of England for all medical and clinical staff. Such a duty would, I fear, be challenging to implement, notwithstanding the shadow Minister’s assertion that he would not expect the Secretary of State to sit there each morning going through shift rotas and shift patterns himself. It would be challenging for not only the Department but the wider system and, in particular, clinical leaders in individual settings.
For those reasons, while I appreciate the sentiment and the objective sought by the shadow Minister, I do not believe the new clause is the appropriate practical solution.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for this Minister’s response. I am not surprised that he is not prepared to the support the new clause. Unfortunately, I think there is a large chasm where responsibility for workforce issues probably lies, and this is an example of that. It was certainly not our intention to expect the Secretary of State to deliver each individual setting, but for someone in the system to have that responsibility of advising the Secretary of State. No doubt we will return to this. We will see the practice in the devolved nations and how that has proved to be a success or otherwise, which may strengthen or weaken the argument. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 18
Workforce responsibilities of integrated care boards
“(1) Each integrated care board must at least every two years publish a report setting out an analysis of the current workforce, the workforce requirements to enable the Board to fulfil its duties over the following 2, 5 and 10 years, and the plans the Board has to close any gaps identified.
(2) In drawing up the report the Board must consult—
(a) the Trusts and Foundation Trusts that provide services in its area,
(b) providers of primary care in its area, and
(c) the recognised trade unions.”—(Justin Madders.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are back on the workforce. We had a brief discussion about the proposals in clause 33 on the Secretary of State and workforce planning, and how they are by universal acclaim wholly inadequate. Now is not the time to repeat that debate, although I may shoehorn in one or two references to it. We hope that at some point there will be a better proposal on the national efforts to assess and meet workforce needs.
The new clause tries to repeat the intentions of the amendment to clause 33, and to take some of that thinking and translate it to ICB level. That makes a lot of sense to us, and in an ideal world some of the national plan would be made up of individual local assessments of need and add together the 42 ICBs into one national workforce plan. We will see where we end up with that. As I said, we have had some attempt at this with each STP trying to produce its own plan to a very abrupt timetable. I do not think anyone actually added up all their assessments to come up with a national figure. Because of the truncated timetable they faced, there was not a great deal of engagement with the workforce on that.
There is therefore a bit of a precedent in the work that was done on that. It is probably what you would call a gap analysis: what is needed against what we are likely have unless something is done to close that gap. The new clause follows that approach, which has had some support in some other areas. We felt that a two-year cycle was about right, with reporting on that two-year cycle covering short, medium and longer-term need.
It is hard to see why we will not have local plans if we are going to have national plans, to make sure that there is alignment when, as we hope, the Government come back with something better on clause 33. Looking at the total staff in the NHS and social care for an ICS, some of the larger ones will be running into hundreds of thousands of people. It is hard to think of any system with that many staff where some sort of workforce planning is not going on. If we are looking at things across system level, as the ICS is, surely workforce needs across the system would be part of that. We know that ICBs, together with the relevant trusts and foundation trusts, have the general duty to produce a plan annually, setting out how they propose to exercise their functions over the next five years. They will not be able to do that without the right staff.
A lot of the ground work entailed in the new clause will have been done already. It is our intention that it will try to remove any possibility of blame shifting, where inadequate resources lead to reduced services and the service providers are blamed, rather than those who hold the purse strings in Whitehall. The reporting required by the new clause will make it clear whether there are enough staff to meet all the reasonable requirements of the ICB.
The other key point covered by the new clause is who is consulted in the local planning process. We believe it vital that recognised trade unions are involved. That should be a given anyway, in the light of the general commitments from the NHS over partnership working, but as we have covered before, we think that needs to be explicit in the legislation because of the behaviour of a few NHS bodies in trying to marginalise staff involvement in recent times.
The ICBs will new bodies, and they will need to understand the importance of partnership working from day one. If the levelling-up and devolution agendas are to continue to flourish, surely the regional and sub-regional identification and development of skills in this important area ought to be part of the mix. It feels, I am afraid, as though the whole issue of workforce is being assiduously side-stepped by the Department. That is the Department’s prerogative, but it is a mistake and it is those on the frontline who will bear the brunt. We need someone to take responsibility, so why not the ICBs?
Without its workforce, the NHS is nothing. We are grateful to each and every one of its staff for the work that they do. We owe it to them, the patients and the taxpayer to have in place a proper system of workforce planning. Although we do not pretend that the new clause is the whole answer, it would begin to put in place the building blocks to achieve that.
Edward Argar
The new clause would place a new statutory responsibility on integrated care boards to publish, at least every two years,
“a report setting out an analysis of the current workforce, the workforce requirements to enable the Board to fulfil its duties over the following 2, 5 and 10 years, and the plans the Board has to close any gaps identified.”
Under the new clause, ICBs drawing up that report would be placed under a statutory duty of consultation with the trusts and foundation trusts in their area, providers of primary care and the recognised trade unions. The Government’s view is that that is an unnecessarily prescriptive duty on ICBs, and that clause 33 —alongside our non-legislative work and investment—remains the right way to develop the NHS workforce.
On the workforce nationally, what is needed is greater transparency and accountability for the various bodies involved in workforce planning. Clause 33 requires the Secretary of State to produce a report describing the workforce planning and supply system—including the roles of DHSC and its arm’s length bodies; NHS bodies, including ICBs and others; and how they work together—to provide that greater transparency.
To support local ICBs on workforce matters, work is already being taken forward on workforce planning through NHS England and NHS Improvement’s draft guidance to ICBs on the discharge of their functions. The draft NHSEI guidance, published in August 2021, states that the intended outcomes for ICBs will include,
“Growing the workforce for the future and enabling adequate workforce supply”,
as well as,
“Leading coordinated workforce planning”.
The guidance notes state explicitly that ICBs will have the responsibility to develop
“plans to address current and future predicted workforce supply requirements”,
which I believe addresses the core intention of the shadow Minister’s new clause.
The production of those plans will require ICBs to develop and regularly refresh collaborative workforce plans for their integrated care area, with demand and supply planning based on population health needs. As part of that work, we can expect ICBs to work with local stakeholders in their areas. ICBs will also be supported by Health Education England on such workforce planning matters. Under the guidance, ICBs will also have the responsibility to provide workforce data to regional and national workforce teams to support workforce planning and inform the prioritisation of workforce initiatives and investment decisions.
We join the shadow Minister in putting on the record our gratitude to our health and care workforce, but we think that that guidance already sends a strong signal to the system about the importance of the issue, and we therefore do not support his new clause.
Justin Madders
I am not surprised, although I am a little saddened, that the Minister has once again adopted the permissive rather than prescriptive approach. We think that the issue is so important for the NHS that it needs a firmer hand. I am sure that I will quote back to him his comments about the need for greater accountability and transparency in workforce planning, because that is something that we absolutely agree on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 19
Secretary of State’s duty to provide access to occupational health services to NHS staff
“After section 1G of the National Health Service Act 2006 (but before the italic heading after it) insert—
‘1GA Secretary of State’s duty to provide access to occupational health services to NHS staff
The Secretary of State must provide access to occupational health services to meet the reasonable requirements of all persons who are employed in an activity which involves or relates to the provision of services as part of the health service in England.’”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would place a new duty on the Secretary of State to provide access to OH services to meet the reasonable requirements of all NHS staff. The duty would apply to all healthcare professionals delivering health care including doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, healthcare scientists and the allied health professions.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The past 18 months have made clearer than ever the health risks that our health workers face at work, as they have dealt with unprecedented pressures during the pandemic. Occupational health is a multidisciplinary approach to maintaining the wellbeing of those employed in a workplace, preventing and removing ill health and developing solutions to keep staff with health issues at work, the most common problems being mental health and musculoskeletal issues.
Occupational health services occupy a unique position as neither the employer nor the employee. I remember in my time as a union official helping NHS staff with issues at work, and we would howl at times at things that occupational health came up with. Then we met management and realised that they were howling about it too, so we realised that the occupational health practitioner was probably in the right place. That is a very specific and special place, in the NHS and beyond, and we should want our wonderful NHS staff to have proper access to it.
Currently, the NHS provides access to occupational health services to the vast majority of staff in acute trusts, but the policy is inconsistent. While NHS England is making efforts to expand access through the growing OH programme, those efforts need to be accelerated and supported, which is what the new clause would do.
In secondary care, the provision of services tends to depend on legal requirements on safety, for example checking for blood-borne viruses in advance of performing surgical or other procedures that could pose a risk to patients from the infected clinician, rather than occupational health provision that supports individuals to remain at work based on other needs they might have.
Similarly, the co-ordination of occupational health services in primary care has suffered since the abolition of primary care trusts in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. As a result, there is far less provision in primary community care settings. Some of the funds previously allocated to PCTs in support of occupational health services were diverted to the practitioner health programme—PHP— which provides mental health support for NHS staff. While that is valuable, the PHP is not a replacement for specialist occupational health services that are ready to work with both employer and employee on issues beyond mental health. That means that key parts of the NHS workforce—GPs, practice nurses and pharmacists—lack full access to occupational health services, and that has real implications. We worry about burnout in all those groups, especially after the 18 months we have just had. For some of our staff, A&E is the only avenue for treatment, in cases of exposure to infectious disease or a needle stick, for example. That is unsuitable and we could do much better than that.
We think it is vital for NHS staff wellbeing and staff retention that all NHS workers have access to occupational health services when they need them. We are not asking for something extra or beyond the scope of current conception. In 2016, NHS England introduced a commitment for OH services to be provided across the NHS, stating its intention to achieve
“a nationally standardised Occupational Health Service…that is equitable and accessible.”
That is a very good commitment, but five years on it remains unfulfilled. The new clause would put that on a statutory footing and get it going.
The Secretary of State already has several duties to NHS staff, in relation to education and training, for example, under the 2012 Act. The new clause would fulfil the 2016 commitment and meet the needs of NHS staff by requiring the Secretary of State to meet any reasonable OH requirements for anyone employed by the NHS directly or indirectly. It would be really good for our staff and, in turn, for the health service and those it serves. I hope that the Minister will give it positive consideration.
Edward Argar
As the hon. Member for Nottingham North set out, the new clause seeks to legislate for an additional duty on the Secretary of State to provide access to occupational health services to NHS staff.
The NHS is what it is thanks only to the hard work of its staff. The Government and Members of Parliament on both sides of the Chamber are immensely grateful to them. Caring for people throughout the pandemic has required a phenomenal effort from so many people, ranging from students and trainees to new recruits, established staff and those returning to the workforce. The dedication and resilience of NHS staff has been incredible—indeed, humbling—to witness. They have consistently placed the needs of patients before themselves, as indeed they do year in, year out, but they have done so in particularly challenging circumstances over the past year and a half or so.
If healthcare staff are to provide excellent care to patients, they need to receive excellent support themselves. Occupational health services play an important role in ensuring that staff get the support that they need to do their jobs and to flourish in them. Throughout the pandemic, we have placed a strong emphasis on supporting staff wellbeing. In July 2020, we published the NHS “People Plan”, which prioritises staff health and wellbeing. That was supported by the roll-out of a comprehensive national health and wellbeing support offer, which has been accessed by staff across the NHS.
The past 18 months have seen many NHS organisations respond with empathy and agility to the pandemic, and occupational health teams have developed innovative ways of supporting their colleagues. As we move towards, or into, the recovery phase, there is a great need to build on that focus and momentum, to ensure a healthy, sustainable workforce going forward. As we look to the same workforce who have taken us through the pandemic to tackle the waiting lists and waiting times, we must recognise, and be open with those who watch our proceedings and listen to us, that that task of rebuilding and getting the waiting lists down will be challenging. We owe it to the staff to be clear about that, because they are the same staff. They are physically and emotionally exhausted, and we have a duty of care to them, and must enable them to rebuild their physical and emotional strength after what they have been through over the past year and a half.
That is why the NHS priorities and operational planning guidance, published in March 2021, puts staff wellbeing and the recovery of the workforce right at the top of the list of priorities for the NHS. To support that, NHS England and NHS Improvement have launched a new programme to strengthen and improve occupational health across the NHS. That will look at how we can improve occupational health services, grow the occupational health workforce, develop their capability, empower local leadership and bring a strengthened focus on proactive and preventive care. It will build on best practice across the country and will inform future blueprints for potential service delivery models, with the aim of having a five-year service improvement strategy for occupational health in the NHS. It is being developed with the support of Dr Steve Boorman and the Faculty of Occupational Medicine, the Society of Occupational Medicine, the Council for Work and Health and the NHS Health at Work network, as national occupational health partners that both represent the voice of and link directly with occupational health professionals. That work, and the broader programme of work through the NHS “People Plan” to transform the NHS as a place to work, demonstrates our strong commitment to supporting staff health and wellbeing in the NHS.
As a result, we do not believe that this new clause is necessary, although we appreciate the sentiment, objective and aims sitting behind it. Our concern is that drawing out occupational health over and above other aspects of health and wellbeing support does not necessarily help to drive forward the other work done, which I have alluded to and which provides staff with a more comprehensive package that can be tailored to individual or group staff needs. There is a risk, though I suspect it is a small one, that occupational health could become a tick-box exercise to comply with, which would detract from the full journey of health and wellbeing support. Occupational health is part—indeed, a vital part—of that, but it is not the solution in and of itself, alone.
For the reasons that I have set out, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider not pressing the new clause to a Division at this point.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that response. I do not intend to push this new clause to a Division. I have made my case about the importance of occupational health, and I understand what the Minister said about the broader range of interventions. Of course, we would support those, too, but particularly here, we really need to get to the point of having full coverage. Only NHS England has committed to that. I hope that today we have at least sounded the signal that the pace is too slow, and that we ought to get on with it. I hope that the Minister will keep the matter under consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 23
Cap on private charges
‘(1) Section 43 of the National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) Leave out subsection (2A) and insert—
“(2A) An NHS foundation trust does not fulfil its primary purpose if the proportion of the total income of the NHS foundation trust in any financial year derived from private charges is greater than the proportion of the total income of the NHS trust derived from such charges in the financial year ending 31 March 2022.
(2B) For the purposes of subsections (2A) and (2C) “private charges” means charges imposed in respect of goods and services provided to patients other than patients being provided with goods and services for the purposes of the health service.
(2C) An NHS foundation trust does not fulfil its principal purpose if in any year the proportion of the total income derived from private charges is greater than the proportion of the total income of the NHS trust derived from such charges in the previous financial year unless—
(a) the appropriate integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships have been notified of the intention that this increase will occur;
(b) that intention has been published with a statement of the reasons why it is considered to benefit the NHS;
(c) the appropriate integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships have used reasonable endeavours to consider any responses to the publication mentioned in (b); and
(d) any integrated care board which has commissioned services from the trust, and the integrated care partnership for the board, have informed the NHS foundation trust that the proposed increase is justified.”’—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would prevent NHS foundation trusts increasing their income from private patients year on year unless the conditions set in subsection (2C) are met.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
One of the livelier arguments during the passage of the Lansley Act was about trusts doing lots more private patient work. Under the Act, up to 50% of a trust’s income could be derived from private patients. That was obviously an attempt to take the NHS in a whole new direction. The previous private patient cap was removed, and a new definition of “principal purpose” was brought in.
We need to be clear that this new clause is not about the parallel argument that we sometimes have about private providers doing more NHS-funded work, though that is a major concern when we hear the news that the private sector is now doing more hip replacements for NHS patients than the NHS. We are in a slightly ludicrous and paradoxical situation: private providers are doing more NHS-funded work, while NHS providers are doing more private work. The new clause tries to put the brakes on that. We say: why not just build up NHS capacity to the point where it does all NHS-funded work, so that the need to keep dipping into the private sector is removed?
The 2011 argument is mirrored in the way the original foundation trusts, when invented, were allowed to develop private patient income, but only to a very low level. That was not a great situation, but it recognised that there were already a few NHS organisations, mostly in London, for which private patient income was so significant that there would be a risk of destabilisation if that income were blocked. The point at the time was that the amount permitted then was acceptable, but that it should go no further. Incidentally, the plain-old NHS trusts could do as much private patient work as they were allowed to by the Secretary of State, who could direct them to do it. If memory serves, he allowed one trust to become the private patient income league table toppers at one point. It did not want to become a foundation trust. What a strange and paradoxical world we live in.
Anyway, in 2011, the cap was raised from 3% to 50%, which started many hares running. We heard predictions of a whole new generation of private patient units being built, and that we would be back to the old days when the NHS was the largest provider of private patient care. Fortunately, that never happened. In the real world, there are now only around a dozen trusts that have any significant private patient income, and it is not increasing at a significant rate, although recent developments in Oxford suggest that the issue has not gone away.
One might argue that in those circumstances there is no need for the new clause, but we would say that there is every need to renounce the approach set out in Lansley, and to go back to a public NHS. The only reason for gaining income from private patients is to benefit the NHS as a whole, not to benefit one NHS organisation. This is a real and live issue, as we saw during covid. There were tensions, and every spare bed was vital; indeed, every spare bed is vital now to support the mammoth effort that is needed to bring down waiting lists. In all seriousness, why would we sanction a trust’s building more private patient capacity, when waiting times for NHS treatment continue to go up? Then we go, as we have done in recent times, cap and wallet in hand to the private providers and pay them huge sums to allow the NHS the option of using their services and capacity, as we did during covid. As we saw recently, that did not get used anything like as much as it should have been. That might be a fortunate thing, but it was a shocking lack of value for money. The report by the Centre for Health and the Public Interest on the contract with the private sector found that none of the five objectives set for the contract were achieved, with large amounts of healthcare resources wasted.
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman’s new clause would effectively prevent NHS foundation trusts from increasing their income from private patients year on year unless a number of specified conditions were met.
If hon. Members are students of history, they will recall that in 2012 we abolished the private patient cap, while clarifying that the foundation trusts’ principal purpose was
“the provision of goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England”,
meaning that foundation trusts must make the majority of their income from NHS activity. That was a more rational and sensible way of managing the issue than the previous cap, which caused practical problems for some NHS organisations that wanted to become foundation trusts and were prevented from doing so by the prescriptive nature of the previous regime. We also retained the requirement that additional income be used to benefit NHS patient care. It has been used across the system to offset maintenance costs, finance alternative transport such as park and ride, and fund patient care.
I should also be clear that we are talking about a very small percentage of the NHS’s income. The most recent set of provider consolidated accounts for 2019-20 shows income from non-NHS sources as 2% of income, of which less than 1% relates to private patients. Again, all that income has gone to improving care for NHS patients.
The new clause introduces a new cap by a different door; it creates a requirement for foundation trusts to agree with their ICB and ICP their income from non-NHS sources, and if they raised more than in the previous year, they would no longer be fulfilling their primary function as a foundation trust. That would be a significant bureaucratic and administrative burden on foundation trusts, and it would require them to either forgo raising additional income, or seek agreement via a multi-stage process before raising it.
The provision would also mark a significant new restriction on foundation trusts’ freedoms and autonomy, and could potentially dissuade some from wishing to become foundation trusts. As all non-NHS income must benefit NHS patient care, and an NHS foundation trust must always have as its primary purpose the delivery of NHS services, I fear that would potentially be putting ideological purity over practical interests and the practical working of the system.
New clause 23 would only apply to foundation trusts, as I read it, not NHS trusts. NHS trusts do not have a limit on the amount of income they can raise from private patients, and a very small number of trusts raise significant income in this way. Putting an additional requirement on foundation trusts before they can raise non-NHS income, but not doing the same for NHS trusts, would potentially further unbalance the playing field and give an additional nudge in the direction of foundation trusts.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the costs or spending on the independent sector in the context of the pandemic response. I have been clear throughout that when the accounts are fully consolidated and audited, those figures will have to be reported. I cannot say exactly when that process will be complete, but it is a requirement that those accounts be gone through, consolidated and audited. I would hesitate to give him an inaccurate figure, but it is my intention for those figures to be made available at the appropriate time. With that, I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing his new clause.
Justin Madders
I hesitate to withdraw the new clause, because I have to say that the Minister’s arguments about not wanting to deter foundation trusts from making applications rang a little hollow, but we would not want to be accused of preventing that procession from continuing. We have set out very clearly why we do not think this residue from the 2012 Act should remain on the statute book. We think it sends out the wrong message and is actually unhelpful at this time, but we will not push the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 24
Requirement for NHS trusts to publish Royal College invited review reports
“Each NHS Trust in England must publish the reports produced by Royal Colleges of invited reviews of the Trust, including any conclusions and recommendations.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would require Trusts to publish Royal College invited review reports.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause seeks to require all trusts to publish reports produced by royal colleges following invited reviews, including any conclusions and recommendations. Invited reviews are advisory, non-regulatory and non-statutory ways for healthcare organisations to assure patient safety and improve patient care through the use of a collaborative, independent, objective and expert review process undertaken by medical royal colleges when asked. Invited reviews have a clear and important role in supporting improvements in services. They aid trusts in understanding issues within departments or teams, particularly where these are multifactorial and involve team dynamics. An independent, external expert opinion is often invaluable in helping senior clinicians see a different viewpoint and in articulating where and why professional differences of opinion in practice are occurring.
The reports can help move issues of contention forward and improve relationships. Trusts value the insight and objective evidence of these reviews, particularly where quality issues have been raised. They are often a vital tool in resolving a complex, seemingly intractable issue. They are also invaluable in ensuring the NHS can continually learn, improve and deliver the safest and best quality care for patients. However, we think that can only be achieved if the information and learning within the reports is shared for the benefit of others across the system.
Independent and external expert reviews are a key part of any assurance process. To us, their value is beyond dispute. How the organisation being reviewed responds to the report produced is again crucial. Although we would expect in most cases the organisations to accept those recommendations and do what is required, we know that does not always happen. Shockingly, BBC “Panorama” revealed that, of 111 invited service reviews over five years, only 16 were put into the public domain. Panorama accuses trusts of burying important reports on patient safety. The invited reviews are organised by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which follows the published framework. The framework has a section on openness and transparency:
“Where a healthcare organisation has commissioned an invited review of clinical activity in response to concerns about the quality of patient care, they should also be open and transparent with patients, their relatives and the public…Healthcare organisations should also work closely with their regulators and share information about invited reviews with them proactively where necessary to ensure that the safety of patients can be maintained.”
As with all such external reviews, there is a balance between protecting certain information, for example by attributing views or comments, and being open. For such reviews it is necessary that those interviewed or otherwise asked to become involved are happy to do so and happy to speak out confidentially. As we discussed earlier, ensuring that staff and whistleblowers feel safe to come forward and disclose information about an incident is critically important.
The new clause does not intend to get in the way of that protection. It is deliberately not prescriptive about the timing of publication, so that trusts maintain appropriate control. It is not about blame or ensuring that trusts are named and shamed when improvements are needed; it is about transparency. In the NHS, after mistakes have been made, it is vital to have transparency to ensure that necessary improvements are made.
It is concerning that so many reports produced by royal colleges have not been shared with the public and therefore we do not know whether they have been acted upon. As part of the conditions of an invited review, trusts are in effect signing up to publishing and showing the findings. Yet, as we know, that is not happening.
Everything favours openness, although patient-identifiable information would of course have to be redacted. On some occasions, there may be other reasons for part of the report to be withheld, but not the overall conclusions and certainly not the recommendations. That would ensure proper accountability for the follow-up and implementation of the recommendations or, in some cases, a justification for why the organisation did not accept or act on the recommendations.
We have talked several times already about the defensive culture that pervades parts of the NHS and how it sometimes gets in the way of what patients and families want. They want answers and assurances. Most of all, they want the truth. These reviews are part of that truth. We have had the same argument many times, because, although the NHS claims to be open and transparent, it is often not.
Given the fragmented and convoluted set of organisations within the new structure, it is harder to know sometimes who will be responsible for what. With the present system, there is always the issue of who owns the report, who controls what is published and who follows up and ensures that the necessary changes are made. That is why we believe that that the disinfectant of sunlight is vital. We should know everything unless there is a good reason for us not to, not the other way round. We should not be required to protect the reputation of bits of the NHS or even the reputations of those individuals who have failed to do their jobs properly.
We have heard in the many scandals how things were known by a few, but they failed to act and prevented anyone else from acting on the information they had. Sadly, it is necessary to be clear about rules. There ought to be some sort of sanction for those who have broken rules of publication. It may not always be easy for the individuals or the individual organisations, but it is almost certainly always going to be in the interests of the NHS as a whole.
The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the CQC are looking at guidance on invited reviews at the moment. The new clause seeks to focus the Minister’s mind on an issue that has not gone away. I know it is controversial. I hope the Minister can give us some assurances that his Department is committed to developing a system that works better in this area and puts patients at the heart of everything that happens.
Unfortunately, in the last financial year prior to the pandemic, there were 472 serious patient safety issues classified as never events across the NHS in England. There is work to be done to get the NHS to the level of patient care and safety that we would want to see. It is only by seeking to understand why these events happened in the first place and the circumstances that led to them that we can ensure they never happen again. That is the heart of what most patients and their families want to know.
We believe that the safety of patients should be a golden thread running through every aspect of healthcare delivery and we will do everything in our power to make sure that the NHS is one of the safest and most supported healthcare systems in the world. I ask the Minister to tell us why the reviews should not be published on a regular basis. Is 16 reports out of 111 being published good enough? We certainly do not think it is.
I will finish on a quote from the Francis report. We have mentioned this one already, but it needs repeating as it is so important. He said:
“It is a basic and just expectation of the public that organisations are open, honest and transparent about their performance standards, about the rights of patients and about what happened, and why, if things go wrong. This is the only way to begin to restore full public trust in the NHS.”
We hope that this new clause, by requiring publication of the reviews, will go some way to restoring confidence and increasing the transparency that patients deserve.
Edward Argar
The new clause would require each NHS trust in England to publish any report by a medical royal college of an invited review of the trust. That includes any conclusions and recommendations. It is right, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that trusts are open and transparent in managing any concerns about the quality and safety of their services, and, in particular, regulators should have access to any royal college invited review of a trust.
I have considerable sympathy with the intention of the new clause. We all want to improve patient safety and care, and I recognise the key role that transparency can play as part of that. However, I will explain why I am not convinced that this objective is best advanced by acceptance of this particular new clause. Managing concerns about clinical quality openly and transparently is essential for trusts if they are to provide consistently high quality, safe care, to show quality of leadership and to maintain trust in the trust and the service it delivers.
When the CQC finds that there has been a failure to do so or that fundamental standards of care are not being met, it is reflected in the CQC’s reports and ratings and in the range of enforcement powers it can use. The CQC’s inspection teams maintain ongoing engagement with trusts and make it clear that they expect trusts to be open and honest about issues of quality and safety of services. Furthermore, the CQC has been clear with trusts that reports, including invited reviews by royal colleges, should be made available to relevant commissioners and regulators, including the CQC. The CQC, NHS England and NHS Improvement expect trusts to take prompt actions to address appropriate recommendations, and the framework for invited reviews from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges is clear that trusts and royal colleges undertaking reviews should share any serious patient safety issues from reports with the CQC.
As part of the CQC’s monitoring and inspection activity, it assesses how trusts have acted on recommendations from these reviews, including implementing any learning to make improvements. Since July 2018, the CQC has set a very clear expectation on trusts to share copies of the full final report of external reviews, including those by royal colleagues, and to inform it of steps they are taking to implement any recommendations. The CQC, working with providers, NHS England, NHS Improvement and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, has seen improvement in the development of an open and transparent culture.
The CQC has powers to compel a trust to share an invited review where it is aware of that review. Where serious issues of care are uncovered, NHS England and NHS Improvement can also compel a trust to take whatever steps are necessary to address them. This includes the sharing of an invited review to itself. The CQC is now reviewing its regulatory model, including its approach to monitoring and gathering evidence from providers. In doing so, it will continue to work with trusts and royal colleges, including on sharing and responding to findings from external reviews to encourage a culture of openness and transparency.
There are robust and transparent systems in place to ensure that providers learn from and improve their services. This includes publishing more than 100 reports every year, covering 40 clinical specialisms as part of the clinical audit programme by NHS England and NHS Improvement. NHS England and NHS Improvement also publish regular data on patient safety incidents, other safety indicators and patient safety alerts. They also provide support to challenge providers to improve governance and culture.
Invited reviews are a voluntary process. They are an advisory, non-regulatory and non-statutory way for trusts to assure patient safety and quality of care through the use of an independent review, but compelling the publication of the full report could lead to some unintended consequences. First, it could discourage some trusts from commissioning these invited reviews. That could lead to trusts overlooking specific actions to address safety and quality concerns and opportunities for improvements and learning. Secondly, it could lead to trusts inviting consulting firms and other professional bodies with less expertise in the delivery of clinical care than a team from the royal college to undertake reviews. Thirdly, invited reviews can vary widely in their scope and may not be directly patient safety-related. Therefore a blanket requirement to publish all reports may not be appropriate.
Fourthly, the specific information that a trust can make publicly available will vary from review to review, depending on the circumstances. Invited reviews can often involve sensitive and complex circumstances and cover confidential issues about staff and patients. Trusts need to take account of legislation on patient confidentiality and data protection each time a report is developed. It may therefore not be possible for every invited review to be a published document. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges recommends that trusts should take steps to make available to the public a summary of the review and the steps they are taking.
Finally, requiring publication of invited reviews could attract attention in a way that affects staff morale and organisational learning, and not in a constructive way. It could make future invited review reports weaker or drive necessary conversations and actions off the record. For these reasons, while I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and where he is coming from, we believe that the mechanisms already in place are sufficient and achieve the right balance.
Justin Madders
I am slightly heartened by what the Minister said there. He obviously takes the matter seriously. We are not going to press this to a vote, because we recognise that there is some concern in the sector about this proposal. I ask him to reflect on what he said about a requirement possibly discouraging trusts from seeking invited reviews in the first place. That shows that reputation management is still at the forefront of their considerations rather than patient safety. That is the heart of the problem that we have been seeking to tease out with this new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 25
“Secretary of State’s duty to report on disparities in maternal mortality rates
The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report each year on variation in the quality and safety of England’s maternity services and disparities in maternal mortality rates in England, including the steps being taken to address these disparities and improve outcomes for patients.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause lays a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on variation in the quality and safety of England’s maternity services and disparities in maternal mortality rates in England, including what steps his department is taking to address these disparities and improve outcomes for patients.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This clause, in the words of Ronseal, does exactly what it says on the tin. It lays a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on variation in the quality and safety of England’s maternity services and disparities in maternal mortality rates in England. The report would include details of the steps that the Department was taking to address these disparities and improve outcomes for patients. We all know that this issue is of paramount importance and has been debated in the House several times recently. I hope that the Minister agrees that it is important that we take whatever steps we can to tackle all forms of inequality in our society and this is another example of how that manifests itself.
Covid has sharpened our awareness of health inequalities, but it is clear that it is not just with respiratory viruses where health outcomes can be staggeringly different for different groups. Maternity services are one of the areas where we can and must do far better. The Care Quality Commission report “Safety, Equity and Engagement in Maternity Services”, published in September, highlighted continued concern about the variation in quality and safety of England’s maternity services and presented analysis of key issues that persisted in some maternity services. It also highlighted where action was still needed to support vital improvements. In the UK’s poorest areas the stillbirth rate is still twice that in the UK’s most affluent ones, with pre-pandemic figures showing that babies in the poorest areas have a 73% excess risk of neonatal death. All mothers and babies deserve the very best care and it simply cannot be right that where people live might dictate the quality of the maternity care received. Action is needed to eradicate maternal inequalities.
It is not just geographical and socioeconomic inequalities that need to be tackled but ethnic inequalities. Evidence from MBRACE-UK––Mothers and Babies Reducing Risk Through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK––shows that the maternal mortality rate is more than four times higher for black women compared with white women. The maternal mortality rate for Asian women is almost twice as high compared with white women. Those inequalities are an injustice, and we need action to address them.
I recognise that many black, Asian and minority ethnic women also do not feel that they are listened to during childbirth. A lack of cultural competency and medical training means that complications are not always spotted early enough. For example, black women have shared experiences of how anaemia has not been picked up soon enough because of their skin colour. We really ought to be doing better than that.
The Government have said that they have hosted several roundtables with experts and have commissioned more research to better understand the issue. However, they believe that a target to address maternal mortality disparities would have limitations in improving the quality of care. Why do they hold that view? NHS England’s long-term plan includes targets for addressing health outcomes in other areas. We need action to address the unacceptable disparities in maternal mortality rates as well.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights found that over 60% of black people did not believe that their health was equally protected by the NHS compared with white people. As we know, covid has had a disproportionate impact on BAME communities.
If not a target, then a report would ensure accountability and focus minds to address these unacceptable injustices. New clause 25 would put explicit accountability on the Secretary of State not only to monitor and report on variation in maternity services but, crucially, to set out the steps needed to tackle it. We need a national strategy to address this country’s health inequalities, which must include serious and urgent action to end the mortality gap between black, Asian and ethnic minority women and white women. The new clause is, of course, not the complete answer, but I hope the Minister will agree that it would be a welcome step in the right direction.
Edward Argar
Again, I am grateful to the shadow Minister. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report each year on variation in the quality and safety of England’s maternity services and on disparities in maternal mortality rates in England. Again, I understand the intention behind the new clause, which the hon. Gentlemen set out clearly, as it is paramount that we do all we can to ensure the safety of expectant mothers and their babies, which involves understanding and taking steps to address the variation in quality and safety of England’s maternity services and disparities in outcomes.
However, several organisations and bodies already publish reports each year on the variation of quality and safety of England’s maternity services and the disparities in maternal mortality rates. First, the CQC monitors, inspects and regulates maternity services across England to ensure they meet standards of quality and safety. Following an inspection, it provides findings, recommendations and an overall rating of the trusts. It also publishes monthly reports following inspections of maternity services and annual reports that explore areas for improvement in maternity services across England.
Secondly, “Better Births”, the report of the national maternity review, recommended that a nationally agreed set of indicators should be developed to help local maternity systems to track, benchmark and improve the quality of maternity services. In response, NHS England and NHS Improvement, in partnership with NHS Digital, have produced a national maternity services dashboard. The dashboard enables clinical teams in maternity services to compare their performance with their peers on a series of clinical quality improvement metrics, or CQIMs, and national maternity indicators, or NMIs, for the purposes of identifying areas that may require local clinical quality improvement.
Thirdly, MBRRACE-UK publishes annual reports on maternal deaths, stillbirths and neonatal deaths across the UK. Stillbirth and neonatal mortality rates are provided for individual NHS providers, commissioning boards, and local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and the Crown dependencies. It would not be possible to report annual maternal mortality rates by NHS trusts because the numbers are very small—it would not be a meaningful statistic. That would also potentially risk individuals being identified and could result in contravention of data protection legislation.
The reports by MBRRACE-UK also look at health inequalities; its analysis has identified significant differences in maternal mortality rates, which the shadow Minister mentioned, between women from black or Asian minority ethnic backgrounds and white women, and between women from lower and higher socioeconomic backgrounds.
Finally, the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit, or NMPA, is a large-scale audit of NHS maternity services across England, Scotland and Wales. The NMPA publishes trust-level data and evaluates a range of care processes and outcomes to identify good practice and areas for improvement in the care of women and babies.
Justin Madders
I will disappoint the Minister this time. We will push the new clause to a vote, because we think that it is really important. While the Minister has set out a whole range of reports that have been issued and work that is being done, due to the scale of the injustice we have set out, there needs to be a concrete commitment from the Secretary of State to not only publish the data, but set out the steps he is taking to address the inequalities.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 28—Duty as to education placement capacity and innovation—
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1F(1) insert—
‘(1A) To meet the integrated workforce requirements of integrated care systems, the Secretary of State must—
(a) ensure that there is sufficient placement capacity in the health and social care system in England to educate and develop a sustainable health and social care workforce,
(b) support, fund and promote the use of innovation in healthcare higher education to meet health and social care workforce needs, including new approaches to interdisciplinarity, digital technology and simulation, and
(c) consult universities, health and social care service employers, providers and other persons deemed necessary to develop practice placement capacity and innovation in higher education for health and social care to meet the needs of the health and social care workforce.’”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to develop and support education practice placement capacity across integrated systems and to support innovation in higher education for health and social care.
Chris Skidmore
Thank you for allowing me to speak to these two new clauses together, Mr McCabe. They are essentially interrelated and were the product of a roundtable that I put together and hosted with Universities UK and the deans of medical colleges in my role as co-chair of the all-party university group. These were the two asks that the universities and medical colleges had for the Bill. I offer these new clauses as part of that consultative approach, so I will not be pushing them to a vote.
Basically, we are at a crux. I raised this question on clause 33 of the Bill, but when it comes to workforce planning and training, we take a siloed approach, focusing on what the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and Health Education England set out as their vision, and the funding flows from that. Not included in that vision, although clearly there are consultative opportunities, is a recognised role and responsibility in legislation for healthcare education providers, the universities and the deans of the colleges in providing the clinicians, doctors and nurses of tomorrow. Nor is there recognition that the workforce is changing. While we have the Government’s commitment to the retention of nurses and doctors, that retention can take place only if there is continuous professional development.
When I was a Health Minister, I was very concerned to ensure an uplift in the budget of Health Education England to 3.4% to match that of NHS England. It had always been thought of as the poorer relation; the money would always flow later, and it took a great deal of lobbying from the relevant organisations to make the point that we needed to put that workforce training money aside, particularly for continuous professional development.
New clause 27, in summary, reflects the fact that if we are to have an integrated care system, and if the new White Paper is to look at how to integrate social care with healthcare, we will need to provide huge retraining opportunities for both NHS and social care staff to enable them to work across whatever that new landscape may be. I do not think it is practical to send everyone back to university, or even always to have physical in-work training opportunities, important though those may be. We will clearly need to have digital opportunities, online courses and a whole technological revolution in how we deliver those retraining opportunities.
Those opportunities are out there. If we look at the universities and the role of EdTech, it is important that the health service grips that opportunity with both hands while it has the chance to do so, because it will be coming down the tracks. If we want to implement reform via the integration of services, it will only be as good as the people working in those services, as we all know, and those people will be as good as they can be only if they are given the appropriate opportunities to train and retrain during their career.
The need for new clause 28 has become more pressing as a result of recent developments. It sets out a duty for education placement capacity; I will not go into the detail of the new clause, but effectively it is about place planning and ensuring that the universities and royal colleges are involved with that at the very outset. In the debate on clause 33, I talked about the paradox of our having a cap on places, which is causing a bottleneck in post-18 education—those pupils who are desperate to become doctors or nurses, but who find a cap on their aspiration.
That cap is there, as we know, because medical places are expensive; they cost not £9,250 a year, but more like £70,000 over the course of a medical student’s training lifetime. At the same time, however, we have a cap on places for those 18-year-olds entering the system and then—surprise, surprise—we find we do not have enough doctors and nurses in the system, and we have to start retraining from abroad.
Dr Whitford
Obviously, there has been a drive to expand medical student places in universities right across the UK, but one part of the system that is controlled centrally is foundation places, which a medical graduate has to spend their first two years in. This year, for the first time, there was a shortfall of about 400 places. Hopefully all those graduates have now got a foundation doctor place, but they cannot practise outwith a foundation place, which lasts two years, so they simply cannot work as doctors, nor can they work as doctors until they complete that two-year foundation role. There is no point in expanding medical school places if those at the end of the production line get turfed out to be unemployed or go and work as something else. It is not just about university places; there is also the issue of placements as foundation doctors for the first two years of their career.
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Member is absolutely right. When it comes to the foundation year, I was interested in looking at what future reform might come in the workforce. We would need to work with the royal colleges and vested interests on a replacement, or at least on what could make the foundation process more flexible so as to allow in-work training on that foundation year pathway. That is a huge opportunity, and, if I was still a Minister, I would be pressing for a White Paper to look at how we could deliver workforce innovation, because I do not think we can continue to sustain our trajectory using infrastructure and systems designed in the early to mid-20th century. There is a balance to strike, in that we need to ensure that the safety of patients is accounted for, but technology and training has moved on to a different space. We do not see this constriction in other countries, which can offer fast-track routes through medical training processes, particularly post degree and into the foundation stage.
The issue of placement has become incredibly pressing—it is actually a real-time issue. During the pandemic, because the grade threshold was lowered and teacher assessment was used, an additional 1,900 students were accepted to take up medical places in September 2021. Whatever we think about that, those students were all given a place because they had achieved the right threshold, but to train them, an additional £60 million is needed. However, the Government have capped the training budget at £30 million, so although students have been accepted on to courses, universities are finding that they must make a loss of £2,460 per student in the academic years 2020-21 and 2021-22, and the Government are not opening their books to change that cap on finances.
The cap is therefore returning from this coming year, and as a result 1,000 fewer students will be trained each year. In effect, we will see a reduction in the number of students coming on board to be trained. There is currently this one-off moment that universities are taking forward, but as a result we will go backwards when we know that we need more doctors. The demographic changes that I spoke about in debate on clause 33 are coming down the tracks, but we will end up just recruiting from abroad. It is not that there is necessarily anything wrong with those qualifications; I would just prefer a sustainable and, in effect, sovereign pathway.
The post-Brexit narrative is that global Britain will ensure that we can stand on our own two feet and have a sustainable skilled workforce. That could be recognised if we had a placement strategy for medical students. However, we can do that only if we involve the universities and the education sector. The problem is that the Department for Education controls the purse strings for that budget, and I do not think that it realises the long-term consequences on our healthcare system.
The new clause would close a loophole that is kneecapping the Minister and the Department of Health by placing artificial caps on aspiration and—worryingly —on the future number of doctors entering the healthcare system. I will not press my new clauses to a vote, but the issue is extremely pressing. We will see 1,000 fewer students enter medical places next year than did so this year; and students going through the system have no funding for their places, despite having been given those places. That is a real-time issue that has resulted from the wider policy issue not being resolved. The new clauses would help resolve it, but I will not push them to a vote.
Alex Norris
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingswood on his excellent new clauses and the case that he has made for them. We strongly agree that the training and development of staff ought to be to the fore. We must take the opportunity of understanding that we have a workforce crisis at a time of significant technological development.
Take cancer services, for example. We are all concerned about gaps in cancer provision. We need to take the opportunity to turbo-leap forward, rather than trying to restore services to where they were pre-pandemic, when targets were being missed, and had been missed for a number of years. Let us train and develop our staff to use new and innovative approaches, such as new radiotherapies. There is real opportunity there. With respect to new clause 27, the right hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for harnessing the ability of our universities and colleges, and putting that together with our workforce to develop and improve our services.
On new clause 28, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the paradox of us having profound workforce shortages—in August, there were about 94,000 vacancies, including for nearly 40,000 nurses—while 14,000 applicants were not accepted on to nursing courses in 2018. I understand that there was a significant increase in 2019, but it was not big enough to meet our shortfalls, so that is a real paradox. Our services are not sustainable until and unless we take deliberate action to increase capacity. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to push the new clause to a Division, but I hope to hear from the Minister about what conscious decisions are being taken. This concerns not just those big courses either, but smaller ones, such as paramedic science and radiography. University Alliance members have reported 1,000 applications for 40 to 50 places, so there is demand. Of course, they cannot just take everybody and there has to be a filtering process, but it feels very over-geared to have 20 or 25 times the applicants per place.
I will not repeat the right hon. Gentleman’s arguments about GPs, but they were good. We should use this moment to change our approach to how we grow our GPs. What do we know about GPs? We know that we do not have enough of them, and that we certainly will not have enough of them in five or 10 years’ time. We know that certain communities find it particularly hard to attract GPs, but also that GPs tend to stay where they train or, if not, they are more likely to go back to where they grew up. As part of any so-called levelling up, we need to focus on growing our own GPs in poorer communities such as mine, and similar midlands communities—perhaps you share some of that vision, Mr McCabe—but we do not quite put this together.
Many of my constituents tend to enter education quite a way behind; they really close the gap over their 14 years of formal education, but fall just short of those very high standards that are needed at the age of 18 to go on to university. Should we be writing off those young people? Could we be doing better at getting them on courses to be GPs? I suspect that we would be able to retain them in Nottingham, or at least attract them back there, and to the surrounding towns, which desperately need GPs. Similarly—this is not a long-term answer, but it is certainly one for the short term—one of my foundational moments in my views on migration came from working in a shop the year after finishing school and before going to university. I was often on the rota with a man from Iraq, who was a trained civil engineer in Iraq, but could not afford to convert his qualification. He could not work in that field and instead worked with me in that shop. It always seemed to me like a significant waste of his skills.
I will take this moment to plug a wonderful project in Nottingham called the phoenix programme, in which students at the University of Nottingham School of Medicine work with migrants to this country who have medical qualifications at home but cannot practise because they need to convert the qualifications and often cannot afford to. Those medical students are working on language, functional skills and all the different aspects of the exams that those individuals will take, in order to help those people become doctors in this country. What a wonderful thing to do.
If we think about however many hundreds of thousands it costs to train a GP in this country, we realise what a saving they are making for us, too. I think that is a wonderful thing. We need that level of creativity on workforce in order to deal with our gap.
I will make no further points—I do not want to repeat what the right hon. Member for Kingswood said—but if those are not going to be the answers, I hope we hear from the Minister what the answer is. If we go for more of the same, we will just see growing workforce gaps and we really will have profound problems in our health service.
Edward Argar
I am grateful for the opportunity to address new clauses 27 and 28 together. First, new clause 27 seeks to place a specific duty on the Secretary of State to support the transformation of the health and social care workforce for integrated care systems by working with universities and colleges to train the future workforce through investment in technological and inter-professional innovation.
I take on board the broader points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, but we do not believe that the new clause is necessary, as that work is already covered by section 1F of the NHS Act 2006, which the new clause seeks to amend. Section 1F(1) sets out that the Secretary of State has a duty
“to secure that there is an effective system for the planning and delivery of education and training to persons who are employed, or who are considering becoming employed, in…the health service”.
Discharge of the duty under section 1F(1) is largely delegated to Health Education England through section 97 of the Care Act 2014. To meet its statutory duties and to ensure that an effective education and training system is in place, HEE undertakes a variety of work, including with further and higher education providers and regulators. Part of that work includes the curriculums for the healthcare professions. Those curriculums are set by approved education providers at an institutional level. HEE can influence the content by representing the employer voice to ensure that the training that individuals receive is relevant and remains up to date.
As part of that work, HEE is particularly keen to ensure that technological and medical advances are included in teaching, alongside new ways of working. Those measures would support newly qualified professionals to be suitably prepared to launch their careers in the NHS. To support that work and engagement with universities, HEE commissioned the Topol review, published in February 2019—probably in association with my right hon. Friend in one of his previous ministerial roles—on how to prepare the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future.
That review made recommendations that will enable NHS staff to make the most of innovative technologies such as genomics, digital medicines, artificial intelligence and robotics to improve services. The recommendations support the aims of the NHS long-term plan and the workforce implementation plan, helping to ensure a sustainable NHS. The progress report was published by HEE in 2020 and, as part of the implementation report, HEE has launched a digital readiness programme to continue to lead on developments in preparing the workforce to deliver the digital future.
On inter-professional working, we want a workforce that is less siloed and more flexible and adaptable, and work is ongoing to take that forward in England. For example, at the national level, we are looking at new skill mixes to meet new service models. Those new mixes could include upskilling existing staff, so that more staff are able to do things that have traditionally been limited to a smaller group of professionals—for example, prescribing—or making better use of the wide range of skills and contacts available to reduce duplication.
At ICS level, national guidance on the ICS people function also set out the expectation that the ICB, working with the ICP, will have responsibility for enabling workforce transformation across the health and care system, including through the use of technology and innovation, as well as for work with educational institutions to develop the local future workforce. Nationally, arm’s length bodies will support and enable ICBs to deliver those responsibilities at a local level. I hope that that highlights some of the work being done under the existing statutory duty in section 1F of the 2006 Act.
Secondly, new clause 28 seeks to place three new statutory duties on the Secretary of State. That, in a sense, is at the heart of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood was getting at. They are: a duty to ensure a sufficient number of clinical placements for the number of students; a duty to ensure innovation—his new clause outlines greater interdisciplinary working, digital technology and simulation as three examples—is supported and funded in the education and training system; and a duty to consult universities and others on clinical placement availability.
We have carefully considered my right hon. Friend’s new clause, but we do not feel that those additional specific statutory duties are necessary, in addition to the existing statutory duty on the Secretary of State in section 1F of the 2006 Act, which my right hon. Friend seeks to amend. Section 1F sets out that the Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that there is an effective system for the planning and delivery of education and training to persons who are employed, or who are considering becoming employed, in the health service. Discharging the duty under 1F(1) is largely delegated to HEE through section 97 of the Care Act 2014.
As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said, clinical placements are a vital part of healthcare students’ education and training. Good experience during a placement can lead a student to seek employment at their placement provider. As a result, ensuring that there is sufficient placement capacity remains a priority for HEE in order to meet its statutory duties and ensure that an effective education and training system is in place.
Dr Whitford
Just to clarify, I was not referring to placements as students, which are absolutely vital; I was referring to the two foundation years that those individuals have to do afterwards. Otherwise, they simply cannot function as doctors.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarification, but she illustrates that placements, both as students and in the context she describes, are vital to enable students to understand and learn the reality and skill of their profession. It is also important that placements are rewarding for students.
HEE has successfully worked with education providers and placement providers to ensure there is sufficient placement capacity for the record number of nursing students that we now have. Such work includes payment of the education and training tariff, which pays a contribution to the costs of providing placements. The Government have also supported HEE through the provision of additional funding, enabling it to launch its clinical placement expansion programme. The programme has seen HEE commit £15 million to fund additional clinical placements across nursing, midwifery, allied health professionals and healthcare science in 2021-22. This funding will increase the number of placements offered to nursing, midwifery and AHP healthcare students from September 2021, which was last month, and it will enable HEE to deliver the future health and care workforce in sufficient numbers, and with the skills that the NHS needs.
Before I turn to innovation, I will address two points that were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and alluded to by the hon. Member for Nottingham North. First, the shadow minister touched on those who come from abroad via normal immigration routes or as refugees, the skills they have and how we need to make it easier for such people to utilise their skills and work in our NHS. He is absolutely right, and we continue to look at how we can make the process easier. We need to balance that with making sure that we can evidence and reference those skills for the safety of patients and those qualifications, but where that can be done and where those skills are commensurate, we need to make it as easy as possible for them to requalify or go through the necessary safety processes to be able to work in our NHS. The only other thing I would say is that we have to be very careful that any recruitment is ethical and that we are not denuding countries of the ability to utilise the skills of clinical professionals in rebuilding their own countries.
The second point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood was about the challenges posed for maintaining quality, in terms of people going through relevant courses, and for the operation of the cap. I will not criticise any other Government Department, but he highlights the juxtaposition that often occurs between the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, or between other Departments where two Departments have an interest in the same policy but different incentives for their policy making. There will always have to be a financial test. There is always a limited budget, and my right hon. Friend highlighted how expensive some of the training courses are. However, it is right to expand the number of medical schools and training places, as we have done—he probably presided over it.
I remember going to the University of Lincoln, when I had just been appointed. Those I met were disappointed that I was not my right hon. Friend, but they were none the less very welcoming to me. The University of Lincoln works very closely with the University of Nottingham, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham North, in setting up a new medical school and drawing on the curriculum and expertise that was already in Nottingham. It is a great example. I very much hope that, when I am not in this Bill Committee, I might be able to go once again to visit the University of Lincoln and perhaps come and see the hon. Gentleman’s local medical school over in Nottingham.
Finally, on innovation, HEE currently works with universities, training providers and regulators on the curricula for the healthcare professions to ensure that they reflect the latest technological innovations. Although curricula are set, as I have said, at institution level, HEE can influence the content by representing the employer voice, to ensure that the training that individuals receive is relevant to what employers need.
In relation to consultation, HEE already works with universities, placement providers and others on the availability of placement providers to assess and ensure that there are the right number and types of placement. As I have mentioned, the number of placements has expanded. That is a direct result of the constructive dialogue and engagement that HEE has with placement providers. At ICS level, national guidance on the ICS people function set out the expectations.
I hope that I have set out that work on the areas highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood is being taken forward—some of it was started by him a few years ago—under the existing statutory duty under section 1F of the NHS Act 2006. Therefore, at this point, we do not think that further specific duties are necessary, but I suspect that, in the further passage of this legislation, we may well return to the sort of themes that we have discussed today.
Chris Skidmore
As I said, I will not push the new clauses to a vote, but I will just reiterate that there clearly is a massive structural supply and demand imbalance. I do not believe that the status quo will be sustainable in the longer term. I do appreciate the Minister setting out the ecosystem as it exists, but I fear that that ecosystem, in the longer term, cannot keep up with the changing demands on the healthcare system and the expansion of the healthcare system thanks to the budgetary announcements today about the amount of money that is being spent. None of this will cut through effectively if we do not have the trained workforce in place to be able to deliver healthcare on the ground. Mention has been made of general practitioners and the shortfall that we are going to see as a result of the demographic and retirement bulge that is going through the system at the moment. These are problems coming down the track, and I would always recommend in policy, as in life, that if we see a problem and know that we are going to have to take a decision, it is better to take the decision sooner rather than later, because the costs will only be less now and greater later on.
I will not push these new clauses to a Division, but I have, Cassandra-like, sent out a warning cry of what will happen in the future if we do not act soon. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sustainability and Climate Change (National Curriculum)
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House, or at home. Please give each other and members of staff room when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the inclusion of sustainability and climate change in the national curriculum.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ghani. I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I also thank colleagues for being present, including those who have long been staunch advocates on the issue of climate and ecology, and particularly the chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne).
To stop runaway climate change, we have to reduce our emissions by half every decade. The world needs to reach net zero by 2050. That requires sustained political pressure on our leaders and huge changes to every part of our economy—changes that the Climate Change Committee has described as
“unprecedented in their overall scale”.
It requires that we build an economy based on clean energy, creating secure, sustainable jobs through investment in green industry, transitioning away from sectors with high emissions, and restoring our natural world. It requires a public who are informed and knowledgeable about the climate, and a shift in emphasis when it comes to the skills that are valued and taught in our society. Does the Minister agree that teaching students knowledge and practical skills relating to climate change and green technology is a key component in transitioning to a low-carbon society?
Even if the world is on track to limit the overall rise in temperature to 1.5°—that is a big if—there will still be repercussions for us environmentally, socially and economically. The climate crisis is already here, and we must be prepared to adapt and mitigate its effects in our changing world. A child who started primary school last month will not yet have turned 35 in 2050— the year in which the Government intend to reach net zero carbon emissions—but our current education system does not acknowledge how different our society will be by then, and it will not equip that child with the tools they will need to live and work in it. As Greta Thunberg said when people questioned why she was not at school and was instead striking for the climate,
“Why should I be studying for a future that soon may be no more”?
If our education system is not preparing and empowering young people to help prevent climate change and deal with its consequences, it is failing them. As it stands, climate change barely features on the national curriculum. It is confined to small parts of science GCSE, or optional subjects such as horticulture and environmental science, which few institutions have the financial capacity to host. Due to academisation of our education system, many schools are also not required to teach climate change directly.
We need to put climate change at the heart of education. In practice, this would mean that properly taught climate change education would be integrated into subject areas across the curriculum—not just physics, chemistry and geography, but economics, history, arts and food technology. It would be integrated into vocational training courses as well, with plumbing courses teaching how to install low-carbon heating systems and catering colleges covering sustainable diets. Climate change would be a thread woven into every part of our education system, just as it impacts every part of our lives.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene so early in her remarks, but she has already got to the crux of the issue. I congratulate her on securing the debate and on her role on the Environmental Audit Committee, where she has made a significant contribution, not least to the report on green jobs that we published on Monday. The recommendation in paragraph 102 of that report specifically addresses the point she makes, stating that we need to embed environmental sustainability, including it across all subjects in primary and secondary schools and, obviously, in the vocational curriculum.
Nadia Whittome
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and wholeheartedly agree with his comments. I again thank him for all the work he has done as the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in progressing not just this issue but the need for green jobs across society and in all our communities.
The UN is championing the need for climate education in the national curriculum. Also firmly on board are all the major teaching unions, but at the forefront of this campaign is the youth climate strike movement, some members of which are here today. They have made climate education a clear key demand of their campaign. I thank Scarlett, Yasmin, Charlie, Tess and Stella who have joined us from Teach the Future. They have been driving this debate forward and are of the generation—my generation—that forced our Parliament to declare a climate and ecological emergency almost two and a half years ago.
These young people are still in school, too young to vote or stand for elections, but they have led the way in driving the climate crisis up the political agenda. They have shown this House how change is won. As Parliament’s youngest MP, I feel pride in being part of their generation and a particular responsibility to represent them, but they need representation from the whole House. For decades, huge corporations have polluted our planet with impunity, and the Governments of previous generations have let them off far too lightly. That must end. My generation, young people, and those yet to be born will have to deal with and live with the consequences.
Does the Minister agree that the very least older generations can do is equip young people with the skills they need to clean up the mess that was not of their making? Will the Minister find time to meet with me and the school students here today to discuss the campaign and how we can progress it through Government?
Next week we will host world leaders at COP26. This is our last and best chance of stopping runaway climate change. I want us to show the world that we are serious, that we are listening to young people’s calls, and that we are not just inspired by them but inspired to act.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady. I am sorry I cannot see which constituency she represents, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the debate.
Derek Thomas
I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). That is a great part of the world. When you live in west Cornwall, you do not travel much beyond London, unless you have to.
It is great to be able to speak in this debate, not least because schools in Cornwall are brilliant at raising awareness of climate change and the harm we do to our planet. I have received thousands of letters from schoolchildren setting out their concerns and asking pertinent questions about my commitment to this critical issue. When I was elected, I made myself a perhaps foolish promise that I would always write personally and individually to every child from whom I received a letter. I may regret that because it is a massive task, but well worth doing, because each letter contains real examples of why those children care about climate change.
I have visited many of the amazing schools across Cornwall. Mullion School introduced me to its eco-club and its technology to monitor the ice caps and what is happening in the coldest parts of our world, which are unfortunately heating up. Mounts Bay Academy’s tree-planting, polytunnel and plastic-free efforts have transformed the thinking in schools and homes. Nancledra school invited me very early on in 2016 to its eco-fair. Trythall school, where my children go, invited me to see the work it was doing with members of Women’s Institutes to make the school and their homes more environmentally friendly. Nearly all schools across my constituency have invited me to see their efforts to reduce plastic waste. We in Cornwall are fortunate to have Surfers Against Sewage, who do a great job with schools, and many schools around the country are following that example. Marazion School has actually taken me on beach cleans, which is a great joy, because the children are so much nearer to the stuff they are picking up than we are. As we get older, picking up these little plastic things becomes a challenge, so I recommend that my children go and clean up the waste we have made. I am joking. I am going to get shot in a minute.
The schools working with the Woodland Trust in my constituency have done a great job and planted thousands of trees in their grounds. Prior to the G7 summit in Carbis Bay, which many will remember, several schools in the area took the opportunity to put pressure not only on me as the local MP and other Cornish MPs, but on our Government and world leaders to take this more seriously, to accelerate action and to prepare properly for COP26.
We had a head start in our schools because of the way they have engaged our children in the need to decarbonise and to restore nature, but I want to talk about why that is important. My daughter, who is five, started school properly in September. If things go as planned, when she leaves formal education all new cars will be electric, homes will be powered by wind and heated by air; bottle deposit schemes will have replaced the the need for parents to give their children pocket money, the countryside will look and feel different, and the job opportunities will be very different. That is why we need to take seriously the need to teach about climate change and how to mitigate it formally in our classrooms.
As I have demonstrated in my constituency examples, teachers in Cornwall are already embracing with enthusiasm teaching about the impact of climate change, but I recognise that climate education needs to be extended, as Teach for the Future said, to include knowledge about how we abate the climate emergency and ecological crisis, how to deliver climate justice, and how to support students dealing with eco and climate anxiety. That is important, because I saw the worry on the faces of children I met when the school strikes were taking place. Climate education will reduce anxiety, as students will be empowered with information to tackle the problem.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich East—I mean for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome)—on securing this debate. Sorry, that was a Freudian slip: everywhere is Norwich to me. The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech, but does he agree that, just as we should teach our children about the climate crisis and its onset, we should do so in schools and classrooms that are not belching out carbon at the same time? Is it not critical that this Government get on top of that and decarbonise the education estate by 2030 at the latest?
Derek Thomas
I agree, and I welcome the intervention. When I was on the Environmental Audit Committee, we looked at various plans to decarbonise the public estate by 2032. That is a massive challenge and hugely expensive, but it is right that we should prioritise the places where our children learn. We know that in many places, our school estates are not fit for purpose in terms of the best learning experience, let alone the right thing for the environment. That is just one of the many significant challenges we face as we grapple with this vital issue.
Education on climate change is also about the opportunities available for the future. Cornwall offers a particular opportunity for our national and global efforts to decarbonise and switch to renewable ways of living. We have one of the world’s most important supplies of lithium. We have copper and tin-rich rock beneath our homes. In my constituency, we are led to believe, we have the third-richest tin and copper mine in the world. We have geothermal possibilities, allowing us to extract heat from the ground, and we are doing that at Jubilee Pool in Penzance. We are leaders in renewable energy and we produce some of the most sustainable food crops, dairy and meat. We have some of the most exciting potential for carbon sequestration on land and on the ocean floor, and we have the potential for a large but sustainable fishing fleet. Lack of education in schools on this presents a challenge to our ambitions.
Education should address how we shift to a greener way of living without costing the Earth. There is an interesting debate taking place in Cornwall, because as we consider extracting copper and tin once again and extracting lithium from dormant mines, and at geothermal, we are trying to understand whether the immediate environmental impact of carrying out this important work is worth the result of extracting the minerals that we need in all our devices and in renewable-energy batteries, and so on. There is a real argument that we need the education and the learning in our schools, as well as among the public, about the environmental impact of digging up the ground. What exactly is it? Is it worth it? Or is it better—I say this tongue in cheek—to just get things from China or elsewhere, where we have no control over how the stuff is extracted? Education in schools could really help understanding of how we balance getting to a greener living with the impact that we have to spend right now.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. I had a debate on this in December 2017, and the response I got from the Minister was very bitty, saying “You learn a little about this in citizenship, a little bit in science, a bit in geography, and when T-levels come on board, they might have a bit.” Is the hon. Member arguing that there ought to be a GCSE in environmental science, or environmental studies, or whatever he would wish to call it? Making this a strong part of the curriculum, rather than popping up here and there and not having that overview, is the way forward.
Derek Thomas
Again, that is a great intervention. I met with the Secretary of State and eight head teachers from my constituency a couple of years ago, and we had that very discussion about how we could actually do this in schools. Interestingly, half of the heads said, “Let’s just use what we have now to get it through every part of our education and curriculum,” and the other half said “No, we need a specific resource and tool to be able to teach it,” as the hon. Lady said, potentially as a GCSE.
I am not an education expert, although I have three children going through the system at the moment. I would argue that, particularly in primary school, we should just look at every pot of learning and attach it to how we live on the planet. The connection is then how we care for the planet. We can do that in everything we teach in primary school. In secondary school, I think there should be an opportunity to continue that, but also the opportunity for students to learn and to take a particular interest.
I am trying to demonstrate that this is about the skills need across the country to deliver what we have committed to, and that must start with preparing children and young people for the work they will do when they leave. Education in schools should address the link between our demands and the carbon in the supply chain. We often talk about wanting to take the necessary measures in our own lives to reduce our carbon footprints but we quickly find that we go and order stuff online without necessarily knowing where it comes from or the carbon footprint attached to that item. If we helped our young people to understand that better, when they look at their careers, they will look at how they can be involved in the food chain, in clothing and in all of those things that we need, but where carbon miles can be reduced.
I appreciate that you are trying to get me to shut up, Ms Ghani; I will be very quick now. We must look at what skills are needed to meet the higher skilled job opportunities in renewable energy, construction, mining, technology, agriculture and environmental and marine management. A tip from a meeting I went to this morning is that if we want our children to have great careers, we should send them down the heat engineer route. We have an opportunity, not just to enable our young people to deal with the great challenges facing them as they grow up and the challenges we should be addressing now, but to seize the opportunity, and to have the high-paid, high-skill jobs that we talk about. That means that the choices we make to do the right thing for the planet are actually choices that are good for us.
Choices in the interests of the environment are rarely negative or sacrificial choices set against their positive aspects, such as better homes, healthier air, high-skilled jobs, and so on. This is a timely debate. It is critical to get this right. I support getting education in the curriculum across every school, so that every child is equipped to live, flourish, and embrace the world that we have been given, which we are privileged to have.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
To ensure that we can incorporate all speakers, could they please be mindful of keeping their speeches to around five minutes?
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ghani. It is fantastic that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) has secured the debate. Although she is a Gen Z-er and we are millennials, and our two generations disagree on many things, what unites us is our passion for the environment. Certainly, we millennials have been very inspired by Gen Z pushing forward this agenda.
In the House last week, I spoke about the Sheffield Hallam climate manifesto, which was a product of months of meetings with my constituents. We brought together campaigners, trade unionists, experts and people from across the constituency to outline measures to tackle the climate emergency and what the UK should ask for in the COP26 negotiations. In our discussions it was all too clear that, although some understood the importance and scale of the climate emergency, they were not sure about what action should be taken and felt powerlessness to effect the change they know we need.
That feeling of powerlessness reflects the remoteness of political institutions such as COP26 from people up and down the country who want more robust action on the climate emergency. It also reflects a gulf between the desire to do something and the knowledge of what to do. The same goes for young people: 2.5 million seven to 17-year-old Britons want increased teaching on the climate crisis in schools. The Institution of Engineering and Technology found recently that 68% of young people would like to work in green jobs, but 71% said that they lacked knowledge about those careers, which could stop them pursuing one.
That is a problem for our democracy but it is one that we can help to fix through our education system. The climate crisis is not going away, and if the purpose of our school system is, as a Labour Prime Minister once said,
“to equip children to the best of their ability for a lively, constructive place in society”,
it is right that we educate them about it through the national curriculum. I pay tribute to organisations like Hope for the Future, which works with schools in my constituency and beyond, for their vital work to engage young people and teach them about the climate emergency and democracy.
It is our responsibility to educate our young people about the collective challenges we face, but it should also be said that had it not been for young people we would be less aware of these issues. Often, young people have been the educators. From Greta Thunberg and the youth climate strikers to youth-led organisations such as Teach the Future, all provide excellent examples of the lively and constructive contribution that young people continue to make to the debate.
Given how young people have often led the discussion, it is appropriate not only to put the climate emergency on the national curriculum, but to ensure that it is part of lifelong learning curricula too. All too often, young people are leading the way while adults struggle to understand the full extent of the crisis and the opportunities offered by green jobs. A just transition to net zero that puts our communities, not a handful of elite decision makers, at the centre of our response means raising the general level of education about the climate emergency. Making it part of our national curriculum is fundamentally a democratic demand, which millions of young people are making. We should all listen to them.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Ghani. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) on securing this really important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to it.
This topic has long been very close to my heart. In March 2013, I tabled an early-day motion to oppose the Government’s plan at that time to remove climate change from the national curriculum guidelines for key stages 1 to 3. That EDM cited the former chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, who maintained that the exclusion of such issues represents an abdication of our duty to future generations. It is with that duty to current and future generations in mind that I will make the case for not just defending and strengthening the existing curriculum but, as others have argued for, going further, particularly with a natural history GCSE.
Lots of the focus so far this morning has, understandably, been on the climate. I will focus a little more on nature. Nearly half of all species in Britain are in decline. Species vital to our survival, such as the bee, are in catastrophic decline. In the past decade alone, we have lost a quarter of our hedgehogs and 30% of my favourite birds, swifts. How many people know that a single swift can fly up to 4 million miles in its life? How extraordinary is that? It can stay on the wing for two years; it does everything on the wing until it stops to mate and start a family. I could wax lyrical about the swift for the rest of my time, but I will not. It is that kind of love of nature that is so crucial for young people, both in its own right and because, as the wonderful writer Richard Louv said, “We won’t protect what we don’t love and we won’t love what we don’t know”. Here is an opportunity to really get to love the nature that we have around us.
The scale of the destruction of our wildlife is terrifying, and it is accelerating. Scientists warn that the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth is happening right now, bringing with it the real risk of a collapse of civilisation. A new GCSE in natural history, first proposed by the writer and naturalist, Mary Colwell, in 2011, will clearly not turn that around on its own, but it is a start.
I have quoted Richard Louv’s words, but many children today do not necessarily know nature. A survey in 2018 found that more than half of UK children are unable to identify a stinging nettle, and earlier research showed that nearly 10% had not visited a park, a forest or a beach for 12 months or more. With half of all species in the UK in moderate or serious decline, there is a real danger that many of the next generation will grow up unable to recognise the wildlife on our doorsteps until it is gone, so there is no doubt in my mind that bringing climate and natural history to the school curriculum is long overdue.
At the same time, there is a growing awareness of the nature and climate crises among many children and young people and I believe that many of them would seize this opportunity if it was provided on the curriculum. Indeed, the hugely inspiring youth climate strikers are demanding that the education system is reformed so that every child can learn about the urgency, severity and scientific basis for the climate emergency, with a whole-school approach that mainstreams that through education. I do not see any contradiction between, on the one hand, mainstreaming this through all subjects on the curriculum and, at the same time, having a dedicated GCSE in natural history. I think those two things are complementary.
The early feedback from teachers to a worked-up proposal from the examination board, OCR is full of enthusiasm. There is interest from schools in remote rural areas and inner cities, as well as from schools with cultural backgrounds. Studying natural history is not about a sentimental preoccupation with a bucolic past; it is about engaging with the realities of an environment under intense pressure, how different species are responding and how nature plays out in urban settings, so it is hugely welcome that the Department for Education is considering that as an option. I urge it to work with us to make that a reality.
When the natural world on which we depend is facing such catastrophic loss, it is vital that the school curriculum gives young people the tools to understand what is happening so that we can act before it is too late. The OCR examination board has developed a course focusing on field study that also includes an exploration of our relationship with nature and how it has shaped our culture, art, literature and music. It would foster scientific, practical and emotional connections to the natural world and thus provide a unique contribution to the GCSE offering. It would teach children to name, record, monitor and collect data on the wildlife all around them and relate that wildlife to the wider countryside and internationally. It will teach vital field skills on how to process and evaluate data. In short, it will teach young people to be naturalists.
Earlier this year at the launch of Professor Dasgupta’s review on the contribution of nature to global economies, he ended with a plea to put nature into the heart of education and he highlighted the need for naturalists of the future. Re-engaging future generations with the natural world has never felt more important. As the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), said, that Committee has also unanimously supported the idea of a far greater focus on climate and nature education, including the GCSE.
In this crucial year of COP15 on biological diversity and, of course, COP26 on climate change, as Mary Colwell said:
“The establishment of a GCSE in natural history is far more than just another subject to choose. It signals an intent to take the nature of Britain seriously and to put into practice what we believe to be the right way to live on this earth, and this could inspire others to do the same.”
I urge the Minister to respond favourably to our points this morning. This really is a cross-party priority, as he can see, that can only bring about positive outcomes. There is huge enthusiasm for this from young people and schools; all we are waiting for is a green light from the Government. I urge the Minister to give it to us.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
I do not doubt that if you called for a debate on the swift, that would be just as well attended.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) on securing this debate. I also congratulate the young people who made sure it happened—Scarlett Westbrook and others who are here today. They invited us to Old Palace Yard yesterday to be photographed alongside banners calling for climate education in our schools. The fact that demand is coming from young people in schools who want to green their own buildings and ensure that school buildings are sustainable is something we should bear in mind, because the demand for better climate education from young people is very powerful indeed.
I represent a small, highly urbanised constituency. Geographically it is probably the smallest constituency in the country, and probably one of the most densely populated, if not the most densely populated. That means environmental concerns are more difficult than in an area where there is obviously a greater interaction with the natural world and nature. I am impressed with the number of teachers in the community who are absolutely determined to make sure our young people are brought up to understand the natural world and their interactions with it. I pay an enormous compliment to my local authority, Islington Council, and the schools for the work that they do to ensure that there are gardening projects in every school, however small the space, and that all our young people get a chance to go to parks and on school journeys to begin to understand their interaction with nature.
Although I understand the point of the debate in ensuring there is a proper place in the curriculum for climate education, I do not want us to just promote another tick-box exercise where we say, “We will put this, this and this into the curriculum, and we will tick that box so that that bit is done.” It would be yet another subject alongside, in the case of secondary schools, science, economics and everything else. The philosophy around our interactions with the natural world, nature and the environment is more important. If, by putting something in the national curriculum, we start to change the mindset in those that plan education, we will have done a very good job indeed.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will recognise the need to significantly change the way in which our primary schools, secondary schools, colleges and universities approach the natural world and the environment, and that energy policy, transport policy, food policies and so on—every issue—are debated in relation to the effect on the natural world and the environment in which we live. Too many of our young people are brought up with the idea that everything is consumable and that what happens in the environment and the rest of the world simply does not matter; that is all somewhere else. There is a huge divide between the environmentally conscious within our society and what, frankly, probably the majority think about it. They are vaguely in favour of a better world and environment, but they do not see that they have a role to play within it. It is about empowering young people in a thought process that will bring about a better education system.
I try to visit every primary school in my constituency once a year. Over the years the discussions about the environment have changed dramatically. I remember about 10 or 15 years ago giving a year 6 group what I thought was an absolutely brilliant talk about the environment. After a while, they began to yawn and look out the window. One boy said, “Okay, sir, what is the best and most important animal in the world?” I thought, “There’s a question,” and said, “Well, the earthworm.” He said, “What did you say the earthworm for?” I said, “Without earthworms, the world would be covered in concrete.” We then got into a discussion about insects, insect life and biodiversity, and the children became interested and excited by that, whereas if I had given the lecture that we are all accustomed to giving or hearing, that does not work. The good news is that I went to the same school last year or the year before, and they gave me a lecture on global warming, CO2, environmental changes and everything else, as part of year 5 teaching year 6 how to understand the environment. The school has achieved massive advances, including growing projects in the school. The subject can be made interesting and exciting.
Bringing up children in an environment in which they understand human interaction with the natural world, the need to maintain biodiversity and how things grow is very important. In my area, probably two thirds of children live in flats. They have no access to open space at all. Many do not even have a balcony. It is very easy for us to say, “Get involved in gardening,” but if someone is in a third-floor flat above a shop in private rented accommodation with no open space whatsoever, it is not so simple. It requires a superhuman effort from teachers and the rest of the community to involve children. I hope when the Minister replies, he will be able to give us some news on the way in which schools will be encouraged to have growing and gardening projects in their schools, to help children get involved and get their hands mucky, playing around with the earth and all the rest of it. Those key early formative years are so important in our understanding of the natural world.
There is so much inspiration that comes from interaction with nature, animal life and poetry and so much else. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) was just talking about the beautiful, wonderful swift. If we hunt through references in poetry, it is the skylark that appears most often. Sadly, if we went to many schools and asked children to identify particular birds, they would not know what we were talking about. Birds such as the sparrow, which used to be so common, have disappeared, and many children are completely unable to identify any bird or animal whatsoever.
I had the joy of growing up in the countryside. Children used to talk about the birds they had seen that weekend. They talked about them with real love and affection. This is about inspiring our children and giving them that space. I hope that this debate takes inspiration from the young people that have done so much and moves forward into changing not just the curriculum but the mindset in the curriculum about our natural world. If we do not interact with and understand our relationship with nature, the future is going to be pretty grim, with more pollution, more damage to people’s lives and the loss of our natural world.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for securing this important debate. I also thank Teach the Future for its superb campaigning work on this issue, and the young people who are here today and are not only involved with Teach the Future, but were instrumental in the school strikes of a few years ago, which led Parliament to declare a climate and ecological emergency.
I am sure all hon. Members here today are aware that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report argues that we need a code red response to a code red emergency. That response should be reflected not only in our approach to decarbonising industry, energy use and developing a sustainable economy, but in our approach to climate change and sustainability, and the skills needed for the new future we deserve must be embedded in our education system. Sadly, however, the report card on climate education that Education International has just produced, based on its analysis of 73 updated nationally determined contributions presented for COP26, has found that no country is doing enough to meet the criteria, and the UK comes in 42nd out of 73.
As the country leading COP26—the most pivotal and important conference of the parties so far—that is not good enough, especially when the UK is still off track on meeting many of its carbon targets and the amount of investment pledged to decarbonise our economy so far is pitiful in comparison to many other industrial nations. Sadly, only last week the Government were mired in controversy after opposing an amendment to the Environment Bill that would have restricted the pumping of raw sewage into our water systems. That does not give the impression of a Government that is serious about tackling the climate and ecological emergency. However, we have cross-party consensus today, and the Minister can do his part in changing that perception.
As the Minister may know, education unions wrote to the Education Secretary last week and requested that he make four key announcements before the COP. First, they called for a comprehensive review of the entire curriculum, so that it is preparing and mobilising our whole system for a sustainable future. Secondly, as an interim measure, the Government should support the private Member’s Bill of Lord Knight of Weymouth, which would restore sustainability as a pillar of the curriculum. Thirdly, they called for a comprehensive plan to decarbonise the entire school estate by 2030 as part of an overdue refurbishment and repair programme. Finally, a detailed policy on green travel for students, staff and parents should be developed.
As the Minister knows, it is the next generation who will bear the brutal costs of inaction on climate change. We have a moral duty to secure their future and, as a nation, to lead the world at COP26. I am sure that the Minister agrees, and I hope he will implement the requests I have set out as a matter of urgency.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) on securing the debate. As hon. Members have said, when I tour schools in my constituency and do Q&A sessions, the No. 1 topic that I am quizzed about is the environment—whether that is climate, biodiversity or action on waste. In fact, when I visited St James’s Catholic Primary School in Twickenham two weeks ago, every single question was on this topic—to the point where I was struggling to answer some of them, so I think climate education needs to start with me alongside pupils and in the curriculum.
As the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) said, I also get lots of correspondence from schoolchildren on the subject of the environment, which we all have to answer and sometimes struggle to answer. There is a keen interest there. They are desperate to know more and to know how to take action to tackle the climate and biodiversity crises. Yet, we know that 75% of teachers feel ill-equipped to deliver that education and knowledge, so there is a serious training gap. As has been said, this is the single biggest issue facing all of us, but particularly for our children and young people who will have to live with the consequences of our actions today long after we have gone. It will be a bigger crisis for them over the next 10 years than the pandemic we are currently going through.
We know the majority of the public want to see more in the curriculum on climate change and the environment. I recently ran a local petition on my website about making climate education a stand-alone subject. We can have a discussion on whether it should stand alone, but just locally I got over 300 signatures, so there is definitely a desire out there. We have heard that the UN has asked that climate change education plays a central role in updated nationally determined contributions in terms of the Paris agreement pledges. Now we are going into COP26, so I hope we will see new pledges on climate change education.
I am concerned that there is a lot of eco-anxiety among young people. We need to move to empowering and equipping them to channel that concern and energy in a positive way, so they are not just learning about the causes, but thinking about the mitigations. That is why education is so important: it will equip them for the jobs of the future and help them come up with innovations to tackle the challenges of the future.
As I touched on already, we can talk about whether there is a sustainability thread running through everything and whether we have a stand-alone subject or a stand-alone GCSE. Children starting secondary school are already asking this. One of the first questions that the daughter of one of my members of staff asked was, “Can I take a climate change GCSE?” We should be offering that. Climate change education is split across science and geography, but fewer than 50% of pupils are taking geography GCSE, so a core part of that curriculum is not being taught to many young people. The Liberal Democrats have talked about having a curriculum for life taught in schools, with climate change being part of that. These are details to discuss, but we are all united in saying that this needs to be a core part of the curriculum.
I will end by saying that alongside the educational piece, it is important to talk about the experiential side of climate and biodiversity education. The hon. Member for St Ives talked about the beauty of Cornwall; when someone is out in a rural area like that they are surrounded by it. However, as we have heard, if someone lives in inner-city or urban areas, or even in suburban constituencies like mine where we have beautiful Royal Parks, there are pockets of deprivation and dense housing where young people do not necessarily go out and enjoy those parks—and certainly do not get out to the countryside.
A Natural England survey last year showed the income and racial inequalities in terms of access to the natural environment. As with so many other things, that has been exacerbated by the pandemic. We know that fewer people from ethnic minorities and fewer people from lower income backgrounds have managed to get access to outside space. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has been campaigning for a nature premium for schools to boost outdoor education. There are mental wellbeing benefits, there are physical wellbeing benefits, and there are educational benefits, so we need a joined-up approach to climate education in the curriculum. I hope the Minister will respond positively given the cross-party consensus. This needs to go beyond COP26; it is great that we are having these discussions now, but we need long-term commitment and action.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) on the way she introduced this debate and on her good fortune in securing it. I also congratulate young people—not just the young people that are here, but young people everywhere, in that they are not angrier. They seem remarkably good-humoured, yet they should be extremely angry with the way that successive generations have left them a world that they are going to have to cope with. The problems that we have created are the problems that they will have to deal with. Certainly, if I look back to the things that angered me when I was in my teens and early 20s, had I been facing the sort of climate and environmental catastrophe that young people now are facing, I think I would have been even angrier than I was then.
What is good is that this debate has been cross-party and consensual. Nobody has stood up and said that there no need for us to teach about climate as an integral part of the curriculum. I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said about the need for this to be holistic and to become an integrated way of teaching, not just a tick-box exercise within schools. It is vital that the relevance to people’s lives is made apparent.
Today we have the Budget, and I want to look to one element of hope, which is that the Treasury has finally come up with the Dasgupta review. This is an economic review commissioned by the Treasury to look into the integration of biodiversity and the natural world with economics—something that is long overdue. The report speaks about the way that we treat the environment as an “asset management problem”. What is perhaps most extraordinary about the Dasgupta review, apart from its length—at 605 pages, it is quite dense, with lots of formulae—is that, as an economist, having gone through all the economics and asset management problems and used all the formulae, he concluded that the oppressing issue was education. It is a Treasury report, yet Dasgupta concluded that the important issue was education: educating our children and educating the public. He talked about education on nature stretching from early years to university, with all universities mandating students to attend a basic course in ecology, and extending it beyond schools to adult workplaces and organisations, as everyone needs to recognise their role in restoring the natural world, and about a new GCSE in natural history, which was first proposed way back in 2012.
We must not treat the need for education about climate and the environment as separate from everything else the Government do. If it is seen in the Treasury as a driving force of our economy, then that is how we, as politicians, should regard it. That is why it is so important to integrate it into all that we do.
The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne)—who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said, has guided the Environmental Audit Committee so brilliantly as its Chairman—has said that the Government have not yet stepped up to the plate in terms of the necessary skills. We know that the Government’s 25-year environment plan and the measures in the Environment Bill will need much greater ecological expertise at a local authority level. Biodiversity net gain for new developments and the creation of local nature recovery networks are good steps, but they cannot be delivered without the necessary in-house ecological expertise.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for nature, I wrote earlier this year to all local council chief executives to ask for their assessment of their in-house ecological expertise. I am afraid that, based on the overwhelming response we received, local authority leaders do not believe they can deliver on the Government’s ambitions. The situation has not changed significantly since 2013, when a study by the Association of Local Government Ecologists, ALGE, found that only one in three councils had access to the necessary expertise.
We need to develop the education and skills necessary for that expertise. The Government cannot impose obligations on local authorities and in the planning system without the capacity to deliver on those targets. If we do not train the necessary people, those targets will be meaningless and we will fail. It is vital that we see education as the pump-priming part in the delivery of the targets set in the Environment Bill and the net zero strategy.
In the Government’s response to the Dasgupta review, they mentioned the newly established sustainability and climate change unit under the Department for Education. However, as the chairman of the EAC said, the Committee’s latest inquiry on green jobs was quite clear that the Government are not grappling with the skills gap needed to achieve net zero. I hope the Minister prioritises the new unit and that it will be able to bridge the gap between the skills shortage and the demand, including through education and retraining of the current workforce, who will be affected by the changes, and where we need a just transition.
I cannot pass up the opportunity to meet the swift mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the skylark that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North mentioned, and to raise them with an Arctic tern, which of course flies from the Arctic summer to the Antarctic summer. It actually traverses the globe once a year, flying 55,900, and in a lifetime flies many times the distance to the moon and back. It would be good to debate the amazing function of our birdlife and the loss of birdlife that we have seen in this country.
To pick up on something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said, many of us remember as children being able to go into the countryside and see so many different species. In a sense, we have raised a generation of battery-reared children who have been cosseted and protected, with parents afraid to let their children go out and play on their own. That is a great loss to the world. An environmental premium for schools, as spoken about by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), is a really good idea.
Teach the Future asks for a Government-commissioned review of how the whole English formal education system is preparing students for the climate emergency and ecological crisis, the inclusion of the climate emergency and ecological crisis in teacher training and a new professional teaching qualification, and an English climate emergency education Act. I hope the Minister will respond to those three asks.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
We have the Arctic tern, the skylark and the swift. Mr Jim Shannon, it is over to you now.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I cannot match the exoticness of any of the three birds that the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) referred to; I am more of a pheasant man, and they do not fly all that far. In all honesty, I not only quite like them but also like eating them; I am unashamedly a rural country sports person and quite enjoy that.
Thank you for calling me to speak, Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for opening the debate and setting the scene so well. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place to respond on this new subject that he has responsibility for. We had a fond working relationship when he was the Minister of State for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Members enjoyed his time there, and I look forward to his time covering this subject matter.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and I have a clear interest in environmental issues, as I think we all do, which is why we are here to speak in this debate. I receive emails and have conversations on this regularly. Ahead of COP26 next month, this is definitely a debate worthy of discussion. As I have indicated many times, young people—some young people are here today—in my constituency contact me so often on this issue, as others have as well. They look to the future, and the decisions that we make today are important because they will affect them. As a grandfather with five grandchildren, I am conscious of leaving them something they can enjoy and have pleasure in.
COP26 has been at the centre of media discussions in the last few weeks, and we have seen a rise in the number of young people who are passionate about climate change and our world—most notably Greta Thunberg, who I met in the House some years ago. I expect that there are differing opinions on her expression, but she is none the less someone who is passionate about the topic, and that passion cannot be ignored.
We do have some environmental teaching in our curriculum. Although it differs slightly in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the basics are taught. Back home in Northern Ireland, aspects of climate change are taught in both geography and science to children as young as those in key stage 3. This can continue up to and including individual study at A2 level, with a large section dedicated to the study of the environment and the world around us.
With geography, the statutory requirements state that students should investigate the impact of conflict between social, economic and environmental needs both locally and globally through the study of flooding, pollution—very much the subject matter of the last few weeks in this House—climate change and deforestation. In science, the study is focused on the effects of pollution, such as water, air, land and sound, as well as specific measures to improve and protect the environment—for instance, renewable energy, the efficient use of resources and waste minimisation.
We should look at the good things that have happened, for instance on renewable energy, to which this House and the Government are committed. There have been massive advances. I was at an all-party parliamentary group for energy studies event last night. It was good to be reminded of the advances in renewable energies of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We do not talk often enough of the good things we do, and we should do so more.
Many here will hold the opinion that there is not enough in our schools curriculum addressing the issue of climate change. While I can understand that it is a pressing issue, I feel that the focus needs to be on the pass rates of children studying core subjects such as maths and English. It is right that we focus on those subjects, which are essential for all employment. Figures show that in Northern Ireland, 13.3% of pupils on average leave school each year without a maths or English qualification. This has been correlated with geographical and ethnic factors. I believe there is more we can do to ensure that all pupils achieve their full potential through maths, English and science before we consider introducing more intense climate change learning.
I welcome the decision taken by schools to introduce climate change workshops, which are set up once or twice a month for those interested in the study of climate change. Will the Minister say what has been done to ensure that climate change is on the curriculum more regularly in schools? We must ensure that our children are prepared for the world. While some would argue that climate change and the environment are at the forefront, the basics lie with other subjects, which still need attention and will make us focus on climate change issues.
Climate justice, greener schools and learning is where education should start. I thank the Member for Nottingham East for raising the issue. I fully respect her commitment, as the youngest MP, to climate change teaching in our schools. Teach the Future has shown that 68% of pupils want to learn more about the environment, and 70% of teachers say that they have received no training on climate change teaching. There is an issue with green teaching. What has been done to address that?
I urge the Minister to engage with his counterparts in the devolved institutions to assess how climate change can be introduced to a greater extent in our schools, while ensuring that our core subjects are not ignored. I encourage the Minister to bear the issue in mind at COP26. I have always stated that education and our young people are at the forefront of the climate change debate, and we must not fail them in their education and teaching.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I should just say that I am not the shadow Minister on this subject, but the shadow Schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), is on a Bill Committee, which is why I am covering today. I want to thank him and the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for their help in preparing for this debate. I will pass back any points made today, so hon. Members can rest assured that everyone’s comments have been heard and noted.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for securing this important debate, which is also very timely, as everyone has mentioned. I pay tribute to her for the work she has done to highlight the importance of embedding climate change and sustainability in everything we do, including education, and for all the organisational work she has done for this campaign, not least bringing a delegation of young, bright people from the Teach the Future campaign to Parliament yesterday. I am delighted that some of them are in the Public Gallery: Scarlett, Stella, Tess, Yasmin and Charlie are very welcome to Parliament, but we also need them to educate us, as many Members have said during today’s debate.
My hon. Friend made many good points, but I particularly want to pick up on one of them, which was about how the education system is not preparing children for climate change. It is failing them, which is a damning verdict on the education system that we are living with, and of what the future holds for a lot of our children. I also want to take a minute to say that my hon. Friend may be generation Z, she may be the youngest Member of the House, and she only joined in 2019, but we can already see the impact of all the work she has undertaken. When Opposition Members start paying tribute to her for her work on the Environmental Audit Committee—that does not always happen in this House—we realise the strength of her capabilities, so I give her a huge “Well done” for having secured this important debate.
My fellow millennial Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), talked about the importance of teaching not just young people, but adults as well, about climate change and sustainability. That point was echoed by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who said that a lot of adults do not even know what we are talking about—I know that I could do a crash course on this topic as well.
Turning to the topic at hand, many Members from both sides of the House who spoke today talked about how we need to do more to embed climate change within the curriculum. When I go to my local schools, teachers and school leaders are already aware of that need, and some amazing work is going on around the country to engage with pupils about climate change. However, the onus cannot just be on them, which is another point that has been made in the debate. The Government, and we as politicians, have to help them.
One example of that is the Eco-Schools green flag programme, which many schools, nurseries and colleges are a part of. It consists of seven steps that education institutions can take to focus their communities of pupils and staff on the climate emergency, including putting environmental issues in learning plans and choosing texts in subjects such as English that will explore those issues. That work has been supported by education unions, who to their enormous credit have been pushing the Government to recognise that we are in a climate emergency, and that we have to pay more attention to it and put it at the top of our agenda. I pay tribute to the National Education Union, the National Union of Students and the University and College Union in particular for all their hard work on this issue, including promoting Climate Learning Month in the run-up to COP26, which as we all know starts next week.
There was a lot of talk about schools in this debate, and how they are being innovative in their teaching of environmental issues. From school veg patches that teach children about sustainability as well as healthy eating, to planting trees to mark achievements and celebrations, our schools are leading the way in creating a more sustainable, greener future. Our curriculum should empower that work, and we should be supporting those schools. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) talked about local gardening projects in schools in his constituency. I join him in paying tribute to Islington Council, which is doing an enormous amount of work on this, as well as the councils in my constituency, Brent and Camden Councils, which are doing similarly impressive work.
At the risk of this debate sounding like a north London takeover, I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who talked about taking a holistic approach to this issue. I wholeheartedly agree: we cannot just have a box-ticking exercise, but have to look at this properly and make sure there is an integrated way of teaching. I also pay tribute to him for his important work on the APPG for nature, which does not get recognised so much in this House, but is a crucial part of the work we do in Parliament.
If we are going to transform education, we must support our educators to do so. Embedding climate change within the curriculum will mean new training for teachers and teaching assistants. At Labour conference, the shadow Education Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, announced that we would give all teachers a right to continuing professional development, with £210 million extra per year for CPD, which could certainly be used to deliver this kind of training. I would like the Minister to pick up on this issue and say whether that proposal is something his Government might consider.
However, we have to recognise that this is not just about the curriculum. We should be looking to make our school estate and all our school environments eco-friendly and fit for the future. That point was eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) also spoke about young people demanding that their school buildings be sustainable. If any Members have been to speak in schools, they will recognise young people’s passion about that.
What does concern me—I wonder whether the Minister will answer this—is that at a time when we need to be upgrading our school buildings as part of our national effort to get to net zero carbon emissions, since 2010 the capital spending on schools has been cut by 44%. That worries us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) said, our education system must prepare children and young people for the jobs of the future, which will be shaped by our transition to net zero.
The Labour party has announced plans for 400,000 green jobs. It is essential that we equip young people to develop the skills for those employment opportunities as we go into the future. That cannot happen only in schools, but it does require climate education and green skills to be embedded in further and higher education. That is why we welcome the new report from the Association of Colleges, “The Green College Commitment”, which recognises the need to go much further to embed those skills across courses. Will the Minister consider that carefully?
The leader of the Labour party has described climate change as
“the biggest long term threat we face”,
and from this debate it sounds like many Members agree. Tackling climate change is at the heart of our agenda and our manifesto as we move forward. However, the reality is that those who are most affected by the impact of climate change are those who are going through schools, colleges, nursery and early years education right now. We must act more strongly if we are to stem the tide of climate decline and protect the younger generations from catastrophic consequences. I really hope that the warm words we are hearing from the Government are finally translated into tangible progress at COP26 next week.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles also spoke about the brutal cost that young people will bear. There is a harsh reality to that. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about leaving something behind for his five grandchildren. That is how I feel about my children; I feel that we need to leave something of the planet behind, and to prepare our children and young people for the challenges of the future.
That is why embedding learning about climate change and sustainability into our curriculum and our education system is vital; that is why this debate is vital; that is why we must equip young people with the skills they need to work in the green industries of the future. Far more innovation is needed from the Government when it comes to education and skills. It is crucial if we, as a country, want to leave the world in a transition to net zero. I hope that the Minister has been listening to the many important points raised in this very good debate. I also hope that the Minister will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, as she requested.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
May I remind colleagues that for any messages that need to be shared with other Members, it is best to do so through the doorkeepers or the Parliamentary Private Secretaries rather than the Clerks.
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
Thank you, Ms Ghani; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. As a Robin, it is a great pleasure to speak in a debate that has involved so much discussion of wild birds. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) on securing this very important debate. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), and I join her in welcoming Scarlett, Yasmin, Charlie, Tess and Stella to the Chamber.
Ensuring that children and young people develop knowledge about the causes and impacts of climate change and gain a broad understanding of the importance of sustainability is absolutely crucial. We have heard the passion that Members have for the subject from every party across the House.
I would like to begin this speech by recognising the huge strength of feeling on this subject across all parties. As we approach COP26, the Government are looking ahead at how we can rebuild from the pandemic and seize the opportunity to build back greener. The Prime Minister has set out an ambitious net zero strategy, building on his “The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”, which will create and support about 440,000 of those jobs in the future. One of the things we have heard in this debate is that all jobs in the future will be affected by sustainability and the campaign against climate change. That plan is the cornerstone of our ambition to build back greener by making the UK a world leader in clean energy, ensuring that our public buildings—including schools—are energy-efficient, and protecting and restoring the natural environment.
The next generation will play a vital role in delivering that. Time and time again in the debate, we have heard about the passion of young people in our schools for this cause. I will return to that, but first I will address the topic of the debate—the national curriculum as it stands.
Many schools are already doing great things inside and outside the classroom. We have heard a real range of those today, helping people to understand climate change and sustainability. Hawthorns Primary Special School is a six-times-accredited Eco-Schools green flag school. It was good to hear the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, praising that campaign. The school incorporates a number of sustainability initiatives in its everyday classroom activities, from collecting empty crisp packets and pen cartridges for recycling to composting food waste in its wormery composter—something that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) would support, I am sure, with his passion for growing things in schools. The school tries to raise its pupils’ awareness.
Multi-academy trusts are also doing some excellent work. Ark, for example, has a geography mastery curriculum, with knowledge of climate change and sustainability built in carefully over key stage 3, from exploring the delicate interconnections within ecosystems in year 7 to how environments are impacted by climate change in year 8 and examining coral reefs in great depth in year 9. It means that pupils can meaningfully tackle questions such as why coral reefs are intrinsically valuable, by the time they move into year 10.
High-quality comprehensive units about climate change and sustainability are also readily available to all schools through Oak National Academy. Oak has worked with teachers and subject experts during the pandemic to develop freely available resources. In geography and science, pupils may learn about the evidence for climate change, including what carbon footprint means, the definition of sustainability, what sustainable development means, and how it impacts decisions that we make in the present.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn made a valid point about teacher training and continuing professional development. Following initial teacher training, we are providing every early career teacher access to free high-quality training and support, underpinned by the early career framework. The framework was designed in consultation with the education sector and is designed to work for all early career teachers, regardless of their subject, phase or content. The training provided to deliver those programmes will build on curriculum knowledge embedded into the core content framework and has ensured that such content includes materials and exemplification applicable to all teachers, to help them deliver high-quality content, including on climate change.
The Royal Geographical Society’s young geographer of the year competition saw thousands of primary and secondary pupils in schools across the country explore how they have reconnected with their local environments and green spaces through the pandemic. There is, however, more that we can do.
As Schools Minister, I want us to do more to educate our children about the costs of environmental degradation and what we are doing to solve that, both now and in the future. Not only do our children deserve to inherit a healthy world, but they also need to be educated so that they are well prepared to live in a world affected by climate change, so that they may live sustainably and continue to fight the effects of climate change. I want us to give them the tools for the future.
That is why the national curriculum needs to be based on the findings of international best practice, to set world-class standards across all subjects—a broad, balanced and knowledge-rich curriculum that promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of people and will prepare them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. We want to empower the next generation to build a healthier world, with a national curriculum that expands on the good work under way to give them a rigorous education.
As hon. Members know, the national curriculum is a framework setting what the Department for Education expects all schools to cover in each subject. We trust teachers, so within that framework schools have the freedom and flexibility to determine how they deliver the content in a way that best meets the needs of their pupils. Today we have heard once again about the passion that people have to learn more about the environment and climate change. From my own school visits, I know how seriously teachers take that.
The national curriculum provides pupils with an introduction to the essential knowledge that they need to be educated citizens. A well-sequenced, knowledge-rich curriculum enables pupils to master foundational context and knowledge before they move on to more complex ideas.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about Northern Ireland’s curriculum and where it references climate change. I heard what the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said about “bittiness” and I do not want to bang on too long about this, but there are of course places in the science and geography curriculum where that is already heavily built in. I reassure hon. Members that topics related to both climate change and sustainability are covered within the science national curriculum.
In primary school, pupils start by learning to understand the weather and the habitat and basic needs of animals and plants, going on to learn about how environments can change. In secondary school, they learn about the production of carbon dioxide by human activity and the effects that that has on the climate, as well as about the evidence for the anthropogenic causes of climate change.
The Prime Minister has committed to cementing the UK’s position as a science superpower. Improving the quality of science teaching and increasing the number of young people who study science subjects is really important if we are to address the STEM skills shortage and to support the UK economy and its growth. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) spoke passionately on that issue.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who is the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, and the hon. Members for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) all spoke about skills. We recognise that the demand for STEM skills is growing. That is why we must ensure that anyone, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to pursue STEM careers. That is a Government priority, and to address it we have rolled out programmes such as the advanced mathematics support programme and the science learning partnerships, to ensure that everyone has access to high-quality STEM learning. I recognise the role of the learned community of scientific experts in engaging with the Government and providing insight, teaching ideas and resources to enhance the science learning experience and champion STEM research.
Members will recognise that geography is a hugely productive way for students to engage in the study of climate change. At primary school, during key stage 1, they are taught about the seasons and habitats, including content about daily weather patterns in the UK. Key stage 2 geography includes teaching on climate zones, and in secondary school, during key stage 3, pupils are taught about change in the climate from the ice age to the present, and how human and physical processes interact to influence and change landscapes, environment and the climate. That ensures that pupils will be taught about the temporal and spatial aspects of climate and, importantly, the role that humans play.
Teachers do an incredible job in teaching those complex lessons and I want to support them to do so. Schools and teachers have access to expert resources, advice and continuing professional development on the teaching of climate change from bodies such as the Geographical Association and the Royal Geographical Society. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out that GCSE geography is not compulsory. I recognise that, but it is welcome that take-up of it, partly as a result of the English baccalaureate, has increased by 15 percentage points from 2010 to 2020.
We want children to leave school with the knowledge, skills and values that will prepare them to be citizens in modern Britain and the Britain of the future—a green Britain. Pupils should be taught the need for mutual respect and understanding to prepare them to take their place in society as responsible citizens. Citizenship is an effective way of doing that, and at primary school pupils are taught about what improves and harms their local natural and built environment, that resources can be allocated in different ways, and that economic choices affect individuals, communities and the sustainability of the environment.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, and many Members who spoke, I have been into so many primary schools and have been hugely impressed, and indeed heavily tested on my environmental knowledge by pupils. I recognise the extraordinary work that is going on both within the curriculum and beyond. I have heard many speeches by the right hon. Member for Islington North over the years. I agreed with much more of this one than I have many of the others. Over the past few decades, there have been some really significant advances in outdoor education. I praise what I have seen of forest schools, and how they have connected many city children with nature. There has been some really welcome progress in that space.
At secondary school, pupils are taught about the roles in society played by public institutions and voluntary groups, and the way that citizens work together to improve their communities, including opportunities to participate in community volunteering. As many Members have reflected, at times the impact of climate change is likely to feel overwhelming to young people. I recognise the real concern out there, and some of the conversations that I have had in schools reflect that. Assuming that nothing can be done to tackle the problem is a big issue in progressing with a solution, and it is important that we are positive about the actions being taken, and the role that pupils can play in making a difference—as the hon. Member for Nottingham East put it so well, equipping young people with the skills to clean up a mess that was not of their making.
Schools can choose to teach pupils about the impact of so many activities and sustainable approaches, such as litter picking, to make a difference in their own environment. I think we will all have seen in our constituencies great work done under initiatives such as the Great British spring clean. I recognise that pupils in schools want us to go further. Next week, I will visit a school near my own patch, in the Rivers Church of England Academy Trust, to see how it is incorporating sustainability into its schools right across the curriculum. It invited me to see that before I joined the Department, and I am delighted to be able to go and do so as Schools Minister.
These are vital steps to give children the tools that they need for a green future, but we are also taking action, as a Department, beyond the curriculum. The DFE already takes steps to reduce its environmental impact through various policies and programmes of work, including our multibillion-pound capital school building programmes, water and energy strategies, and commercial policies that ensure that we are procuring sustainably. Our estates team is working to green the DFE estate. I recognise some of the challenges that have been set in that respect, and of course we are dealing with an estate large parts of which go back to the 1930s or even beyond, and that is hugely challenging to decarbonise, but we want to ensure that as we invest and build new buildings, they are achieving our climate targets.
We have established a sustainability and climate change unit to co-ordinate and drive activity across the Department and provide leadership on this important work across sectors. At COP26, we will be hosting a summit for Environment and Education Ministers that will bring together Ministers from across the world. There we will set out the Government’s vision and encourage others to make commitments to sustainable education, not only making schools greener but equipping young people with knowledge about their environment by providing and promoting education and training opportunities for green careers.
I was pleased to be able to promote the summit to Education Ministers from 15 high-performing countries at last week’s international summit on the teaching profession, hosted by the OECD and Education International. We will be launching a draft sustainability and climate change strategy at the Environment and Education Ministers’ summit, which will set out further details of our plans to work with the education and children’s services systems to achieve excellence in education and skills for a changing world, net zero, climate resilience and a better environment for future generations.
I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham East again for securing the debate, and I want to give her an opportunity to respond. I welcome the contributions from all parts of the House. I assure the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion that we will carefully consider the case being made for a natural history GCSE. I share the commitment that we have heard in this debate to ensuring that children and young people leave education with the knowledge they need to help them address climate change and sustainability in the future. That is why what is taught in our schools is so vital, and why the curriculum is so important.
Britain can lead the way on this issue, equipping children with the knowledge they need to invent technologies and solutions that will ultimately beat climate change and heal the planet. We are committed to preparing pupils for the challenges of the 21st century and building back greener.
Nadia Whittome
I thank the Minister for his supportive comments about the campaign. I hope he will meet me—
Nadia Whittome
—and young people here today. I thank him for that assurance. Colleagues from across the House have spoken passionately and knowledgeably about the need for climate education, and I think it is safe to say that there is consensus in this Chamber on the need for young people to be equipped with the knowledge and skills to provide the solutions to climate change. Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about their own children and grandchildren, about constituents and school visits, and it is clear that this is a personal issue for many.
The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) spoke about climate justice, and both he and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) spoke about the need to reduce climate anxiety and the important role that climate education can play in that. I pay tribute to my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for her supportive comments and the work she is doing on embedding climate education in everything we do, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake). It is important that this question forms part of lifelong learning; the debate has highlighted that, while we need to think about the generations that come after us and children in school now, many Members of this House also missed out on the opportunity for climate education.
My hon. Friends the Members for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke about the need to decarbonise the education sector and to create jobs for the future, and why those green jobs must be accompanied by climate education so that people can do them. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) also spoke about access to nature, which is very important to me. As an MP representing an inner-city seat, I want children in inner-city Nottingham, Bristol, London, Manchester and Sheffield to have the same opportunities as children in St Ives. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for highlighting why this touches on the issue of educational inequality.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the inclusion of sustainability and climate change in the national curriculum.
Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency: Shetland
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the operation of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency in Shetland.
It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ghani, and I welcome the Minister to her place. I am pleased to have secured this debate, although I am enormously frustrated that it has been necessary. Candidly, as a constituency Member of Parliament, I feel that this is now the tactic of last resort in protecting the interests of my constituency. I have never before found myself in this situation since I entered the House in 2001, despite having handled scores—maybe hundreds—of local issues that were much more complicated than this one.
My history of engagement with the DVSA on the provision of HGV and motorcycle testing in Shetland goes back several years. For as long as it has been necessary to undertake those parts of the respective driving tests that are conducted off road in Shetland, that has been done in part of the grounds of the former Anderson High School in Lerwick. When the school moved to its current site in 2017, it was apparent that that would no longer be available, as the site was earmarked for redevelopment. DVSA was told by Shetland Islands Council in 2016 that the Anderson High site was earmarked for development and, on 24 November 2017, the council advised the DVSA that it would need to vacate the site by the end of March 2018.
Early correspondence with Gareth Llewellyn, then chief executive of DVSA, stated that the last tests would be carried out on the site on 31 March 2018. Mr Llewellyn offered me one of those less than reassuring reassurances:
“We are committed to providing a service in Shetland but this is dependent on securing new premises.”
Even at that stage, it appeared to me that DVSA, having had more than a year to do something about a problem of which it had been made aware and about which it had done nothing, was prepared to leave Shetland without local provision.
At that early stage, there seemed to be a polite lack of energy in the approach taken by the agency, so at the request of local instructors I became involved. Following my intervention, the Shetland Islands Council agreed an initial extension until the end of June 2018. At this point, I should put on record my appreciation of the efforts and input from local driving instructors in Shetland, in particular Steve Henry and Petur Petursson. The commitment to the community and the professionalism of both of those gentlemen, and the time and trouble they have taken to advise me and assist DVSA in identifying possible new sites, has gone well beyond anything that could have been asked of them.
DVSA staff visited Shetland and different possibilities were explored. They met local stakeholders and a location at the former Decca site on the edge of Lerwick was identified, which could be developed for use. It is a flat area of ground finished with hardcore, but it would obviously be required to be topped with tarmac. Unlike the previous site at the former Anderson High School, this would be a purpose-built facility and would be required to be kept for the use of the DVSA; it would not be a shared space.
Having already seen the approach of the DVSA, I asked for, and was given, a commitment to have regular update calls, naively thinking that that might concentrate minds. Several calls took place, and at each turn I was assured that progress was being made. Eventually, we got to the point where it was left to the DVSA and the owner of the land to work out the details, the principles having been agreed. The negotiation of commercial contracts, even when I was in legal practice, was never a strength of mine, and I know my limitations. I felt that this piece of work may not have got over the line, but at least the line was in sight, and that I should leave it to work its way through. Shetland Islands Council helpfully and generously agreed to make the site at the former Anderson High School available for continued use by the DVSA for as long as it could.
Thereafter, whenever inquiry was made, I was told that the details were still being worked out, and I was happy to accept these reassurances; I had, after all, been told in correspondence from DVSA on 26 June 2018 that estimated costs had been provided and that the business case for the new site would be considered by an extraordinary meeting of the investment change committee of the DVSA with a view to its receiving approval. It was thought then that the necessary works would take four weeks to complete. Correspondence in July, August and September contained similar commitments. In October 2018, I was told that
“the majority of issues have been resolved and those that remain are not insurmountable.”
In January 2019, I was told that the outstanding issues would be resolved by the week commencing 4 February. Accepting the continued commitment of the DVSA to provide a local service in Shetland, I agreed to receive further updates as they were available, rather than monthly. That may have been my mistake.
In autumn last year, knowing that the redevelopment of the site at the former Anderson High School was going to bring this to a head again, I reopened correspondence with the DVSA and asked for a meeting with the former chief executive to discuss the situation. Requests for updates went unanswered, and Gareth Llewelyn refused the requested meeting. The new chief executive of the DVSA, Loveday Ryder, came into post on 1 January. My requests for meetings were renewed, but no commitments were made. Eventually, as a result of the interventions of the Minister’s noble Friend, Baroness Vere, Loveday Ryder made a commitment to meet me. That was eventually organised to take place by Zoom on 7 April, initially for 30 minutes but then reduced to 15 minutes.
It is fair to say that the meeting on 7 April was not productive. Ahead of it, DVSA officials said that they would not provide further information about progress on the issue as the rules of purdah would not allow it while Scottish parliamentary elections were ongoing. Purdah guidance not only does not forbid the sharing of information in circumstances such as this but actually exists to provide the basis on which it should be done. Had the DVSA told me that it would share information with me on the basis that it would not be transmitted further, I would happily have taken the meeting on that basis, but no such offer was made. I asked Ministers’ offices for an explanation of the interpretation of purdah guidance favoured by the DVSA and was told that its view had been confirmed by the Cabinet Office. However, the Cabinet Office subsequently told my office that it had offered no supplementary guidance to the Department. It appears that that use of the purdah guidance was in fact a quite deliberate attempt by the DVSA to avoid providing me with information that it obviously had at that point.
It was also apparent at that stage that there was a major issue with the progress of the project, and that all the previous reassurances and commitments I received from the agency were basically worthless. Following the elections at the beginning of May, it was confirmed in correspondence that the agency had decided not to go ahead with the development of the site at the former Decca station, citing the cost. I have subsequently found out about the costs, and it seems that they are high. The specification is questionable, but at no point when we have sought to engage with DVSA about the specification—with regard to the detail of it and the possible terms of any lease—has it been in any way forthcoming or offered to engage. Information is provided grudgingly and no explanation to show the working of it is ever provided.
It was also known by this time that the absolute final deadline for using the site at the former Anderson High School was looming. Work was due to start there on 31 July and it would no longer be available from that date—that turned out to be the case. There followed a series of meetings involving myself, local instructors and DVSA officials. As a result of these meetings I was made aware that it was the intention of the agency to use a third site that it had identified, near the former Scatsta airport, 25 miles north of Lerwick. The local instructors were clear in telling the agency that that was not a workable solution for them and, in fact, if that were the only provision to be made they would discontinue to provide the service. The response of the agency was to ignore the concerns of local instructors and to insist that this was the only service that it would provide.
Unfortunately, on further investigation it transpired that despite having known for months that the 31 July deadline was looming, the DVSA had made no formal attempts to secure a lease on the site near Scatsta airport, and no planning application had been submitted for its change of use. Despite this, the DVSA proceeded to offer bookings for tests in August; the sheer lack of professionalism in this is breath-taking. In fact, Shetland Islands Council is not prepared to allow the use of the site at Scatsta airport, and as a consequence we now find ourselves in a position where no training or testing for the off-road elements of the HGV and motorcycle tests are available to my constituents in Shetland.
In response to my request for further meetings and updates I have been told that these will only be held when there is something to be shared; I see no evidence of the agency doing anything to move this issue on. I do not know what more I can do as a constituency Member of Parliament to resolve this issue. My constituents are left without the provision of a vital public service. In essence, the root cause of the problem appears to be a cultural one within the agency; instead of being willing to engage with local stakeholders to work towards finding a solution, the attitude has been one of high-handed indifference. That would be unacceptable in any circumstances, but the way that the agency has conducted itself lacks not just respect for the local communities but also basic professionalism. In what circumstances can it possibly be appropriate for a Government agency to offer appointments for tests at a site where it does not hold a lease or have any formal agreement with the owner?
This lack of professionalism is also apparent from the recent changes to the provision of written theory tests. In August it became apparent that the only provision for sitting a theory test in Shetland would be at sites in Mid Yell and Whalsay—both sites on islands away from the main centres of population on Shetland mainland. Do not get me wrong: if that had been provision in addition to that made over the years in Lerwick, the capital of Shetland mainland, I would have been quite delighted—I would have been the first to welcome it. But as an alternative to the provision of tests in the main town, it simply beggared belief.
Recent casework has disclosed that all theory tests in October have been cancelled due to, and I quote, “IT problems” with the new provider, Reed In Partnership. My office has sought further specification of what the IT problems are, but to date no explanation has been forthcoming. It has been suggested to me—I do not know if this is the case or not—that the IT problem is that they do not have the necessary computers to do the test. If it was not so serious it would be laughable.
As I said at the outset, I have never before found myself in a situation like this as a Member of Parliament. Elsewhere in this building today the Transport Committee is taking evidence on the work of the agency. The problems facing the agency seem to go well beyond the shores of Shetland. They are cultural and deep rooted. They ought to be tackled by the senior management of the agency, and if they cannot or will not do that, it should be up to Ministers to sort it. The people who are blameless in all this are my constituents, but they are the ones who are left without this most crucial of public services.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Thank you, Mr Carmichael. I think you have done Shetland proud. Are there any further speakers? I see that the Chair of the Transport Committee is here. If there are none, I will call the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for explaining the situation. It is disappointing to hear his frustration, and I hope I can provide some level of comfort about the next steps. I will endeavour to work with him to find a solution to what he describes as an unacceptable situation for his constituents.
The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency’s core aim is to help everyone stay safe on British roads, which are some of the safest in the world. The DVSA is part of the Department for Transport. It is funded not by the general taxpayer but by the fees it charges to those who use its vital public services. The DVSA is responsible for delivering, in a normal year, around 2 million car theory tests, 1.9 million car driving tests and 70,000 large goods vehicle tests. Those tests help people into and through a lifetime of self-driving. They also help ensure the safe and efficient movement of freight around England, Wales and Scotland, by examining people who want to drive professionally.
As Members know, recently the Government set out a range of measures to increase the number of lorry drivers as we continue to build back better from the covid-19 pandemic. Like many parts of the Department for Transport, as well as the wider public sector, the DVSA is working hard to recover its services as we continue to emerge from the pandemic. It is prioritising the reduction of waiting times as quickly and as safely as possible for customers who want a car practical test. It is also increasing the number of vocational tests available for those who want to become lorry drivers. The opportunity for people to book a lorry driving test is something the Government, the DVSA and the right hon. Gentleman feel strongly about.
Let me turn to the DVSA’s operation in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I thank him for his detailed, albeit somewhat frustrated, explanation of events thus far. As he knows from his meetings with the DVSA to discuss his concerns, it has conducted vocational tests in Lerwick since October 2001. Module 1 motorcycle testing began in 2011. The DVSA conducted those tests from Anderson High School until 31 July 2021, when testing ceased because the landlord, Shetland Islands Council, had plans to redevelop the site. Testing stopped at the high school at the end of July this year, as the right hon. Gentleman explained.
Over the past six years, the DVSA, together with members of the council, has conducted an extensive search of the island. During that time, only two sites were identified as possible vocational and motorcycle module 1 testing locations: Ladies Drive, which is owned by Tulloch Developments, and Scatsta airport, which is owned by the council and became commercially available only in recent months. The Ladies Drive site was preferred by motorcycle and vocational trainers, as Scatsta airport is some 25 miles from Lerwick.
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware from the many discussions he has had with the DVSA, the DVSA considered the Tulloch site but rejected it because the construction cost to make it operationally suitable was too high, in addition to the significant annual lease cost, which was disproportionate to the number of tests that would be conducted. When taking into account the construction cost, 10 years of capitalised rent and rates plus associated fees, the Tulloch scheme would cost in excess of £1 million. That does not balance cost or manage public money responsibly, even when taking account of the Government’s priority to increase the number of lorry drivers.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As I indicated in my speech, when the costs were subsequently made known to me, they seemed higher than I would have expected. I was not party to the negotiations or discussions. I was told that the specification would have made it twice as thick as any other road in Shetland in terms of the tarmac to be laid. I think that there is more opportunity here to interrogate the work that has been done to get to these figures. That requires the DVSA to engage, instead of just saying, “That’s the cost, and we are not going to explain anything more.”
Trudy Harrison
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. While there are considerable infrastructure costs in ensuring that the surface is suitable for the turning of very heavy trucks that would be required, there were also other costs for rent and associated fees, as I am sure he can appreciate. That said, I am confident that my colleague in the other place, Baroness Vere, would be willing to consider providing further detail on costs and, potentially, alternative sites if the right hon. Gentleman would like to discuss the matter further.
However, speed is of the essence. As the right hon. Gentleman will surely agree, his constituents are missing out on opportunities to become lorry drivers and to drive motorcycles, and we must ensure that a resolution is found in the swiftest order to relieve that burden on the Shetland isles.
The site at Scatsta airport is the more viable and affordable option. The DVSA met the council to discuss the possible use of the site. The initial negotiations were very positive. The council actively supported the DVSA in marking out the off-road manoeuvring area and in placing a container with equipment on site in anticipation of a mutually beneficial agreement. I am assured that the issue is unclear to the DVSA, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could explain. The council had a change of heart in August and told the DVSA that it was withdrawing from negotiations about the use of the Scatsta site as a testing facility.
This was a considerable disappointment to both the DVSA and its customers, given the amount of work that had been done. It meant a withdrawal of practical testing facilities on Shetland. The DVSA is committed to exploring and exhausting all possible options to retain the testing service on Shetland. It submitted a planning application to Shetland Islands Council for permission to use the vacant site for practical driver testing. Despite there being no other current use for the site, the council has told the DVSA that it will not recommend planning permission. In fact, it offered the DVSA a refund of its application fee if it would withdraw the application.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister is being very generous with her time. I appreciate that this is not part of her ministerial brief, as it rests with her noble Friend, but can the Minister tell me at what point the DVSA actually started investigating the Scatsta site? It is apparent to me from my dealings with the Minister and the agency that it had been well sighted on the difficulties that it had identified with the Ladies brae site in Lerwick. The point about the application for planning permission is that that went in only when I pointed out that nobody has done anything to obtain change of use permission.
Trudy Harrison
I hope that later in my speech, I will be able to answer that particular question. I will, of course, write to the right hon. Gentleman should he require further clarification.
We do not know the motivation behind the offer to refund the application fee in return for withdrawing the planning application, but Members will not be surprised to learn that the DVSA declined and awaits the official outcome of its application. Given the council’s unusual offer, the expectation that the DVSA will receive a favourable planning outcome is low. If Shetland Islands Council does reject the DVSA’s reasonable application to use otherwise redundant land at Scatsta airport, it will, with full support of the Department, push for full transparency in this matter.
The DVSA has been co-operative and transparent throughout its endeavours to secure new facilities on Shetland. It has shared all information with the right hon. Gentleman and others when it has been legally able to so. It is the DVSA’s firm view that the intransigency of the council is the only impediment to it being able to reinstate its vital public services to the residents of the island of Shetland. I hardly feel that I need to remind anyone of the urgent need for more lorry drivers in the current climate.
Trudy Harrison
I am afraid I will not give way any further, simply because of time restrictions. The position on motorcycle testing on Shetland also depends on securing a new site for conducting the off-road part of the test. Although the DVSA understands that the island’s sole motorcycle trainer has ceased his trade, without a testing facility there is no incentive for anyone else to offer such training on Shetland.
In the absence of a test facility on Shetland, the nearest venue for candidates in Lerwick is Orkney, which is about 120 miles and a five-hour journey by ferry away. The next nearest option is Aberdeen, which is around 224 miles away. That is not what the DVSA wants for its customers or for the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents. Shetland Islands Council has the opportunity to help the DVSA and its customers, who are also the council’s residents. I hope it will not pass up that opportunity.
Car practical driving tests remain at Lerwick on an occasional basis, as has always been the case, meaning that tests are conducted when there is a substantial customer demand. However, the waiting time for a test there is 24 weeks. We recognise that that is not ideal. In September, a new in-house contract for the DVSA to run the theory driving test came into operation. Starting tomorrow, I am pleased to say, the new theory test centre opens in Lerwick, and two more will open next month, at Mid Yell and Symbister. While the DVSA regrets the slight delay in opening the theory test centres, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that having three test centres, where there was previously just one, amounts to a significant service improvement.
In conclusion, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be reassured that the DVSA is working hard for the people of Shetland to provide vital public services. I thank him for his hard work in this area over many years, and I will leave him to have the last word. However, I want to assure him that I will continue to work alongside him in finding a solution.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
It is highly unusual. You will have to be very swift, Mr Carmichael.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister, whom I thank for her answer, did suggest that Shetland Islands Council has been intransigent in this. I think it is fair to put it on the record that Shetland Islands Council first told DVSA in 2016 that it would be withdrawing from the site. It has extended the provision multiple times and, indeed, I understand that it has offered the provision of the materials to construct the site at Ladies brae. It has been exceptionally co-operative in what is the core function of the DVSA, not of Shetland Islands Council.
Question put and agreed to.
Reopening Local Police Stations
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if they are coming on to the parliamentary Estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the Room.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reopening local police stations.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, which I have not done before, Ms Fovargue, and to be here and see human beings around us. I have spent the last year and a half wondering what people are wearing below the television picture, rather than focusing on the screen. Human interaction is back, which is a good thing. It is also a great pleasure to see in his place my right hon. Friend and colleague the Minister for Crime and Policing, who has been immensely helpful to me and to all of us in Dorset on all policing matters, for which I am extremely grateful.
I am here to discuss something that I have wanted to get off my chest: my long-standing feeling that police station closures are the wrong direction of travel. I am an old-fashioned sort. I am not a luddite—where change is necessary, change is necessary—but I do not like the idea of changing the wheel when it does not need changing. I hope that my speech will demonstrate that, on this topic, the wheel has been unnecessarily turned too far. This has been on my mind for a long time, and I am delighted and grateful to be able to share my thoughts with colleagues.
As a soldier, during three tours in Northern Ireland between 1978 and 1987, I saw the overwhelming benefits of what we call human intelligence. In Belfast, Armagh and Strabane, the information was provided mainly by the simple yet devastatingly effective method of patrolling our streets, in rain and sun, day and night, and reassuring, observing, listening and talking to those we met. The mass of information that we gleaned was carefully built up piece by piece, helping to thwart the terrorists and to reassure the public. Although we were soldiers, I am confident that any police officer today would recognise that the role we played was, for the most part, similar to theirs.
For almost 200 years, bobbies on the beat, from Peelers to “Dixon of Dock Green”— my favourite programme at the time—have been a presence on our streets, policing by consent and living and working among us. They lived locally, often in police houses or stations, so they soon gained specialist knowledge of their area and of the bad eggs in it. Like our patrols in Northern Ireland, that intimate knowledge of their patch deterred criminals and reassured and protected the community.
I am tempted to say that those were the good old days—hence the “old-fashioned sort” remark. That pattern of policing ensured the public’s respect, which enabled officers to do their work effectively. Anyone my age remembers the days when a local bobby was in a position to identify a troublemaker in their early years, often staving off more serious offences later. Out on the beat, their physical presence deterred the criminals. The police station itself was a focal point for the community—a base from which patrols went out and to which concerned citizens went. Let us not forget that citizens are frequently required to report to the local police station for one reason or another, and that job has been made far harder by all the closures.
Regrettably, that past—some would say luddite—scenario no longer prevails. At least half of all police stations in England have closed over the past 10 years. Strangely, the numbers are not precise, but a number of freedom of information requests submitted to individual police forces by news organisations paint a worrying picture. The Times estimated in 2018 that 600 police stations had closed since 2010. A Daily Mail report in February 2021 estimated that the number lost was 667. I do not normally quote Opposition spokespeople, but I will today: the shadow Policing Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), said in a debate on rural crime in 2019 that 400 stations in England had closed, with the number of police counters open to the public falling from 900 in 2010 to 500 in 2019. The Commons Library estimates that there has been a total loss of between 600 and 700 police stations over the last 10 years.
I will be grateful if my right hon. Friend provides an answer to this specific question today. As I understand it, none of the numbers is centrally held by the Home Office. Perhaps that is because individual police forces are responsible for the number and location of police stations in their area, and police chiefs have operational independence in making such decisions. Does my right hon. Friend think the Home Office ought to have better understanding or knowledge of what is going on in the 43 police areas? Any FOI requests are addressed to police forces and responses are mixed or partial, particularly where there is an element of commercial sensitivity, which means that buildings have been sold off, often controversially, for development. While the Home Office can and does publicly regret the closure of various stations, Ministers have no power to retain or reopen them; nor do they publish impact assessments relating to police office closures. Does this situation need closer scrutiny?
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) highlighted station closures in the west midlands in 2020, saying that his local police force was spending more than £30 million on refurbishing plush offices at its headquarters at Lloyd House in Birmingham. He added that police stations at Dudley and Sedgley had closed, despite the former being a major metropolitan town. In the last few years, others, including my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), for Solihull (Julian Knight), for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), Members representing Merseyside, and the hon. Members for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) and for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher), have repeatedly asked questions in the House about crime and reopening police stations in their constituencies.
Regrettably and inexorably, closures have rolled on, with some areas worse affected than others. For example, an FOI request in 2018 showed that 24 police stations in South Yorkshire closed between 2010 and 2018, and a similar request to the Metropolitan police this year revealed that 71 police stations in London have closed since 2010.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. It is often argued that modern policing does not require police stations, but so often it does. A police station that could stay open, instead of becoming just another Metropolitan police number, is the one in Wimbledon. Does he think the Mayor ought to be listening to his campaign and backing the campaign by myself and others to keep Wimbledon police station open?
Richard Drax
I think the Mayor of London should be backing any campaign that my hon. Friend pushes forward, and I am sure that our right hon. Friend the Minister is listening very closely to him. Yes, of course, that closure should be reconsidered. Wimbledon is a very large area I can see major disadvantages from being without a police station, particularly for people who have been used to having a police station there for all the years that it has been there. So, yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right and I totally support his request.
To continue focusing on the Metropolitan police, Members may recall that I said that 71 police stations in London had closed since 2010. Concern in the capital is such that Shaun Bailey, the Conservative mayoral candidate, pledged to reopen 38 police stations in London if he was elected. Regrettably, as we know, he was not.
Since the last lockdown, private security companies are reporting a 50% increase in neighbourhood watch groups and residence associations willing to pay for properly equipped patrols in areas such as Richmond Green, Chelsea, Cobham, Woodford Green, Mayfair and Knightsbridge. Uniformed patrols cover areas of up to three square miles or less at a cost of approximately £20 an hour. Unsurprisingly, they are proving extremely effective. Their success reminds me of the crime fighting revolution in New York in the 1990s. Broken windows, graffiti and disorder were seen as indicators of serious crime to come, but this was prevented by the simple expedient of more visible officers and zero tolerance.
On graffiti, I do not know whether other Members have noticed this, but I come into London off the A316, and before I get to the big Earl’s Court junction with the Tesco on the left, all the bridges and a huge advertising hoarding—normally showing films—are smothered in graffiti. Why has that not been removed? Why has no one gone out there and cleaned that up? If the people who did it come back and do it again, they should be arrested and charged. This is a little thing, but little things lead to big things. The first thing that any visitor coming in from Heathrow sees is graffiti all over the main road into the heart of London. Great! Come to graffiti-ridden Great Britain. Our railway lines and bridges are the same—everywhere you go, there is graffiti. What on earth are we doing to stop this? I am just gobsmacked.
The lessons learnt in New York are clear, I believe: regular visible foot patrols deter would-be offenders, or at least encourage them to go elsewhere. Whilst I would not want to push crime into another area, the solution for other areas is to do exactly the same as the first area has done to reduce crime. Critics argue that private security companies in London are a slippery slope towards privatising safety on our streets. Not surprisingly, most residents and business owners disagree entirely and instead welcome the decline in the crime and antisocial behaviour that sadly grew during the pandemic. Tellingly, one of the most successful of these organisations is called—wait for it— My Local Bobby. I think that speaks for itself.
Without doubt, all the closures are due more to straitened finances than to good operational decision making. To be fair to the Government, I am not here to attack my good friend the Policing Minister. We had to make tough decisions following the recession, and sadly the police took the brunt of the cuts. My aim today is to emphasise how important it is that we reopen police stations and get policemen and women back on the streets as fast as we can. Too many of my constituents and too many of the people I speak to do not see police officers unless they whizz past in a car. That is no good—that is hopeless. It is a necessary back-up, of course, but you cannot talk to somebody doing 30, 40, 50 or 60mph.
The Public Accounts Committee agree that it is a financial thing, saying in 2018 that forces were
“selling off more of their assets to try and raise some funds for capital investment and increasingly drawing on their reserves.”
Decreasing use of police counters, or footfall, was another factor. Statistics were not on the side of retention either: for example, the Mayor’s Office found evidence that between 2006 and 2016, in-person crime reporting fell from 22% to 8%. My personal comment to that, and I have a lot of anecdotal evidence, is that people are losing faith in reporting crimes to the police for fear that nothing will be done; it will just be a number. These statistics were used to justify the introduction of digital crime reporting services. They certainly have their place—of course they do; I am not a luddite to that extreme—but officers cannot patrol digitally, at least not to my knowledge. That is the advantage of having a building to patrol from. I also fear that many people have given up on reporting crime, and I have a lot of anecdotal evidence on that. Many constituents say, “We just don’t bother, Richard. Nothing is going to happen.” That is not a personal attack on the police. They are pushed, and I have nothing but praise for the Dorset police.
Other consultations show that people prefer to report non-urgent crime online. In my view, that sits uncomfortably with further anecdotal evidence that victims of property crime in particular can wait for days to see an officer post-burglary, and feel that their concerns are dismissed. I recall the impact of one burglary. Many years ago, when I worked for the BBC, I went to report on an elderly lady who had had all of her husband’s valuables stolen. He was a solider in the second world war and she had trinkets, medals—all the things we hold dear. They were stolen, and she died a week later. I have been burgled. My daughter has been burgled. A friend of mine was attacked in his home. I know the impact of burglary; I know what it is like. We need to have the resources to prevent it from happening, because the impact on everyone, from any background, is appalling. If your personal space, your home, is invaded, it scars you; it can even kill you. I am also not convinced that consultations are the right answer. I have been an MP for 11 years, and I have heard the word “consultation” more times than I care to remember. My humble opinion on consultations, I am afraid, is that they are usually a case of, “The decision has been made. We’d better do this just to keep people happy.”
Lord Justice Lindblom, for example, overturned the decision to close Wimbledon police station in July 2018 after the victim of a violent burglary argued that the police would not have reached him in time had the station been closed. How interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) mentioned that very police station; clearly, the battle continues.
There are also practicalities that may have been overlooked in the decisions to close police stations. Not all are physical or quantifiable, but they matter none the less, and all play a part in making a community feel safe. John Apter, national chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, who represents 100,000 rank-and-file police officers, made exactly this point in 2018, telling The Times:
“Police stations in town centres provide a visible reassurance. One has to question the decision to withdraw visible policing from the streets.”
In 2018, Chief Constable Dave Thompson wrote in the National Police Chief Council blog:
“Budget cuts and a hands-off government approach to aspects of policing have meant hard choices for chief constables with consequences for the public and our people. The public’s experience is policing that is less visible, less responsive and less proactive.”
Closed custody suites have not helped either, making questioning and charging more difficult for both suspects and officers. Although digital information, CCTV and drones provide useful data, they can never tell the whole story, as I hope my Northern Ireland analogy explained. Frankly, one can combat CCTV and drones by simply putting on a balaclava, which, sadly, far too many people do.
I have always wondered—I ask my right hon. Friend and colleague the Minister to comment on this—why we do not make it illegal for people attending rallies to intentionally hide their faces. I know that there is a thin line, and it may be due to cold weather, but it is very difficult for a police officer to judge if a person is hiding their face or if it is just cold. However, I think we all know that if we see a person clad in a black mask with eyeholes, it is not because it is a cold day. They do it for two reasons: to frighten and intimidate, and to hide their identity.
None the less, as I understand it, future operational planning and the Government’s beating crime plan will offer an arm’s length, national online platform at Police.uk, where citizens can access
“a range of interactive police services in one coordinated place”.
Of course, that will not reach the elderly, the vulnerable and those without access to digital technology. I am not knocking this. I am sure it has a place, as all these things do. I am just emphasising again and again the significance of the police station manned day and night by officers who patrol on foot, backed up by those in cars, to deter crime and protect us.
Data from my constituency in Dorset shows that we lost 10 inquiry offices between 2011 and 2015. Those closures were attributed to financial pressures, lack of footfall, and consultation, and I have heard lack of footfall used frequently as a reason in the past. Certainly under David Cameron’s coalition Government I heard it said that no one wants to go to a station any more, but that is not the point. I personally do not care if not a soul goes to the police station. What I care about is that police officers come out and patrol the streets day and night, so that if one young woman is chased through the streets by some nutter, she—or a child, a man, a boy—has somewhere to go to find safety.
Six Dorset police stations have been sold since 2013—again, I am told, due to financial pressures and the consequential change to the way the police have had to operate. We are now left with seven stations and a drop-in hub. Dorset, as I am sure everyone knows, is a huge county. The situation has been inherited by our new chief constable, Scott Chilton, and police and crime commissioner David Sidwick, both of whom I warmly welcome to post and for whom I have huge respect. From what I have heard, they are very sympathetic to my way of thinking. They want police back on the beat, but, as there is everywhere, there is a clamour for resources.
The good news, for which I thank my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister, is that, at 1,326, police officer numbers in Dorset are at their highest level since March 2013, and will increase further by 90 to 100 officers in the next two years, boosted by an annual head count of about 90 police community support officers. We are very grateful for the extra officers we campaigned hard for, so I thank him very much indeed.
Dorset’s population is projected to rise by 4.3% a year, although the recent exodus from cities during the pandemic will not be factored in for some time, so that figure will inevitably rise. I have worked with many officers from Dorset Police, for whom, as I have said, I have huge respect. They are an absolutely dedicated, professional bunch of men and women who do their duty in appalling circumstances and sometimes at great risk to themselves. I have nothing but huge respect for them all. They are more aware than ever of showing a public face and appreciate that we have got to get to the more remote parts. It is of paramount importance, so both the chief constable and the new PCC are on board with that, which is great. Current plans to maximise time in the community include potentially locating mobile police stations in rural areas, and placing neighbourhood policing teams in shared community hubs—both thought to present a less formal face to the public.
On the formal face of the police, the police force are not social services. It is not a police service, but a police force. Their job is to catch criminals, lock them up and protect you, me and our families. That is their job, so I would think that a formal face, a formal uniform and a formal police station give reassurance. It is like seeing a formal soldier or a formal nurse. Nurses do not come dressed in jeans and a T-shirt; they come dressed in a nurse’s outfit, as would a doctor or a soldier. You would think, “Hm, yes.” Why should the police not be equally formal? Of course, they should be friendly and interact with the community, but that will get better if they mix more with the community, and a police station will allow them to do that.
There is a general conviction that technology will help forces to deploy more officers more effectively. Helpful though technology is, I am not convinced that it will result in bobbies on the beat, especially at night, when all too often the criminals come out to do their foul work. Violence against women and girls is now rightly at the top of the national police agenda. Sarah Everard’s tragic killing has unleashed an understandable torrent of emotion from women and girls, who report feeling unsafe on our streets, particularly at night.
Formerly, the presence of a police station, or at least an enquiry encounter in most neighbourhoods, provided some reassurance that there was a safe place to take refuge. That no longer exists in most areas. Now, until better arrangements are made, I understand that women and girls are being offered an app—yes, an app—on a mobile phone, to walk them home after work, school or college or an evening out. Yes, of course technology has a place, but an app will not prevent someone from being attacked or chased. There needs to be a physical building, with physical men and women in it, for protection, and there are too few of them left. I believe that the app, although well meant, is inadequate for the intended purpose, and will never replace the reassurance of a police station.
I welcome Dorset Police’s recent initiatives to identify and deter sexual offenders preying on vulnerable people enjoying a night out, and to introduce safer public spaces in popular night spots for women and girls in particular. That is very good news. StreetSafe, where unsafe or uncomfortable public places can be anonymously reported online, is a valuable addition. I also welcome Dorset’s independent review of local criminal justice response to rape and serious sexual offences.
Finally, we must not forget that police officers now operate in more difficult conditions. We see that every day, whether in the capital, Bristol or even in Dorset. Those brave men and women are facing very challenging times. Violent crime and terrorism have increased the risks they run, along with the general loss of deference in society. The forcefield that once protected them has sadly long gone.
For operational and security reasons it is increasingly rare to see a single officer patrolling a neighbourhood on foot. Understandably, after threats against their homes and families, many prefer to live anonymously, away from the areas they patrol and serve. I believe that their fundamental role, visible and on our streets, has not changed, nor must it ever. To do that effectively, officers need a base to operate from where they can stay warm, write up their reports, take people back to put into cells, and do all the things the police are meant to do.
I get the point that has been repeatedly made to me that a police officer’s job has changed to a huge degree, now dealing with online abuse and theft. The online world has introduced a raft of new areas for policing, which is without doubt taking officers off the beat. All I would say to the Minister for Crime and Policing is that we need more police on the street. We cannot lose the streets to the criminals, because that effective relationship between the citizen and the officer will otherwise be lost.
Police stations may be viewed as old-fashioned and expensive, but they are invaluable, giving officers more control of their area of responsibility and the public the reassurance they seek. Police officers do their job with our consent. Break the link between us and them and the divide will continue to grow. Police stations are not an anachronism; they must be the future.
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
I will call the Front-Bench spokesperson at 3.38, so please be cognisant of that when speaking.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing this important debate. Crime has been on the rise in London, except during the pandemic. But despite a rising rate of violent crime, and particularly knife crime, as the hon. Gentleman said, 71 police stations have closed since 2010. Many of those were under the watch of the Prime Minister when he was Mayor of London. Police numbers have been slashed, not least in my own borough of Richmond where not only have police numbers been cut but police are routinely extracted to go and police incidents and events elsewhere.
I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the campaign to keep Wimbledon police station open. Although he is no longer here, I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) has thrown his weight behind Liberal Democrat councillor Paul Kohler’s campaign. He was the lecturer who was beaten up very badly and mounted a strong campaign to save Wimbledon police station. It was his successful legal challenge against the Mayor of London that saved Wimbledon police station. He continues to campaign to keep it open.
In my borough of Richmond upon Thames, we had Richmond police station close a few years ago and, now, Teddington police station in my constituency is on the brink of closure, despite violent knife-related incidents going up. Just two weeks ago, an 18-year-old Afghan refugee and Richmond upon Thames College student, Hazrat Wali, was stabbed to death in broad daylight close to the college. A few months ago in Teddington, less than a mile away from the police station that is about to be closed, another young person was stabbed—thankfully, not fatally on that occasion. Earlier this year in Richmond there was another fatal stabbing.
As the hon. Member for South Dorset said, one of the ways to tackle violent crime and knife crime is through community policing. We need more police officers on our streets. The Government have made a commitment to boost police officer numbers. Where will they go if all the police stations are closed? They need to be housed somewhere. The problem, which we will see following the closure of Teddington police station, is that when police stations close, local neighbourhood teams have far further to travel to get the area they are policing.
The safer neighbourhood teams for Teddington and Hampton Wick wards will have to be based out of Twickenham police station. That increases their travel time. If they are walking or taking the bus, no doubt that travel time will be increased even further because when a member of the public sees a uniformed police officer, they may well stop them along the way outside the neighbourhood they are meant to be looking after. Obviously, if they see something untoward happening, they will need to take action. If we want to boost community policing, which is essential to preventing crime and saving lives, police officers need to be based close to the areas that they are policing.
The other issue is fewer custody suites. Talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the leader of Richmond council, we discussed one of the challenges since Richmond police station closed, which is that we have fewer custody suites. The police are having to decide whether to charge someone they have stopped in Richmond town centre or other parts of Richmond on that side of the river, or to take hours out of their shift taking that person down to Kingston or Twickenham police stations.
It must be said that police stations offer some level of comfort and security to members of the public, and with rising knife crime and violent crime, I venture to say that Londoners would like to see more, not fewer, police stations. That visible police presence is critical for both reporting crime and communicating with the police, and that is more important now than ever when confidence in the Metropolitan Police Service in particular is plummeting. I appreciate that a fully-fledged police station may not be needed, given that more people are reporting crime online or by telephone, but some sort of visible police presence through a counter of some sort—there must be innovative and interesting ways we can think about that—is very important.
The deputy Mayor for policing, the Met police and the Public Accounts Committee have all made abundantly clear to me in a number of recent meetings that the driver behind the sale of all these police stations in London is to raise money for operational purposes. That suggests to me that Home Office funding needs to be looked at to meet those operational needs, but we must also remember that those capital receipts will only last so long if they are being ploughed into operational needs. In the case of Teddington, some of that capital receipt when they sell the building should be ploughed into a base for the local teams, as I have pointed out.
The other problem with the massive financial driver behind this, as has been made clear to me in recent meetings, is that the Met police are now keen to sell to the highest bidder as fast as possible. That brings me on to another point about the future of these police stations. If a decision is taken that they must be closed, which the community does not want, given that we have an affordable and social housing crisis in this country—particularly somewhere such as south-west London where there are so few sites—why is there pressure to sell to the highest bidder, which ultimately means it just goes to luxury developers, who often cannot meet planning requirements, so buildings lie redundant? If we are forced to give up Teddington police station, I would be keen to see it go back to community use, primarily for affordable and social housing, because that is the biggest issue I see in my constituency.
I look forward to hearing from the policing Minister about the future of not only Teddington police station, but police stations across London, whether they can be saved and whether he will support my campaign to ensure that, if they must be sold off, they are kept for community use and for affordable and social housing.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing this important debate. His speech was incredibly insightful, because we could all relate to it, and I will pick up on some of his points as I make progress.
The safety of local people is perhaps the greatest priority for any Government of any party. We now have devolution in West Yorkshire: in Keighley, which I represent, our new West Yorkshire Mayor now has the powers to form a police and crime plan and strategy, and has the remit of looking at that plan and working out where new police stations should be or where closures should not happen.
Of course it is right that people have confidence in their own security, whether they are at home or walking down their local high street or through their community. I believe that local police stations with a noticeable police presence play a key role in achieving that. My constituency has sadly experienced its own problems with police station closures in the two principal towns. In Keighley, the police station was relocated from the centre of town to the periphery, much to the dissatisfaction of local residents. In Ilkley we still have a police station, but it is unmanned.
I understand that police stations close for a range of reasons. An increase in online crime reporting and a general incorporation of digital technologies in the police force have meant that very few people use public desks at police stations. Instead, a majority of people contact the police by phone, at local meetings, online and through social media. Like those in many other professions, police officers have also been able to work flexibly and perform their duties without having to be present physically at a police station. But my inbox is full of messages from residents wanting to see police officers in a local police station going about their business on the beat, reassuring residents that they are being looked after. I truly believe that crime and antisocial behaviour, which are sadly all too big a problem in my constituency, are linked to local police stations not being manned and police stations moving out of the centre of town.
We have an excellent police station in Ilkley, which I went round not too long ago, but it is unmanned. It has just been done up and improved so that police officers can be there physically, but there are no physical police desks where a member of the public can go in and speak to their local police officer. That was a strategy adopted by our previous police and crime commissioner, Mark Burns-Williamson. In Keighley, the local police station—which was previously located right in the heart of town—was moved out of the town centre by Mark Burns-Williamson, then chair of the West Yorkshire police authority, to the dismay of many Keighley residents. The move came at a great cost to local taxpayers and stripped the police station out of the heart of our community.
I have said many times in the House that when crimes happen under everyone’s nose—including a huge drug dealing problem that we have—residents want to be able to go to their local police station. I held a surgery in Long Lee, one of the outlying settlements of Keighley. An elderly resident told me that she had contacted our local 101 service to report that she had witnessed a drug drop by a local taxi firm and that she had video footage for someone to come and collect. West Yorkshire police responded with, “Don’t worry, that happens all the time.” She then came to me with the footage, which I submitted to West Yorkshire police. She said that, although she had wanted to go to her local police station, she had not been able to do so because the station had been relocated from the town centre to the outskirts of town and she could not use the bus network to get there. That illustrates that moving our police station out of the centre of Keighley was a bad decision by the former police and crime commissioner.
We have a new West Yorkshire Mayor who is in charge of forming the police and crime strategy and is responsible for local policing in Keighley and Ilkley. I therefore call on her to deliver police stations in my constituency that are open and can be used by the public. Indeed, in Keighley, we have been promised a new police station back in the centre of town, despite it moving out 10 or so years ago. The big announcement was made, ironically, by our former police and crime commissioner just in advance of the general election in 2019 but, since then, nothing has happened.
This Conservative Government have already delivered 495 extra new police officers in West Yorkshire. We must ensure that those officers are on the beat in Keighley doing their job and that the public have a police station in the centre of town, as was promised by our previous police and crime commissioner. I want to ensure that my residents and my community feel reassured that having a police station in the centre of town means that crime will reduce. A stronger police presence means safer streets and much safer communities for us all to enjoy.
In a survey that was conducted earlier this year in my constituency, 68% of people felt that antisocial behaviour had increased as a result of not having a physical police station in the centre of town that they can go to and have connectivity with. If there are police stations in our town centres, people feel better about where they live. In turn, that will boost local businesses and communities, and it will improve aspiration.
Reopening town centre police stations is vital in my constituency. They offer not only a deterrent but reassurance to my constituents. The knock-on effect will be incredible. I urge our new West Yorkshire Mayor, who is in charge of our police, to listen to us in Keighley, to deliver a new police station in the centre of town, and to get our police station in Ilkley open for the public.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on enabling us to have this most informative and important debate. Before I make my main remarks, I just want to say that through having a wife who comes from County Armagh, and having lived through the troubles while stepping out with my good lady and then when we married, I know exactly what he is saying about police and what they did in Northern Ireland—I put that on the record.
I will just make one point to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). She mentioned a capital receipt being used for a revenue budget, and I would have thought from my experience in another place that that was questionable. Perhaps the Minister or his officials should look at that. I am not entirely sure that is right and proper, and it is worth looking at.
I regret very much that other Scottish Members are not present today—I am the only one. I want to tell a cautionary tale about what has happened in Scotland. I realise that policing is devolved and that this is not pertinent to the responsibilities of the Minister, but there is a lesson to be learned.
In 2013, the Scottish National party Government decided to amalgamate all the constabularies in Scotland into one Scottish police force. Many of us warned at the time that that would take away localism and would not work. In the period that followed, I saw a dreary litany of police station closures in my vast constituency. I will name them for the record: Lybster and Castletown in Caithness, Evanton and Invergordon in Easter Ross, and Dornoch, Bonar Bridge, Brora and Lairg in Sutherland—eight police stations gone. From my experience of working with my constituents, that has eroded localism, as has already been said. In turn, that has reduced trust in the police force, which is absolutely fundamental to policing and how it should be conducted.
In my time as a councillor, I served for some years as a member of the Northern Joint Police Board, which was the interface between the police and the democratically elected councils for the highlands, Orkney and Shetland, and the Western Isles. It was the body that oversaw the police and engaged with them on policing matters. I can say from my experience that had the chief constable come to us, the politicians responsible, and said, “I propose to close the following eight police stations,” there would have been uproar. Some might have looked at that as being an unwarranted intervention by politicians in policing matters. On the other hand, we were the elected representatives of the people, we were in touch with our electorates in our wards, and we knew what would or would not wash. That accountability has gone, and I very much regret that. There have been calls for something to be established in its place, but I think I am correct in saying that, apart from public appointments by the Scottish Government, the local authorities have no power to appoint anyone who is in any sort of position to work with the police. Just for the record, it was a constructive relationship—it worked. Going back to what the hon. Member for South Dorset said, some things do work. Why change them?
I want to share an anecdote. When I was first elected as a councillor—a long time ago, in 1986—I was very pleased with myself. One Sunday, a retired colonel came to see me in my home and said, “Now look, it is disgraceful what happened last night. My wife and I live quietly in the middle of Tain, and when the local dance finished at midnight, all the youngsters came out drunk, shouting and misbehaving.”
It was having an appalling effect on this poor old couple, so I wrote to the chief constable, as a young councillor, aged 32, and said, “What do you intend to do about it? This is shocking!”—I had only been a councillor for a matter of weeks. I heard nothing for days, weeks, and perhaps a month, then Sergeant Magnus Mackay said, “Jamie, would you like to come up and just see me in the police station?” I went up, pleased with myself, and he said, “Now, this is the charge book. You wrote to the chief constable about the events of this date. Read that.”
What had happened was that the youngsters were coming out of the dance perfectly peacefully, and the colonel had come bouncing out of his, drunk and shouting at the youngsters. He had been arrested, and spent the night in the cells before he came to see me. The point of that anecdote is that Sergeant Magnus Mackay, feeling that he could talk to a local elected representative straight up about something, was what effective local policing is all about. It worked, and I realised that I had made a hash of it.
That was a cautionary tale—that is what can happen in part of the country. I very much regret that my SNP colleagues are not here today because I think that, while the matter is devolved to their colleagues in Edinburgh, the SNP Government have a responsibility for it.
Let me conclude with this: what we have today is, sadly, fairly far removed from what Sir Robert Peel first intended when he introduced policing all over the UK—that is why they are called bobbies; we know that. I hope that, in the fullness of time, the Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish Governments, and perhaps Her Majesty’s Government too, could look again at first principles of policing and say, “Are we drifting from the way we should be doing it?” because, very sadly—this is true of Governments of all colours—I think we have drifted, and I rue the day that we have now reached.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak in these debates. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for the duty that he did in Northern Ireland—I do not think I have had many occasions to say this, but I wish to put it on record—and for his commitment to security through his position in the Army. We appreciate that there. The Province that we have today is a better Province because of the efforts of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and many of his colleagues, who did similar work. I want to thank him for that. I also thank him for leading the debate. There is nothing more reassuring to all our constituents than knowing that their safety is ensured through local policing.
I have had a long political career. I started in 1985 as a councillor, and chaired the policing board for our council area during that period, so policing has always been an issue in which I have had a deep interest. The Home Secretary has been under immense pressure to perfect policing. She has pledged, many times, to get more police officers on the street. The rough figure is 20,000—I think that the Chancellor confirmed that 20,000 figure today in his Budget speech today. Up until at least September, some 6,620 of those officers are in place, so there is clearly a commitment to the recruitment of police in a concerted, planned and strategic way. More police on our streets should come with more police stations, or the reopening of those that have previously been shut. The background information gives us some worrying figures, referring to some 667 being closed since 2010.
I know the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland—I understand that—but this is just to give a bit of background to the issues, from my experience as a councillor and in the Assembly. I have always been a great believer in and supporter of community policing. I have always felt, from my introduction as a local councillor many years ago, the importance of the bobby on the beat, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) referred to them. For me, it was the community officer, who everyone in the community knew. Each estate in the town, for example, had a community officer, or perhaps two, and they built up a very clear relationship and rapport with the local community. It really helped policing.
Police stations themselves give reassurance, because they are there, but they also need to have somebody inside for people to access. However, I believe that what gives people greater reassurance is having a community police officer on the beat in constituencies, including in the estates across the towns.
Recent statistics show that since 2010 the Metropolitan police service has closed some 71 police stations; they have been shut down. Similarly, in Northern Ireland multiple police stations have either been closed, shut down or had their opening hours drastically reduced since 2016. The Police Service of Northern Ireland outlined changes as part of its estate strategy. This included the sale of some 12 stations, which are no longer required for daily policing business. Four of those were in my constituency of Strangford: Portaferry; Ballynahinch; Saintfield; and Carryduff.
Portaferry is at the end of the Ards peninsula in my constituency of Strangford; I live in Greyabbey, halfway down the peninsula, on a farm in a rural community. If someone in Portaferry needed the police for an urgent matter, it would take some 33 minutes for a police officer to travel from the nearest town with a police station, which is Newtownards; that is also the town where my office is located. In a situation of dire need, can we really expect our constituents to wait over half an hour in some cases to be seen? Other Members—including the hon. Member for South Dorset, who secured this debate—have given similar examples.
Police station closures are one issue but the reduction in hours is another. An example of that was brought to my attention by a constituent who was out with his grandson at a play park that is located two minutes from a police station. There were young teenagers throwing bottles, causing havoc and engaging in other antisocial issues, which continue to be the No.1 issue; the hon. Member for South Dorset referred to antisocial issues, too, in his introduction to this debate. When my constituent went to the police station that was two minutes away to report the incident, he was turned away because the police station was not open. If there is going to be a police station, people need to have access to it; there at least needs to be some voice contact when people go to the front door, whether it is with someone centrally or whatever it may be. There definitely needs to be that system.
These are the on-the-ground issues that people care about, and our constituents have a right to feel safe and that their police service serves them, as it should. I mentioned yesterday in the debate about the Northern Ireland Bill that we have been asking for more police officers for years. We are making some steps towards that, but there are not yet enough police officers coming out of training colleges to replace those who are seeking retirement.
Over the last few years, we have had a raft of police officers retiring—those who are seasoned and who have lots of experience. I believe that it is always good for the police to retain some of those police officers to bring up the new officers who are coming in and train them in how to deal with the general public.
The antisocial behaviour rates are rife and there is simply not enough localised policing, which, as I said earlier, I am a great supporter of, to help to deal with the smallest of crimes, which still matter and must be addressed. A colleague of mine in my constituency of Strangford is Peter Weir, one of the MLAs. I have conducted surveys in most towns in the constituency of Strangford. I do them on a regular basis. During a recess, I tend to take a couple of hours or maybe three or four hours—it depends on what the workload in the offices are—to go and knock a few doors and give out the resident surveys. About 80% to 90% of any responses that we get back on the surveys and questionnaires that we send out mention antisocial behaviour, which often stems from the use of drink and drugs by youths in local towns. This is an example of why local police stations are needed, and we should vouch for them and call for their reopening. Crime cannot be ignored and I believe that our police are there to keep us safe. We have a duty to work alongside them, as well. However, many people would say that it is becoming increasingly hard to do that, because of the closure of so many local police stations.
I am ever mindful that the Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for Northern Ireland, but I am also ever conscious of the fact that what is happening to us in Northern Ireland is replicated elsewhere. So may I ask the Minister to undertake discussions with his counterparts in the devolved Administrations, as this is not a topic that applies solely to England and the mainland? These issues are rife all over the United Kingdom. Is there another way of doing policing? Is there a better way of doing it? I am the old-fashioned type, who likes to see the policeman on the beat. I was always reassured to see a police car, and even more reassured to see police officers walking up and down the main streets in the towns or villages.
These issues are rife all over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In particular, I would appreciate consideration being given to those who live in rural communities, as I do. I know what it is like to be a distance from the police station. Often, little thought is given to rural crime, which has been an issue in my constituency. I make it my business every day to read not just my local papers—provincial papers back home—but the daily papers here. There is a theme that policing is under pressure, and more so in rural areas—or there is a different type of pressure in rural areas, as I think the hon. Member for South Dorset referred to.
Our constituents’ safety should be at the forefront of our priorities. When they are telling us that we need more local policing, we must listen to them. Again, I thank the hon. Member for all that he has done in raising the issue, and others who have spoken. I am sure that this is a problem in some way for all of us across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Even those who unfortunately cannot be present for the debate would probably replicate and illustrate the concerns that we have expressed in their constituencies.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing this important debate. We are all still mourning the loss of David Amess, who was a friend and colleague to many in this place. I have thought, following his death, of the police officers who would have had to be some of the first people on the scene to attend to that incident, and how horrific that must have been for them. I attended a funeral yesterday in my constituency of a 16-year-old boy who was murdered in his flat in front of his mother by many young teenage boys. Again, the police will have been the first people on the scene. We ask so much of our police officers, who face a difficult challenge. I start by thanking them for all that they do.
I have agreed in the main with everything that everybody has said. The hon. Member for South Dorset is right to question the direction of travel in terms of police station closures. I do not quite agree with some of his analysis. He was talking about the good old days of policing. I think that in many ways policing has come a long way and improved over the years. In the good old days, we probably would have turned a blind eye to domestic abuse, and we would not have uncovered some of the child abuse that we now do. In many ways, modern policing is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was.
Richard Drax
I did not mean that in the slightest. The hon. Lady has taken what I said completely out of context. I was simply talking about the old way of doing things—catching criminals and locking them up, and having police officers on the beat. Of course, policing has changed. I totally accept that, but officers still need to be on the beat, baddies still need to be arrested and locked up, and we need to be protected. That has not changed.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I completely agree with the points that he makes; I was just contemplating the changing nature of crime, and the crime that we see, and what we do about it, which I think is a good shift. His fundamental point is about having police in our communities where we can see them and where they can see crime. We talked about the Peel principles—that the police are there to prevent crime, not just to tackle it once it happens. That is the starting point of our police service, and they cannot prevent crime unless they are there in our communities, understanding our neighbours.
I have reflected a lot since the death of David Amess about my own office space, and how it is one of the few places in our community where people can come and get access to an office, and the doors are open. The closure of a lot of our police stations reflects the closure of some of our other services. A lot of council services are now online. There are not many places where people can physically go and talk about their issues. Police stations are part of that picture.
As the shadow Minister of State for Police and the Fire Service, I spend all my time talking to the police, and talking about the impact of the cuts over the past 11 years. Since 2010, funding has been cut by £1.6 billion, and thousands of police have been taken off our streets. There are thousands fewer police officers now than there were in 2010; almost 8,000 fewer PCSOs; 7,500 fewer police staff; and 6,300 fewer special constables. The number of people who say that they never see police on the streets has doubled in that time.
As policing has suffered those cuts, the nature of crime is changing. We have high levels of violent crime, a high proportion of online crime—especially fraud, which is going through the roof—and the changing nature of terrorism, with the challenges that brings. The impact of cuts across other services, such as mental health services, youth work and the NHS, means that police are dealing with the fallout of a small state picking up the pieces when there is no one else left.
The hon. Member for South Dorset said that the police are not social workers. He is right; they are not. However, when I go out with police, they often provide that function because they are picking up people with mental health problems or substance misuse and spending hours taking them to A&E, going through the motions with them and making sure that they are okay, when actually we want the police on our streets preventing crime.
We have not just lost police officers. With all the cuts to police staff, we have lost the whole apparatus behind those who actively help to prevent and solve crime. As a response to and result of that, criminals are getting away with it; pathways to crime are open; and our children are being exploited by criminal thugs and groomed into violence. Our justice system is not making the right response and, at a national level, the problem is not taken seriously enough.
We talked about knife crime, which reached its highest levels on record in 2019-20 at more than 50,000 offences in a year. That is an extraordinary number, which has doubled since 2013-14. Between 2010 and 2019-20, knife crime rose in every single police force area in the country. Fraud and online crime has rocketed to such levels that most crimes are not even investigated. Outcomes for rape, which we have talked about over recent months, are at record low levels, at only 1.6%. Fewer than seven in every 100 violent crimes end up with a charge—an extraordinary figure.
Unlike this Government, Labour’s record in government shows that we can be trusted on policing and crime. By the time we left government, there had been 6 million fewer crimes than in 1997. The risk of being a victim of crime was at its lowest since the Crime Survey began in 1981, and police officers reached record numbers, up by almost 1,700 since 1997, alongside more than 16,000 PCSOs.
The figures on police station closures make grim reading. In 2018, The Times estimated that about 600 police stations had closed since 2010; the Daily Mail reported that it was 667. The closure of police stations forms a common thread across the length and breadth of the country. Regardless of whether the closures have happened under Conservative or Labour PCCs or Mayors, they are done because chief constables and PCCs can only play the hand they have been dealt by the Government here at Westminster.
A report from the Public Accounts Committee in 2018 claimed that closures were due to cuts in police funding, that funding cuts had led to forces selling off more of their assets to try to raise funds for capital investment and increasingly drawing on their reserves. We know that in South Yorkshire, 24 police stations have shut their doors.
Robbie Moore
I want to make a very quick point. When I was referring to my constituency, where we saw Keighley police station moved out of the centre of town and relocated, with a new police station built on the outskirts of town, it was all undertaken by a Labour police and crime commissioner. The same Labour police and crime commissioner that was—we now have a Labour West Yorkshire Mayor—is having discussions about moving the police station back into the centre of town. Does that not show a lack of strategy rather than it simply being related to funding models that have been dripped down from the national level?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I disagree. If we look at the pattern of police station closures across the country, it has not just occurred in Keighley; it is everywhere. I was with the new West Yorkshire Mayor, Tracy Brabin, in her offices a couple of weeks ago talking about her approach to tackling crime, particularly, in that conversation, violence against women and girls. I am sure she will do the right thing. As has been mentioned, if 20,000 police officers are cut out of the system and then some are put back, there needs to be a physical place for people to go. The situation is that we closed everything down and are now having to look at whether we open things up again.
A lot has been said about the changing nature of how people want to report crime, and the opportunities available to report online. The hon. Member for South Dorset is right that there is a role for online reporting, and we need to look at how that works. In 2016, 8% of crimes were reported at police front counters—down from 22% in 2006. The Government’s so-called “Beating crime plan” includes proposals for every single person living in England and Wales to have digital access to police through a national online platform.
I suggest that that plan is not working. There is too much confusion about how and where to report crime, and the lack of action when people do. An extraordinary number of online fraud cases are not investigated at all. People report incidents online and wait a long time for a response. There are real pressures on the 101 service across the country, and victims of crime are increasingly calling 999 because they cannot get through on 101. The Cheshire police and crime commissioner said recently that 101 is “not fit for purpose”. Similar problems have been reported across the country.
Modern policing and the changing nature of crime mean that online reporting has an important role to play, but the value of face-to-face interaction with local police cannot be overstated. We need local neighbourhood policing in real life, not just online, and the Labour party is pushing for that. Neighbourhood policing and the role of PCSOs have never been more important. Police and place are intrinsically linked. When Labour was last in government, our policing reforms re-rooted British policing. We brought in neighbourhood policing teams all over England and Wales. We introduced the brilliant PCSOs, who are the eyes and ears of their communities. They provide vital intelligence and do a huge amount of preventive work. This Government have no plans to put more PCSOs back into communities.
A recent Police Foundation report found that, despite the Minister for Crime and Policing’s announcement on taking office that an extra 20,000 police officers would be recruited because people want to see more officers in their neighbourhoods, only 400 of the first tranche of 6,000 new recruits were deployed into neighbourhood roles—that is exactly the same number cut from the national PCSO cohort over the same period.
We want to ensure that in every neighbourhood, where people are frightened and afraid, there will a new police hub and neighbourhood prevention teams, bringing together police, community support officers, youth workers and local authority staff to tackle antisocial behaviour, as well as the perceived more serious crime that we have talked about. Where the graffiti starts, crime leads. That has to be tackled as a priority, as well as more serious crime.
Closures of police stations are sadly just one aspect of the attack on policing by Conservative Governments, which has culminated in a Britain characterised by increasing serious violence, antisocial behaviour at record levels tarnishing our streets, rape convictions at a record low, and violent crimes routinely going unresolved. Does the Minister agree with our overall argument that we need more police stations? What plans does he have to put them in place? Will he confirm whether the Budget contained any plans to increase the number of police stations? Does he agree with the public, who say that having a police station in their area makes them safer and prevents crime?
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
It is a great pleasure to appear before you, Ms Fovargue, I think for the first time. I am grateful to you for presiding over our proceedings. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing this important debate. I know that he recognises that I do not, as a number of Members have said, have much sway over the doings of police and crime commissioners or the devolved Governments.
I have no more ability to get the SNP Government to address the issue raised by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) than I have to get them to sort out the Edinburgh children’s hospital debacle. Indeed, I have less power than the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to deal with Croydon’s disastrous finances, controlled, of course, by the party of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). As far as London is concerned, the Mayor of London is in a much better position than me to make a decision about police stations in the capital, given that the mayoralty’s budget is significantly greater than the entire Home Office policing budget—approaching something like £19 billion.
I do recognise this issue and the important part that police stations play in people’s perceptions of safety in their local area. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset will agree that the police estate should not be set in aspic; there are buildings that are old and unsuitable, there are those that are in the wrong place and those that are inefficient or expensive to run. Often in the past we have found the police housed in Victorian buildings and custody suites that are not suitable for the modern day. Like all services—and like us in this glorious building in which we live—the police need to modernise their estate.
Very often that estate is not well disposed. When I became deputy Mayor for policing in London we inherited a chaotic estate of property across London. Dozens of buildings of all shapes and sizes that had accumulated over the decades—over two centuries of policing—meant that we often had, even here in Pimlico, two police stations that were broadly 10 minutes’ walk from each other, both fully operational with front counters. Therefore, some rationalisation, efficiency measures and decisions made locally about the best way to dispose of the police estate are obviously necessary. Quite rightly, that is the job of the locally elected police and crime commissioner, in conjunction with the operationally independent chief of police.
Having said that, I do recognise the role that police stations play in people’s sense of place. However, I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset said a couple of interesting and conflicting things in his speech. He said that he wanted police officers to mix more with the community, and that a police station would allow them to do that. He also said that he wanted to reopen police stations and get police back on the streets. Those two things may not necessarily achieve the same aim.
I will illustrate this to him with a story. Many years ago, when I was London Assembly member for West Central—which included Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham—we had a horrible murder in Shepherd’s Bush. It was a dreadful murder; we were fighting knife crime across the city at the time. The then borough commander, a chap called Kevin Hurley, a chief superintendent who went on to be police and crime commissioner in Surrey, held a public meeting that I attended. During the public meeting there was a row of people at the front who said that the problem is that Shepherd’s Bush police station is not open 24 hours a day. Kevin said, “I’ll tell you what, then—I will reopen Shepherd’s Bush police station 24 hours a day if you tell me which four police officers you want me to take off patrol to man the front desk?” At which point, everybody said, “No, no, no. We don’t want you to do that. We would rather they were out on the street.” Which is exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset wants. Kevin then said, “Maybe what we should do is leave the lights on so it looks like it is open 24 hours a day—would that be enough?” They all thought that was a fantastic idea.
This illustrates quite neatly what my hon. Friend is talking about, which is the importance of a sense of presence. A police station, historically, has said something about police presence in an area. However, I know that he does not want the police sitting in a police station for longer than is necessary—he wants them out on the street.
Richard Drax
My right hon. Friend is generous for allowing this intervention. What I am saying is that we need both. I quite accept that if they are manning the police station waiting for people to come in, they will not be on the streets. I want—and constituents want—both. That is the point. The point is about priorities, and I can think of many things that I would like to scrap to pay for it.
Kit Malthouse
I understand, but overall what we want is a greater sense of presence by whatever means it is delivered. I hope my hon. Friend will see that as we progress with the police uplift. We have announced today that we have now recruited more than 11,000 police officers across England and Wales—a gross recruitment of 23,000 police officers to backfill retirement, so we can do something to reinforce that sense of presence.
My hon. Friend is right that alongside that sense of presence we want officers that have an intimate knowledge of their local neighbourhood. A critical issue for us is the connection between the police and public that comes from the relationship that they have in their local neighbourhoods. We tried to address that in London all those years ago by insisting that police officers serving on neighbourhood teams spent at least three years on them, rather than a year or 18 months before moving on. That meant that they could develop good knowledge of the area and the kinds of relationships to provide the reinforcement that both my hon. Friend and I want to see.
My hon. Friend referenced the revolution wrought in New York by a former mayor and police chief. Rather than investing in bricks and mortar, they flushed lots of cops out of the police stations and on to the streets, to the extent that it was very hard to go 50 yards without seeing a police officer dealing with the type of crime mentioned by my hon. Friend. I hope we will see more and more of that as the number of police officers increases.
In order to get there, we need more resource. I hope my hon. Friend will have seen—I am surprised that the hon. Member for Croydon Central did not mention this—that today’s Budget gave policing a remarkably good settlement. The Chancellor has agreed to generously fund the continuation of the uplift, so that we will get to 20,000 police officers and then, critically, maintain that number. By the time we get to the end of the programme in 2024-25, there will be an additional £540 million for policing. We have also given greater flexibility to police and crime commissioners so that they can add up to £10 to the precept every year for the next three years, which should raise something approaching three quarters of a billion pounds for them to invest in policing.
As we grow and expand, all police and crime commissioners and chief constables will need to review their estates, making sure that they are properly disposed and in the right place and that they have the capacity to cope with the new police officers coming on board. As my hon. Friend said, the ability to base themselves locally is important, because we want to minimise travel time to and from their place of work.
Jamie Stone
I do not in any way contradict what the Minister is saying. I hope that it is all good stuff for a rural area of England such as South Dorset. Would he be good enough to share that expertise and approach with my colleagues north of the border?
Kit Malthouse
Well, much as I would love to go for world domination, my writ does not run to Scotland and my ideas are not always necessarily welcome there. I have to say, however, that we are working co-operatively with the Scottish Government on the issue of drugs, a problem from which the hon. Gentleman’s constituency suffers, as does all of Scotland. I made a very productive visit to Police Scotland a few months ago. I went to see them in their castle on the central belt and talked to them about what more work we can do together on drugs in particular. If he will forgive me, I will refrain from recommending the disposition of police stations in his constituency and leave that argument to him and his Scottish nationalist friends.
It is very important that police and crime commissioners and chief constables keep their property portfolio under review and expand it as required for operational requirements and for the size of their forces. It is critical that police officers are put in the right place with the right facilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset will remember that early on in the uplift programme, when we announced that 20,000 police officers were coming forward, there was hilarity in the media when I said that one of the biggest constraints might be locker space, because space would be needed for 20,000 lockers. Most of the officers, if not all of them, will be on the frontline, out on the streets, because they will be in their early years of service. However, that issue could represent a significant constraint, which is why we required a review of the property strategy for more police forces. I hope and believe that that will now happen, that as we move forward we will get the right property disposition, the right equipment that police officers need, the right accessibility for everybody to report crime and interact with police officers in any way they want, and that we will generally improve people’s sense and perception of safety in the public realm.
Finally, I want to raise the issue that my hon. Friend neatly portrayed in that age-old phrase, “bobbies on the beat”. He is right that there is a basic expectation from the British people that they will see police officers patrolling their streets and keeping people safe. He will be interested to know that a few months ago, we launched a “grip” programme where we put £18 million into police officers identifying where violence occurs in 18 areas of the country, with a sharp geographic focus. Violence is quite sticky and can often be confined to quite small areas. The police officers should visit those hotspots on a regular and, critically, a randomised basis, making sure that they know where they are. They have a little GPS locator that they can go in and out of, so that they know when to go there and when they have to leave. They only have to be there for 15 minutes or so: park the car somewhere high profile, walk around, talk to people, interact with local residents and shops, and then move on to the next hotspot.
My hon. Friend will be interested to know that some of the early results are showing enormous falls in violence. In Southend we saw a fall of over 70% in violence, and in Bedfordshire there was a fall of 44%. I hope that this approach, which used to be called hotspot policing or cops on dots, will help us know where crime occurs, when it will occur and sometimes by who and that if a police officer is there at the right place and time, we can deter crime.
I hope that the programme of grip policing will be so successful that it becomes business as usual, and we can return to the style of policing that my hon. Friend harked back to, which is one that is plugged into a local community, that is visible on the streets and, critically, that is effective in driving down crime. Whether that involves a police station, more police officers, or a certain style of policing, that has to be our objective, but our fundamental requirement is that crime falls significantly. I know that he and I are joined in that mission, and I will do what I can to support him.
Richard Drax
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. As I said at the start of my speech, I have nothing but praise for him, his Department and Dorset police—all of whom do a wonderful job. From Dorset’s perspective, I am concerned by the rationalisation or the centralisation where there is a temptation to have large centres that are manned and out of which officers and others go. My concern is that it detaches the officer from the area that they have to police.
As my right hon. Friend knows, Dorset is a huge county with a huge police requirement in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole to the east, as well as in the west in Weymouth. There are thousands of acres in Dorset where we hardly see a policeman through no fault of theirs, but they do not have the resources. I hope that the rationalisation does not go as far as saying that to do that effectively, we only have one police station in, say, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, rather than three or four well-positioned modern police stations. I understand that they cannot have old buildings, and nor do we want two police stations on top of each other.
To return to the point I have just made, a police station houses police officers. While I quite accept the example that my right hon. Friend gave, what if there were four officers manning that police station 24 hours a day? One of the common complaints from officers—I am sure this is true of officers across the country, too—is that when they arrest someone, they are off the streets: they go in the van and disappear. If they are dealing with a rowdy night in Weymouth—and there are a few of those—that means two or three officers gone, leaving their colleagues exposed. But if they could go back and hand those they have arrested over to the four officers at the local station, where there is a custody suite, they could then get straight back on the streets and do their job, which fulfils all requirements.
To end, I reiterate that I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know that he is absolutely in line with us and joined at the hip. I also know that he is restricted due to a lack of funds. That is an issue—I get that—and I know that he will continue to fight for more funds. I hope that I have not given the old-fashioned luddite view of policing. I did not mean that in the sense that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) interpreted. What I meant was that we need officers on the beat who are visible to the public to reassure them, catch criminals and deter crime—
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
Order.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Dame Carol Black’s Independent Review of Drugs Report
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Dame Carol Black’s independent review of drugs report.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The damning conclusion of part two of Dame Carol Black’s review, setting out a way forward on drug treatment and recovery, was that
“the public provision we currently have for prevention, treatment and recovery is not fit for purpose, and urgently needs repair.”
I have called today’s debate because the report’s recommendations are too important to be left gathering dust on ministerial bookshelves. I want Dame Carol’s words ringing in ministerial ears. She says:
“Government faces an unavoidable choice: invest in tackling the problem or keep paying for the consequences. A whole-system approach is needed…This part of my review offers concrete proposals, deliverable within this Parliament, to achieve this.”
Of the review, Dame Carol says:
“It calls for significant investment, but the payoff is handsome: currently each £1 spent on treatment will save £4 from reduced demands on health, prison, law enforcement and emergency services. I am hopeful that the recommendations will be welcomed by this government as they strongly support its crime reduction and ‘levelling up’ agendas.”
The 32 recommendations are a gift to the Government, and should be a moment for change. It is fitting that the debate falls on Budget day. The economic cost of drug misuse is upwards of £20 billion each year; yet the spending on prevention and treatment stands at just £650 million. The recommendations give hope that real change is possible. Addiction is a national crisis. Drug and alcohol-related deaths are the highest on record, at the very moment that treatment services are most ill-equipped to deal with the soaring need.
Forward Trust estimates that more than 2 million people are in need of help with alcohol, drugs or gambling, and its recent YouGov poll showed that 64% of people said that they knew someone personally struggling with addiction. Since I talked openly about my personal experience of addiction and recovery, I have been over- whelmed by the thousands of people who have reached out to tell me their personal stories—of the horror of addiction, and the blessings of recovery. The tragedy is that addiction is everywhere, yet remains so hidden.
In 2019 Dame Carol was commissioned by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), to independently review illicit drugs in England. I thank her for her commitment and dedication over the last few years, and all those who contributed to this groundbreaking report. Most of all, I hope that my contribution today does justice to the absolute clarity that Dame Carol brings to these incredibly complex matters. Part one of her review was published on 27 February, and made for uncomfortable reading. The unflinching analysis detailed the extent of drug-related harm and the challenges posed by drug supply and demand, including the ways in which drugs fuel serious violence.
The Department of Health and Social Care swiftly commissioned Dame Carol to produce part two of her independent review, which focused on how to improve the funding, commissioning, quality and accountability of drug prevention, treatment and recovery services in England. Part two of her report, published in July, pulls no punches either. It says:
“Funding cuts have left treatment and recovery services on their knees. Commissioning has been fragmented, with little accountability for outcomes. And partnerships between local authorities, health, housing, employment support and criminal justice agencies have deteriorated.”
The report goes on:
“The workforce is depleted, especially of professionally qualified people, and demoralised. Vital services have been cut back, particularly inpatient detoxification, residential rehabilitation, specialist services for young people, and treatment for cannabis and stimulant users.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for bringing this issue to Westminster Hall for debate and discussion. Does he agree that more should be done to ensure that alcoholism in particular is treated urgently, along with drugs, and that help needs to be given to families for rehabilitation, which he has referred to, not in a punitive fashion, which is how some would like to do it, but instead to help to draw people away from their addiction? That has to be done in such a way that people wish to get away from their addiction and try to move forward.
Dan Carden
Absolutely. That is a valuable intervention, and it is good that we have a Health Minister responding to this debate, because it is a health response, joined up across Government, that this issue calls for.
Part two of the report goes on:
“Areas of the country with the highest rates of drug deaths or the poorest treatment services are the very same areas where the need to level up is greatest. These communities want to see urgent and effective action to tackle the violent drugs market, alongside purposeful efforts to rebuild treatment services and recovery support so that people can get the help they need.”
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I very much endorse and support the recommendations of Dame Carol Black’s review. However, I have heard her present these reports, and she has been very clear that the framework that she was given—the parameters that she was allowed to look at—deliberately excluded any review of the legislation that frames this whole matter. Given that this is a unique health pandemic—because the victims of it are liable to criminal prosecution if they seek help, and many who would seek to help them would be liable to criminal prosecution if they tried to do so—is it not time for the Government to begin a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, to ensure a more up-to-date legal framework to deal with these problems? Would that not assist in the implementation of Dame Carol Black’s recommendations?
Dan Carden
The hon. Member makes an important point, although it is one that I will not get drawn into today.
A month after part two was published, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that drug-related deaths had hit an all-time high in England and Wales—the highest number of deaths since records began. Drug deaths have risen 60% in the last decade. In 2020, 4,561 people lost their lives to drugs. Each life lost represents years of pain and suffering; each life lost leaves a family devasted and shattered irreversibly; each life lost is evidence of a missed treatment opportunity; and, most importantly for us today, it is important to accept that each life lost is a failure of policy, too.
I want to make special mention of the stigma that surrounds addiction. Someone who finds themselves dependent on a substance deserves the evidence-based health treatment and support that works, yet stereotyping and prejudice remain all too common in our approach to addiction. It was disappointing to see the Government’s response to the review referring to addiction as a “scourge on society”. The dehumanisation of people who become drug-dependent feeds into the stigma that we must eradicate, so we must steer the discussion, the policies and the treatment towards a compassionate and person-centred health response.
Last week I joined the Forward Trust at the launch of its “Taking action on addiction” campaign, which aims to improve public understanding of addiction as a erious, chronic mental health condition. The Duchess of Cambridge, patron of the Forward Trust, spoke there. I want to quote her at length:
“Addiction is not a choice. No one chooses to become an addict. But it can happen to any one of us. None of us are immune. Yet it’s all too rarely discussed as a serious mental health condition. And seldom do we take the time to uncover and fully understand its fundamental root causes.
“The journey towards addiction is often multi-layered and complex. But, by recognising what lies beneath addiction, we can help remove the taboo and shame that sadly surrounds it. As a society, we need to start from a position of compassion and empathy.”
As many as 80% of the public support more treatment and care for people struggling with addiction; less than 10% believe more punishment and condemnation would help. Intolerance, shaming, tougher punishments and denial will not rid society of addiction, because addiction is an illness. It is a matter of public health, and Dame Carol puts it best when she says,
“It must be recognised that addiction is a chronic mental health condition, and like diabetes, hypertension or rheumatoid arthritis, it will require long-term follow-up.”
Sadly, as things stand, I cannot think of another illness that causes so much harm to society, that is given so little, and the sufferers of which are treated with such contempt. It is the only illness in which blame is placed on the person suffering. Instead of blaming the individual for making bad choices, we need to ask why so many people are turning to substances in the first place.
Now to the prevention, treatment and recovery system as it stands: not fit for purpose, in urgent need of repair, years of austerity, continued disinvestment, fragmentation and a dire lack of accountability throughout. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 shifted addiction treatment out of the NHS mental health services on to local authorities, at the same time as their budgets were being slashed. On that matter, Dame Carol is clear:
“We recommend that funding for drug treatment be allocated to local authorities based on a needs assessment and then protected.”
We also urgently need to improve the situation for people suffering co-occurring mental ill health and drug or alcohol dependency. Too many people are being bounced between fragmented services and end up falling between the cracks. It is simply wrong that mental health services can require patients to reduce their alcohol or drug use, without providing the proper support to do so, before they can receive the treatment they need. Or that drug and alcohol services do not possess the competencies to support someone with significant mental health issues, thereby often leaving sufferers with no support whatsoever.
There must be a “no wrong door” policy. One young woman, whom I will call Jane, told me:
“It was as if I had to get more ill, drink and use more, until I got the right help and support. For 18 months, my mental health deteriorated. Mental health services couldn’t help me and addiction services struggled to support me because of my poor mental health. I was so frightened, I had to reach crisis point and rock bottom before I was able to be considered for residential treatment.”
Jane is now in recovery and leading a happy, healthy life, but she did not receive public funding. In fact, she was denied that. If it had not been for a chance meeting with Action On Addiction, which provided her with a bursary-funded bed, she would not be alive today. It should simply not fall to charities to catch the increasing numbers of people falling through the threadbare safety net. Access to treatment should not be about luck, only available to those who can afford it or those who live in a local authority that prioritises it.
Currently, the drugs treatment market operates in a similar way to that of adult social care. Providers are being squeezed and staff poorly paid. There is high turnover in the workforce and a depletion of skills. The number of medics, psychologists, nurses and social workers in the field is falling significantly.
It is time to repair that broken system and overhaul addiction treatment, and we have the road map for the future—the 32 recommendations of Dame Carol Black’s independent review of drugs. The scope of the recommendations is far-reaching and the solutions span many Government Departments, local government and other organisations.
Dame Carol’s review has pursued three main objectives: first, to increase the proportion of people misusing drugs who can access treatment and recovery support, including more young people, with earlier interventions to divert offenders away from the criminal justice system; secondly, to ensure that the treatment and recovery package offered is of high quality and includes evidence-based drug treatment, mental health and physical interventions, and employment and housing support; and thirdly, to reduce the demand for drugs and prevent problematic drug use, including use by vulnerable and minority groups and recreational drug users.
To achieve those objectives, significant changes need to be made in four areas: radical reform of leadership funding and commissioning; rebuilding of services; increased focus on prevention and early intervention; and improvements to research and how science informs policy, commissioning and practice. And the 32 recommendations cover a wide range of responsibilities.
The Government have already begun to set in motion some of the structural changes, which I welcome, and the policy commitments that will help to drive through the review’s recommendations. It is reassuring that Dame Carol herself will continue to act as an independent adviser to Government. However, the remaining recommendations are contingent on Government investment.
In January 2021, the Government announced £148 million of new money to cut crime and protect people from the harms caused by illegal drugs, which I also welcome, with £80 million of that money to be invested in treatment and recovery. That £148 million must be the first instalment of the £1.78 billion that Dame Carol has called for over the next five years and I hope that the Minister has come with hot-off-the-press Budget commitments. Dame Carol’s spending recommendation would restore addiction treatment to what it was before 2012. Although local authorities are well positioned to oversee services, drastic cuts to public health grants have led to cuts to addiction treatment services over many years. The Local Government Association has long argued that reductions to the councils’ public health grant, which is used to fund drug and alcohol prevention and treatment services, is a false economy, which will only compound acute pressures for criminal justice and NHS services further down the line.
I must stress to the Minister that if the Treasury is unable to find all the funding that the review calls for, the money it does find must not be thinly spread across the country. Instead, it should be targeted at those areas most in need, and efforts must be made at least to pilot the whole-systems approach that Dame Carol has called for. Small amounts of money given to each local authority will not bring about the long-term transformational change that the review demands.
There has simply never been the political will to act on prevention, treatment and recovery from drug and alcohol harm, but we have reached a crisis point, with record deaths, rising economic and social harms, and depleted treatment services. Dame Carol’s groundbreaking review, which was commissioned by this Government, is the moment for change, and the Government cannot meet their pledges to level up the deprived communities that they seek to represent, which are often found in the north, unless they recognise that. In the words of Dame Carol herself:
“The Government must either invest in tackling the problem or keep paying for the consequences.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
A number of Members are waiting to speak. I am not imposing a formal time limit, but please keep contributions to four minutes or others will lose out. I call Rachael Maskell.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing today’s debate, and I thank Dame Carol Black for putting forward such strong recommendations: 32 in all that must be adopted in full.
Some 3 million people have used drugs in the last year—an indicator of why the issue is so urgent. As we have heard, in the last year 4,561 people have lost their lives, including a young boy in my constituency. That brings it home how important it is to tackle the issue and move it into a public health framework. We know that it preys on people whose lives have been afflicted with trauma and many complex needs, but it can also be indiscriminate. That path is not inevitable. Things can change, and the report describes a pathway for bringing about change.
I was struck by the call for a change in governance and ensuring that there is a central drugs unit. That should be a priority for No. 10 and a sub-committee of the Cabinet in order to bring together Government Departments to bring the laser-like focus that is needed. When money, time and people are focused, it can shift agendas. We need leadership. We need to build an evidence base and to invest in research on the best treatments and early intervention. If we take a half-hearted approach, we will not shift the dial. That is why the Minister should step up and make it possible to bring about change.
We need to see diversion as well so that people are not sucked into the criminal justice system, but brought out of it through diversion and ensuring that, for instance, young people are not arrested but pushed down the line of education, giving them a pathway out into apprenticeships and work, and giving them the chances in life that they have never had. We need to invest in and mentor young people so that their future goes a different way. Many of the people dealing drugs are being exploited by criminal gangs, and they too deserve a future that is very different from the paths that they are on.
We need investment in treatment, as has been articulated, not only for mental health but for physical health as well. We need to build stability, too, with a housing first approach so that people have a house. When people leave the criminal justice system, they need a house, a treatment plan, a bank account, and also a job to move into if that is appropriate. We should look at the person and not just the issue.
We need to go further, so I urge the Minister to look at how we can create drug consumption rooms where people can engage with services, while recognising that it will take people six or seven attempts on average to move out of a life on drugs. Also, I want the Minister to look into heroin-assisted treatment so that we can take a different approach to break the cycle of substance misuse. There is a real opportunity ahead of us, and I trust the Minister will step up and deliver.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this debate, on his courageous and dedicated approach, and on setting out so clearly the context of Dame Carol Black’s independent review. As he said, the whole point of commissioning reviews from independent experts is to provide a way forward, and not for them to simply sit on the shelf as the completion of a process when they should be the start of it. Precisely because they have been independent, they provide grounds for cross-party consensus that all of us, from all parties, can get behind. I hope that that comes out strongly from the debate today and in what we hear in response from the Minister.
It is not a secret that drug deaths in Scotland are unacceptably high and among the worst in Europe. I would imagine that most Scottish Members of Parliament will have come into contact with someone affected by, or connected to a death, whether that is a constituent or their family, a minister—some ministers in Glasgow have to conduct services far too frequently—or indeed through their own friends or family. Certainly, I have had all three of those experiences. Every death is a tragedy.
The First Minister has admitted that more should have been done, and that more needs to be done going forward. For me, that must include the adoption of the recommendations made by Dame Carol Black. It must include the kind of responses that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) spoke about as regards reform of the Misuse of Drugs Act—clearly, after 50 years, a piece of legislation that is well past its sell-by date. It is clearly not doing what it was originally intended to achieve.
I welcome the steps that the Scottish Government have taken so far, in the additional funding they have announced—£250 million over the next five years to be spent in a range of different responses. They continue to look at some of the things that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke about, such as prevention facilities or drug consumption rooms—depending on what we want to call them—and heroin-assisted treatment facilities. They are not quite within the devolved powers, but the Scottish Government will do what they can. Ideally, the UK Government will give them the powers if they are not willing to legislate in those areas.
Finally, I want to reflect on the recovery strand. The amazing charity Faces and Voices of Recovery UK, run by Anne Marie Ward, is based in my constituency. In 2018, it launched a charter, a declaration of recovery rights for people seeking to recover from drug and alcohol addiction. That declaration, and the early-day motion that I tabled at the time to support it, was signed by many Members of this House, on a cross-party basis. It was compiled after a year of consultations across the UK into what the charity identified, even then, as a drug death crisis.
The declaration states that all people in recovery have a right to recover from addiction, if they find themselves in that situation. It seeks to build communities of recovery and pledges that people who are current or former substance users should be able to live their lives free from stigma, with access to quality care, meaningful political representation—which is a duty on us all—and well-informed choice, and touches on a range of other important aspects.
It has support from a wide range of organisations, including the Scottish Drugs Forum, Alcohol Change UK, the Scottish Recovery Consortium, the National Association for Children of Alcoholics, and so on. It is based on the underlying principle that people in recovery have a right to respect and dignity, and to live free from stigma and discrimination. If the Minister is not familiar with that document, I am very happy to send her a copy, and I very much hope that she will familiarise herself with it and adopt its principles as part of the Government’s response to Dame Carol’s report.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing today’s debate. His campaigning on the issue has been excellent, and I am pleased to support the points he has raised. I refer to my entry in the register of interests, as I speak as a vice president of the Local Government Association.
We know that drug misuse has had a devastating impact on UK society, costing over £19 billion per year. Drug-related deaths have risen by 80% since 2012, and we are still seeing worrying rises in young people reporting early onset addiction. The latest LGA estimates suggest that around 200,000 people are receiving help for substance misuse, and another 100,000 are not receiving support. Addiction must be seen as a chronic health condition. Like other conditions, it requires long-term follow up. Trauma and mental ill health are identified as key drivers and an accompaniment to much addiction. They are comorbidities, rather than separate problems.
Tackling the problem requires a holistic multi-agency approach, with Government Departments working together to invest in and improve treatment, employment, housing support, and the way people with addictions are treated in the criminal justice system. However, access to addiction treatment and recovery is now a postcode lottery. More than half of state-funded residential addiction rehabilitation centres in the UK have closed in the last eight years, and the capacity of prison recovery programmes has reduced by over 60% in the same period. In some local authorities, funding for addiction services has been cut by more than 40%.
Since 2014-15, the Government have presided over a real-terms cut of £700 million to local councils’ public health funding, and single-year settlements and the late allocation of budgets have created unnecessary uncertainty. The LGA has long argued that reductions to councils’ public health grant, which is used to fund drug and alcohol prevention and treatment services, are a false economy that will only compound acute pressures for criminal justice and NHS services further down the line.
The Government are also failing to facilitate early intervention to divert young people away from drugs and crime, which is an issue raised by many of my constituents. Under the Tories, spending on young people’s services has been cut by 73%. Some 900 youth centres have been closed, and 4,500 youth worker jobs have been cut. Although today’s Budget announcements are welcome, it is obvious that the Government have reflected that much of this was a mistake.
For every £1 spent on addiction treatment, the Exchequer saves at least £3 in crime, health and benefit expenditure, and for every £1 spend on family intervention services, the Exchequer can generate £2.76 in savings. The public provision for prevention, treatment and recovery needs urgent repair, with the impact of the pandemic meaning that the problem will almost certainly get worse and act as a major barrier to levelling up.
To build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has already said, I hope the Government will commit to take steps to adopt Dame Carol Black’s recommendations to properly fund and resource addiction recovery services and, importantly, cross-Departmental liaison. I hope the Minister understands why last week I asked when she had spoken to the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Public Health to discuss covid, addiction and other important issues, because they are so cross-cutting. I look forward to her response.
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
I will be calling the SNP spokesperson at 5.10 pm.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
It is great to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on his bravery and on securing the debate.
I very much welcome the review by Dame Carol Black, but I note with great sadness her stark observation that Governments have de-prioritised these problems—from drugs entering the country, right through to helping drug users access appropriate treatment and achieve recovery. It is that second aim on which I will concentrate my brief remarks because, sadly, Office for National Statistics data show that the north-east is the worst area in the country for drug-related deaths. That makes it all the more important that programmes to address addiction as a health and public protection issue are successful. Accordingly, I was delighted in 2019 that the then Labour police and crime commissioner for Cleveland, Barry Coppinger, provided the essential funding, derived from the proceeds of crime, for the heroin-assisted treatment programme based in my Middlesbrough constituency—the first and only one of its kind in the UK.
This is undoubtedly a hard road, but there is no doubt that the programme has been immensely successful. The first cohort accepted on to the scheme were 14 of the most at-risk individuals in Middlesbrough, who caused the most concern to the criminal justice agencies and the health and social care services. Some had been using street heroin for over 20 years, and all other treatment had failed. Whereas six of them had committed 541 detected crimes before the scheme, with an estimated cost to victims and the public purse of £2.1 million, their combined crimes fell to three lower-level offences after starting their treatment.
In all cases, the individuals concerned either completed their probation or showed improved compliance with a probation order, and there was a 98% attendance rate at the twice-daily sessions, which continued through covid and lockdowns. None of the participants went back to sleeping on the streets, their use of illicit substances declined markedly, and their mental wellbeing improved. I am delighted that the clinical lead on the programme, Danny Ahmed, has been in Parliament today, and I pay great tribute to the superb work that he and his colleagues have done in showing the country the way to address this most complex of issues.
In closing, I would also like to pay tribute to the courageous stance taken by the chief constable of Cleveland, Richard Lewis, in his recent article in The Guardian where he said amongst other things that,
“The heroin-assisted treatment programme offers hope, if scaled up on a national level, that demand for heroin can be cut. When the state offers a meaningful alternative to the street drugs that can be bought from organised crime groups, the demand for them decreases.”
Finally, he said that the programme in Middlesbrough
“could possibly represent the beginning of the end for the ‘war on drugs’ that has already taken too many lives.”
I wholeheartedly agree, and I trust that the Government will take on board each and every one of the 32 recommendations that Dame Carol Black makes.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing the debate, and on the way that he spoke with great knowledge and passion. I declare my interest as co-chair of the drugs, alcohol and justice cross-party parliamentary group. In that capacity it was my privilege to introduce Professor Dame Carol Black to address our group the week after she published her report. My co-chair, Lord Ramsbotham, has repeatedly asked in the other place when the Government will establish the long-awaited royal commission on the criminal justice system. I hope the Minister may have some news on that for us.
Dame Carol’s report recommended earlier interventions for offenders to divert them away from the criminal justice system, particularly prison. Providing people with pathways into treatment, rather than into the criminal justice system, seems an eminently sensible approach because, as Dame Carol observed:
“Rarely are prison sentences a restorative experience.”
Over a third of prison places in England and Wales are taken up because of drug-related offences.
I pay tribute to the pioneering work of the late Ron Hogg, who, as Durham’s police and crime commissioner, introduced a successful checkpoint scheme. We have since heard of other excellent diversion schemes, such as those developed in the West Midlands and in Thames Valley—we desperately need more like them. I am glad that Ron’s successor, Joy Allen, along with Dorset PCC Dave Sidwick, is leading the PCCs’ work on addiction. I am sure the Minister will join me in welcoming their dedication to helping people towards a safer and healthier future.
Dame Carol understands that addiction is a chronic health condition, arising as people try to cope with trauma and other issues. Her report rightly condemned the current situation as intolerable. Drug-related deaths are at record levels, the impact of drug-related harms in many places is getting worse and the worst affected areas are those with greatest deprivation. I am sad to say that the highest rate of drug misuse deaths in 2020 was once again in the north-east, which according to the ONS has had the highest rate of drug misuse for the past eight years, with a significantly higher rate than other regions of England and over three times the rate of London.
We know drug treatment has seen years of disinvestment. Some services have seen budgets nearly halved as funding has been redirected to other local government priorities. There has been an absence of political leadership and financial commitment to address the concerns of the sector, with very clear and obvious consequences. A range of treatment providers welcome Dame Carol’s review, fully endorse her recommendations for a whole system approach and told our group they were keen to seize this unique opportunity to rebuild and renew our treatment and recovery system. Jon Murray, an executive director at With You told us:
“This review represents a potentially defining moment in the course of drug treatment in the UK.”
Yasmin Batliwala, chair of the Westminster Drug Project said:
“This report has the potential to be a game changer!”
Karen Tyrell, executive director at Humankind added:
“Dame Carol Black has provided the map needed to get the sector back on course and we urge the government to employ their moral compass, invest accordingly and help us turn this ship around.”
For far too long, piecemeal investment through path- finders and pilot schemes failed to provide the stability for providers to develop the long-term plans, and recruit and retain the high-quality staff, that are needed to meet the ambitions laid out in the review. As recommended, ringfenced funding is essential for the sector to build and maintain a resilient support system for the hundreds of thousands of people who so desperately need and deserve those services. I sincerely hope that the Government will act on all of Dame Carol’s recommendations.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Thank you for allowing me time to speak, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing the debate.
Having read Dame Carol Black’s “Review of drugs part two” several times now and having listened to her present and answer questions on the report, I find myself increasingly frustrated, not with Dame Carol Black, but within myself. The inadequacies of the existing system are laid bare for all to see in the report. Crucial areas that must be addressed are explained and, as we have heard, 32 recommendations are detailed. Drug treatment, recovery support, funding, commissioning, diversion, employment, housing, mental and physical health, prevention, intervention and research—the report has recommendations on them all. It is right and proper that we tackle drug policy in that way. Patching will not do; we need reform on a grand scale, put into the hands of the people best placed to make it effective.
For too long, drugs have been designated as a matter for the judicial system, and our health services have been left to pick up the pieces. The report puts health at the heart of the solution and should be commended for doing so. However, apart from making recommendations, there is nothing that the report or I can do. That is the cause of my frustration. Dame Carol Black is absolutely clear that if the UK Government start to pick and choose which of her 32 recommendations to implement, it will not work. I applaud her for saying that. Too often we make do and mend with policies that have been ripped up and rewritten.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is a case in point. For 50 years, it has made the situation worse, but to expect the UK Government to have a sudden blinding flash of understanding and compassion would be naive. They will not implement many of the recommendations; they will pick a few, dress up a few others, pay lip service to some and ignore the rest. I say that with confidence and a heavy heart: confidence, because the UK Government just do not get the issue of drug addiction and harm—while the administration of the area continues to be held in the Home Office, the situation will not improve—and a heavy heart, because as people in the drug rehabilitation community keep telling me, “You keep on talking and we keep on dying.”
That is not Dame Carol Black’s fault. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) mentioned, Dame Carol’s remit was deliberately precise. She was not allowed to recommend any new legislation, which in effect neuters her report. How can she be expected to identify improvements for a system that is tied up and gagged by the law if she cannot suggest some changes to the law? Dame Carol Black, however, had a good go at that by recommending a new structure for the mechanics of government which, if it were allowed to function, could within itself produce the required legislation. I am sure that Dame Carol Black would be happy with the outcome: she feeds in all the good ideas and the UK Government put them through a mincer, come up with a solution that she proposed, and implement it, taking the credit.
To be honest, I would be more than happy if that happened, but I just cannot see it, because one recommendation is the creation of a new central drugs unit. According to the report, that unit should be placed
“in whatever department or joint arrangement seems appropriate”.
Unless that Department is the Department of Health and Social Care, it is a non-starter.
The intransigence of the Home Office has been a feature of this UK Government, and I cannot see that changing any day now. I expect warm words for Dame Carol Black’s report, which could be seen as progress, but I do not expect that the UK Government will do anything other than launch inquiries, form committees, divert responsibility and talk about budgets and constraint. However, I am pleased that we have a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Care present, because historically the UK Home Office is where good ideas go to die.
At the start of Dame Carol Black’s report, as has been said already in the debate, but it is worth repeating— I love this quote—she states:
“Government faces an unavoidable choice: invest in tackling the problem or keep paying for the consequences. A whole-system approach is needed”.
She is absolutely correct. I say to the Minister, go on: agree to all 32 recommendations, fund them and put the power of implementation into the appropriate Departments, proving me 100% wrong—please.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I commend all hon. Members who have spoken, with great insight and authority. They made many serious points, which I hope the Minister will respond to.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), for not only his superb presentation of the issues in the Black report but for the way in which he spoke with great eloquence and bravery about his personal story of addiction. I am not ashamed to say that it moved me to tears. I, too, have spoken about how addiction has affected my family and what it meant for me as a child growing up with a father who had a serious drink problem. I know that thousands of people who are, struggling with addiction, or see a loved one doing so, will have heard my hon. Friend’s speech. Although they may never get in touch with or meet him, his speech will have been a tremendous comfort to them, and we should all thank him for his bravery.
I will focus on the addiction crisis that we face as a country. I commend Dame Carol on her excellent report. Her 32 recommendations should be taken forward by the Government, and we need to hear from the Minister exactly what their attitude is to them. I offer to work with her on a cross-party basis on this public health crisis. In the last year, more than 7,000 people in England and Wales have died from alcohol-related causes. Alcohol-related liver disease is increasing. More and more people are dying from drug poisoning across England and Wales. There are, of course, particular issues in Scotland, which Members who represent Scottish constituencies rightly raised.
We are at risk of our society falling into a situation where deaths among those in their 40s and 50s are increasingly either the result of suicide or are drug or alcohol-related. They are called deaths of despair. For quite some time, this been a well known and tragic phenomenon in the United States, and we are at risk of seeing it become a feature here in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton is right that addiction is a national crisis, and spot on when he says that it is everywhere but well hidden.
We are having this debate on the day the Chancellor has presented his Budget, but even though this is a public health crisis, and we are still experiencing another public health crisis, public health did not feature in the Budget. As a number of Members have quoted, Dame Carol says:
“Government faces an unavoidable choice: invest in tackling the problem or keep paying for the consequences.”
The Chancellor ducked that choice today, and public health did not get the substantial increase in funding that it needs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) said, the Budget comes after real-terms cuts in recent years of £800 million to £1 billion, depending on how we calculate the figures. Those real-term cuts mean that drug and alcohol addiction services have lost £122 million in recent years—a 15% cut.
The Health Secretary likes to use Blackpool as an example of why we need to level up, pointing out the stalling life expectancy there. Blackpool, which has the highest mortality rate in the country for alcohol-related deaths and has the thirteenth highest number of deaths from drug poisoning, has had a £43 per person cut to public health funding in recent years. Manchester, which had the fifth highest number of deaths from drug poisoning in 2020, has had a £33 cut per person in public health funding in recent years. In 2020, Liverpool had the joint highest number of deaths from drug poisoning, with 89 people losing their lives, yet the city has had a £34 per person real-terms cut in public health funding. We look forward to the Minister telling us how local authority drug and alcohol addiction services are expected to cope if the cuts are not reversed—
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid I have to call the Minister.
Jonathan Ashworth
Will the Minister respond on the public health cuts? When will we see the investment in drug and alcohol addiction services that Dame Carol Black’s report calls for?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this extremely important debate. I pay tribute to all his work on addiction and his openness regarding his personal experience in previous debates. As the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said, he brought many of us to tears. No doubt his example will serve as inspiration for others to take that crucial first step of coming forward to ask for help.
I thank all those working in the drug and alcohol addiction sector, particularly during the pandemic. I commend the work they do to help people through periods of their lives that are exceptionally difficult, often through no fault of their own. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, the drug and alcohol addiction sector faces challenges. There is no hiding from it. Drug misuse deaths in England have been on the rise for many years and are currently the highest on record. That is true across most of the United Kingdom. Our neighbours are all grappling with this devastating issue, particularly Scotland, where deaths rates are the highest in Europe, as hon. Members have highlighted.
Drugs destroy lives, ruin families and tear apart communities. That is why in February 2019 the Home Secretary appointed Dame Carol Black to undertake an independent review of drugs. Part one was published on 27 February 2020, during the Government’s UK-wide drugs summit in Glasgow. It provided a detailed analysis of the challenges posed by drug supply and demand, including the first detailed analysis of the drugs market and the ways drugs fuel serious violence. After being commissioned by the Health Secretary, part two of Dame Carol Black’s independent review of drugs was published earlier this year, on 8 July. As hon. Members have highlighted, Dame Carol made it clear that tackling drug addiction needs to be more health focused. I am committed to making it so. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that now is the moment for change.
I would like to talk about the substantial action the Government have already taken and our commitment to go much further. Dame Carol has been a fantastic champion for better treatment and recovery services. I am very pleased she will be working closely with the Government as an independent advisor, holding us to account each step of the way and providing advice on how we can make real change. We are already making improvements to treatment and recovery through the £148 million crime package announced in January this year. Of that, £80 million has been allocated to local authorities for drug treatment and recovery services. This is the largest increase in drug treatment funding for 15 years, and it is already making a difference.
That funding allocation is being focused on increasing the number of treatment places for drug users in contact with the criminal justice system, diverting people away from custody and into treatment services and, crucially, making sure that we get more people into treatment after they are released from prison. It is also being used to fund additional in-patient detox beds, further residential rehabilitation places and the life-saving overdose medication naloxone. The additional treatment places are most needed, and they will benefit people with alcohol dependency as well as drug dependency.
The Government published our initial response to the findings of part one and part two of Dame Carol’s independent review on drugs on 27 July 2021. The response did not hold back in setting out our clear cross-Government commitment to this agenda and to taking effective action, given the urgency of addressing these issues. We committed to responding to Dame Carol’s review in full by the end of this year, and to set out a long-term drug strategy. That is exactly what we will do. I would like to reassure hon. Members that Dame Carol’s review will definitely not sit on the shelf.
As Dame Carol points out, we must work across the whole of Government to combat drug misuse and drive down drug supply and demand. That approach is absolutely key. That is why, in July this year, we established a new joint combating drugs unit, whose mission is to co-ordinate and drive a genuinely whole-of-Government approach to drug policy. The joint unit is already bringing together multiple Government Departments to tackle the problem across society. I am pleased that a number of staff from my Department have joined the unit, again ensuring that there is a health focus and that health lies at the heart of analysis and decision making.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I want the Minister to take up the offer to work together made by the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), and to work with colleagues such as me who take a specialist interest in this area. This should not be used as a political football in any circumstances. The crisis is too great and all of us stand ready to try to help her and her colleagues to deliver improvement in this area.
Maggie Throup
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right that this is too important an issue to become partisan over, and I completely accept the offer from the Opposition spokesman of joint working on this. We are all passionate about this important issue and we need to make sure that we get this right for individuals who can really benefit.
I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton for securing a debate on such an important issue. This Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that everyone with a drug problem can access the help and support that they need. He stated that support must always be compassionate and person-centred, and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted that the way forward is to have an individual-centred approach. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach. Our long-term plan will be set out in detail in our cross-Government drugs strategy, which will be published later this year.
We understand that there is still a lot of work to do. There are also huge challenges across the drug and alcohol sector. This cannot be fixed overnight and we cannot do it without the help of every single local authority in the country, as well as through truly collaborative cross-Government and cross-party work involving the NHS. As a number of hon. Members have mentioned, the voluntary sector plays an important part, too. I put on record my thanks to everybody who is making a huge difference, whether that is at a statutory or a voluntary level, to so many people’s lives and to their futures. I genuinely believe that by working together, we can make a huge difference, and I look forward to that in the future.
Dan Carden
I thank the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members for their kind comments, particularly, the Opposition spokesperson, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). I will hold the Government to account on this issue. I want to see regular reports back. I want to see how the Government intend to implement Dame Carol’s 32 recommendations. I share the cross-party spirit that has been expressed on this matter, because in the end, this is about families and people up and down this country who, when things go wrong with addiction and with drug and alcohol problems, lose loved ones, always in the most dramatic and unfortunate circumstances. I welcome the Minister’s comments and look forward to holding the Government to account on this in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Dame Carol Black’s independent review of drugs report.
Written Statements
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Fuel Supply: Fees for Military Drivers
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
The Secretary of State will be using powers under the Energy Act 2013 to increase the hourly rate for use of military drivers paid by hauliers in an ESCALIN deployment.
In response to the disruption to the availability of fuel in late September, the Government deployed Operation ESCALIN, on the 27 September. ESCALIN is a long-standing fuel supply contingency measure jointly managed by my Department and the Ministry of Defence to make trained military drivers available to support fuel deliveries. A total of 222 drivers were deployed to civilian haulage companies that participate in the scheme.
It has always been the intention that the hauliers who make use of Operation ESCALIN should be required to make a contribution to the costs that is in line with the costs of employing civilian drivers, although this is below the full cost to the taxpayer of the deployment. The current charge to hauliers for the use of a military driver in an ESCALIN deployment is set at £25 per hour, per driver. This price was set in 2013 and has remained unchanged since. During this nine-year period the cost of labour has increased and I would like the price to reflect this change.
A direction under section 148(3)(b) of the Energy Act 2013 was made to increase the hourly price from £25 to £28.51. This will take effect on 28 October. I believe this direction is fair and proportionate as it will now take account of inflationary price increases from 2013 calculated using the consumer price inflation index. However, the Secretary of State reserves the right to make further changes to the charging regime if that becomes necessary.
My Department will work with hauliers to ensure that use of military personnel is continued for only as long as absolutely necessary. The Secretary of State reserves the right to withdraw military support once we are confident that the fuel supply system as a whole is adequate to meet normal demand, irrespective of the position of individual companies.
[HCWS354]
Charter for Budget Responsibility
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Today I have published a draft updated “Charter for Budget Responsibility”, a copy of which has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. The draft sets out the new fiscal framework announced at autumn Budget and spending review 2021.
The draft charter includes modified guidance to the Office for Budget Responsibility and has been published in line with section 6(4) of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act. This requires that if the Treasury proposes to modify the guidance to the Office for Budget Responsibility included in the charter, a draft of the modified guidance must be published at least 28 days before the modified charter is laid before Parliament. The updated charter will be laid before Parliament, and a debate and vote scheduled, in due course.
[HCWS355]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Armed Forces Bill
Wednesday 27th October 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 42-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (25 Oct 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Baroness Goldie
“(3A) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) In the case of proceedings where the number of lay members would (but for this subsection) be three, a judge advocate may, in accordance with Court Martial rules, direct that the number of lay members is to be four.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a judge advocate to direct that a Court Martial should comprise four rather than three lay members. Court Martial rules will set out the circumstances in which such a direction may be made.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to join you in Committee this afternoon to discuss amendments to the Armed Forces Bill. Without further delay, I shall speak to group 1, which comprises government Amendments 1, 2 and 4 as well as Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, dealing with the constitution of the court martial.
Clause 2 will fix the number of lay members on a court martial board at either three or six. The amendment will give judge advocates the power to direct that a fourth lay member be sworn in to what would normally be a three-member court martial board. The court martial rules will set out the circumstances in which such directions can be made. If a four-member board loses a member, it will be able to carry on with the remaining three members and reach a verdict.
We are making this amendment because the Covid pandemic showed the need for greater flexibility in the service courts as board members were taken ill or had to self-isolate, particularly following the “pingdemic” earlier this year. This measure is a practical arrangement that seeks to future-proof the service justice system against this type of situation, or any other unforeseen circumstances that may arise in future. It will introduce flexibility to the system and ensure that more trials are effective and that victims and witnesses are not subjected to delays in the system. If we do not make the amendment, when a panel member is lost from a three-member board, the only options open to the judge advocate would be either to adjourn the proceedings until that lay member is available again or to halt the trial altogether. This would introduce an unwelcome delay to the administration of justice, which would especially affect victims and witnesses, and in some cases could actually mean that a retrial was required.
The approach that we have taken is based on the current legislation for the court martial. When a trial is likely to last more than 10 days in the UK, or five days when overseas, there is an existing arrangement whereby the judge advocate is able to direct that there should be one or two more members than the current minimum number of lay members for a trial. Where a four member-board remains in place until the end of the trial, at least three members of a board of four must agree on a finding. If it is reduced to three members, at least two out of three must agree.
We have consulted the Judge Advocate-General on this amendment, and he supports it as a means to improve service justice system efficiency and provide flexibility to deal with unexpected events in future. I hope that your Lordships agree that this is a sensible measure that will allow the court martial to continue to operate in difficult times and prevent unnecessary delay for victims and witnesses of crime.
I turn Amendment 3, which would create a statutory requirement for the judge advocate to determine the appropriate sentence alone, having consulted the military lay members of the board. This would reverse the current position whereby the military members of the board and the judge advocate together discuss and vote on an appropriate sentence.
Interestingly, the change sought by noble Lords is not something that His Honour Shaun Lyons recommended in the service justice review. The Armed Forces community is different from the civilian community and it is important that we recognise that. It is obviously the one with which we are familiar, but it is a very different environment within the Armed Forces community.
The board votes on sentence because it is best placed to fully appreciate the context of the offending, the background of the offender and the deterrent effect of any sentence on the wider service. Moreover, some sentences, such as demotion or detention for corrective training, are specific to life in the services. The board has the expertise to judge whether they might be appropriate or effective.
It is worth emphasising that members of the military are governed by a more stringent set of rules and restrictions than those of us in civilian life. These rules are designed to maintain discipline and promote operational effectiveness so that they can get the job done. Many of these additional rules and restrictions to which service personnel are subject apply regardless of whether they are on or off duty. An in-depth understanding of these rules and the context in which they apply form a key part of reaching an appropriate sentence.
To give a simple example, a civilian turning up late for work in a supermarket does not have the same impact on operational effectiveness as the same situation with a marine engineer on a nuclear deterrent submarine that is about to leave port. Members of the Armed Forces will have a broader and deeper understanding of the implications of this type of behaviour.
I reassure noble Lords that the sentencing process is already subject to stringent legal controls and oversight. The court martial is required by law to have regard to the Sentencing Council’s sentencing guidelines, which must be followed by the civilian courts. It can depart from these guidelines only if this is justified by the service context.
The Judge Advocate-General also issues guidance and sentencing for the service courts. The judge advocate makes the decision on sentence with the board, so everyone involved is fully aware of the relevant legislation and guidelines. Judge advocates also regularly sit in the Crown Court and bring that experience and expertise to the deliberations of the court martial. Further judicial oversight is provided by the Court Martial Appeal Court, made up of judges who sit in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.
The current system is both legally sound and ensures that sentences take account of the service context. This amendment would not add any significant legal safeguards to those that already exist. It would move the emphasis away from the court martial being a part of a service justice system in which discipline is maintained by and for the Armed Forces and service personnel. It also diminishes the importance of the service context in sentencing and places a barrier between the service person being sentenced and those with whom they serve.
I hope I have managed to explain fully why the Government have a reservation about this amendment. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw it, and I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for seeing me and my noble friend Lady Smith yesterday, when we had a full and fruitful discussion of these issues. I very much support the thrust of this Bill, in particular, bringing the service justice system up to date and having majority verdicts at the heart of it.
Sentencing is a difficult and technical business. I suspect that I am the only person in this Room who has actually seen the judge in a case in which I was appearing put on a black cap and sentence my client to death. That was in Hong Kong. He was not actually executed but it is a solemn moment. Sentencing in the old days used to follow the verdict but not anymore. In any serious case there is an adjournment for sentencing to enable the judge to consider the sentencing guidelines, the pre-sentence reports, the technicalities which he or she must say in the sentencing remarks, the statements of relatives and the public interest in the whole matter. A balancing exercise is carried out.
Importantly, the guidelines may give the recommended range of the sentence, but the judge has to consider the aggravating and mitigating features of the case, which will increase or decrease the recommended sentence in the sentencing guidelines. If I can give an illustration, because it is apposite for next Saturday when Wales play the All Blacks, in rugby, a referee, with his touch judges or assistant referees and the television match official, will discuss something that might have happened. They talk together and they have the advantage of a replay of an incident from various angles so that they can actually see what happened, which does not happen in a court. But it is the referee who takes the decision, not the people who assist him in his decision.
In the court martial system, it is the panel that takes the decision on the sentence with the judge participating and advising. It is only if the board are equally divided that the judge has the casting vote. To take another example, in the magistrates’ court it is the decision of the magistrates, as advised by the clerk, who may or may not be legally qualified. The judge advocate is not a clerk advising; he is central to a trial. He controls the proceedings. He gives directions to the board and rulings, including dismissing the charges altogether, as happened in the 3 Para case in Colchester in 2005. There is an anomaly as well: if the defendant is a civilian subject to service discipline and thereby liable to court martial, the judge advocate sentences alone.
Of course, the panel could and should advise on any particular military facet of the case, but from my experience it should not be assumed that the members of the panel have any direct front-line operational experience comparable to that of the defendant before them. They might have, but there are many units and many roles in which modern British forces are involved. Very frequently, the officers on a court martial do not have anything like the same experience as the defendant and the pressures he has been under. On the other hand, the judge, who sits regularly as judge advocate in a military court, has considerable experience of the operational conditions from the cases that come before him.
Under the current system, an officer or warrant officer is summoned to be a member of the board, probably with no or limited experience of courts martial, save for the president. He might never have been near a court or a court martial, but he becomes a judge with very considerable powers. He will be given the responsibility of determining sentence in a difficult case. That is a power that has never been given to civilian juries in the history of the common law. But it can be only history which retains this unique power for the board in courts martial. Perhaps it is a throwback to when there were no civilian professional judges, but, as I said in opening in my remarks, we have advanced so far. The civilian judge advocate is so important to the system.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, in the light of the very full observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I want to add three observations. First, over the years the practice of sentencing has become much more complicated and difficult. From the early 1980s onward, the way in which you sentence in the criminal courts has been the subject of guidance from the Lord Chief Justice and the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. It was then followed by the Sentencing Advisory Panel and the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Now it is contained in very complicated and detailed documents drafted by the Sentencing Council.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I will contribute briefly. I will not say this every time, but of course I start by declaring my interests as a serving member of the Army Reserve. I support the government amendments; they seem a sensible measure, as my noble friend the Minister described them. While I understand the thrust of the intent of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on Amendment 3, I want to air a brief concern about the potentially diminished role of the lay members.
With minor offences that come before the court martial, the intent is very much that we wish to keep service personnel in the service. Indeed, MCTC in Colchester is designed very much to do that. Only if you are sentenced to more than six months do you have to leave the service, I think. For many soldiers who have been through that centre, a common theme has been that they come out better soldiers; when I say soldiers, I also mean airmen and sailors.
What really worries me is that we used to have three single service Acts, which were merged under the Armed Forces Act some time ago, but the three single services remain very distinct. Under the Levene review, we have delegated responsibility, which was originally intended solely to be a financial delegation to the three single services but in reality has become a policy delegation. Despite an effort by the MoD to regain that under unified career management that means that, for members of the Armed Forces at the same point of their career, a certain sentence may have a disproportionate impact on them depending on which service they are in. Although any judge-advocate may well know the system well and be very experienced, I am not sure that they would necessarily have the detail of the single service to apply to their judgment.
I accept that it is quite possible, however unlikely at this time, that a senior warrant officer or officer on the court martial would not have front-line experience; I am willing to bet that almost all of them have, because of recent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I am willing to bet that there are not many judge-advocates who have front-line experience.
It is important that lay members continue to play an active role. I am concerned that, in what is proposed, we are moving away from the defendant being able to look lay members in the eye, knowing that their peers will play an active role—through first-hand experience and being able to compare their own careers with those before them—and be part of the sentencing process.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, as we begin Committee on this important legislation, I stress to all sides that we must use this opportunity to improve the lives of, and protections and support for, personnel and their families through legislative change.
Her Majesty’s Opposition stand firmly behind our brave service personnel and their families, and we strongly believe that the law should be on their side. That is why we support the principles behind the Bill and welcome the steps to create a legal duty to implement the principles of the covenant and the key elements of the Lyons review. But we all know that there are many, both in and outside the House, who believe that the Government could and should go further. Therefore, I repeat that our main priority will be to work with other parties to improve the legislation.
Our forces communities are themselves determined that the Bill should not be a missed opportunity, so the amendments tabled by Her Majesty’s Opposition and those we are supporting, we believe, are designed in good faith to reflect the cause of personnel, their families and the organisations which represent them.
The first group of amendments, which focuses on Clause 2 and Schedule 1, concerns the constitution of the court martial and implements recommendations from the Lyons review. These include fixing the size of court martial boards at three or six, and a move to qualified majority verdicts instead of the simple majority systems currently used.
The Bill’s Select Committee stated that the
“use of the simple majority verdict had been criticised by some, including … Jeff Blackett, and Liberty, who proposed that unanimous verdicts be sought in the first instance.”
The Government have subsequently tabled Amendments 1, 2 and 4, which they say enable the court martial to remain validly constituted if a three-member board loses a lay member—for instance, due to illness or the need to isolate. The Minister has said that she is making a small adjustment to future-proof the system of three-member boards to allow for the appointment of a four-member board for longer cases.
Why are these amendments suddenly needed? How often does the Minister think that a four-member board will be appointed? What consultation process has there been for this change? Is there a large enough pool of board members to support this change? When she says that four-person boards are for longer cases, what type of cases does she mean? Will it be just about time, or some other characteristics of the case?
It was also helpful to hear the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, behind Amendment 3; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to these points. With that, and with a careful reading of Hansard, we will be considering our position on this amendment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
First, I thank your Lordships for your contributions. I will start by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who I think was principally concerned with the government amendments to which I spoke. Regarding the decision to introduce a flexibility to allow a three-member board to become a four-member board in order to keep operating, I cannot give him a list of statistics, but I can tell him that Covid brought into very sharp relief the potential fragility of the system if people sadly become infected with Covid or are required to isolate. That made it clear that we need to introduce some change to accommodate these extraordinary circumstances, which we may continue to encounter. None of us is clear when life as we once remember it may return, so I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that we regard this as a sensible introduction of a flexible measure to ensure, importantly, that justice continues to be done for victims and that they are not in the unenviable position of a case having to be dropped because the court martial is not properly constituted.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, inquires about what type of cases it is about and how often we expect a full-member board to sit. I suggest that the type of case is probably a matter for the court martial rules to determine. One would imagine that, in looking at the composition and constitution of a court martial, regard would be had to the type of offence being tried, the number of witnesses available and that an appropriate judgment would be made on that basis, but the court martial rules would be more specific about that aspect.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—I hope he finds my pronunciation semi-acceptable; I was tutored by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on how to deal with it. I think the points made are important. I detected a fundamental difference of opinion between me as a government Minister within the MoD and the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the philosophical or essential character of what we are dealing with in the service justice system. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, eloquently touched on that.
We have to remember that life for a service community and all those within it is very different from life for those of us in a civilian community. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, gave us an interesting analogy of the forthcoming rugby match between the All Blacks and Wales. The comparison that he attempted to draw was that the referee may consult the touch judges as to what has actually happened but the referee will ultimately make the decision. In response, I would say that the referee and the touch judges are not living in a close and mutually supportive community such as the Armed Forces community, where not only are they all living in close proximity to one another but in service they are mutually dependent on each other. The rugby players, the referee and the other officials are not dependent on each other for either disciplinary or operational effectiveness. There is a temptation to make that comparison but I do not find it completely analogous to what we are discussing within the Armed Forces.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said that sentencing is complex, and I do not think anyone would dispute that. Training is needed, and in court martial appeals you have the expertise of the judges. I would respond by saying that we do have expertise; the judge advocate has expertise, and sentencing guidance is available to all on the panel. As I indicated in my preliminary remarks when addressing Amendment 3, there is a great body of expertise and information available. Where we differ is on a fundamental point, a point that noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, made well when he said that there has to be an understanding within the service community about how a punishment or a penalty is to be appropriate to what has happened. That is in the wider context of what the offence, transgression or omission actually meant to the broader community. As I pointed out in my speech, there is a world of difference between a supermarket worker turning up late and a marine engineer being late for a nuclear submarine that is just about to leave port.
The concern was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that in a civilian court you can adjourn for sentencing. The Judge Advocate General can also adjourn the court martial to consider sentencing if the panel needs time to get further information on the defendant, and pre-sentencing reports are used in the court martial system.
I have endeavoured to address the points raised. I have a note here saying that apparently the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked who we had consulted in the court martial. We consulted the Judge Advocate General, the Service Prosecuting Authority and the single services.
I submit that the government amendments proceed from a sensible and widely understood base and that Amendment 3, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is well-intended but inappropriate for incorporation within the service justice system.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I admire the loyalty expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, who is concerned about weakening the identity of the single service, and I understand it. It was an argument advanced in 2006, when the wholesale reform of the court martial system took place, bringing the three service justice systems together into one—something widely accepted at the time. I remember at that time proposing an amendment that the board should be drawn from the three services and not from one to deal with a particular defendant. After the rather heated debate, I met an air marshal, a field marshal and an admiral of the fleet in the corridor. I said that I hoped I had not upset them with the suggestion, whereupon one of them, who shall be nameless, said to me, “You should be shot”. So, at that time, the same sentiments were widely abroad and discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said that the defendant should be able to look into the eyes of the jury and know that he is among people who understand him. There have been some very serious trials recently involving policemen. Should a policeman be looking into the eyes of a jury composed of senior policemen because they will understand the pressures that he is under? It is just not the British system to take particular people in the community, who may have loyalties one way or the other, and have them tried by their peers in that sense.
I welcome and understand what the noble Lord said, but I think we have gone beyond that. Indeed, the report by Sir Richard Henriques that we will be discussing later takes the matter even further, with the defence units that he proposes, and which the Government now propose, where any concept of different services is abandoned.
I return to my argument on the judge sentencing. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for his support on that, and shall return to it when we get to Report, because it is an important matter of principle that should complete the considerable reform of the criminal justice service system that we are undertaking. I shall not move my amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“(4A) Guidance under subsection (3)(a) must provide that where offences of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape or sexual assault with penetration are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, any charges brought against a person subject to service law shall normally be tried in a civil court unless, by reason of specific naval or military complexity involving the service, the Attorney General consents to trial by court martial.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the most serious crimes – murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration – are tried in civilian courts when committed in the UK unless the Attorney General has specifically consented for such crimes to be tried by court martial by reason of complexity involving the service.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, prior to 2006, charges of murder, manslaughter and rape committed in the United Kingdom were tried in the ordinary courts, rather than by court martial, when a person subject to service discipline was involved. At that time, in 2006, the Labour Government gave concurrent jurisdiction to courts martial to try these matters. The Conservatives opposed the change, as did the Liberal Democrats. I suggested at the time that the purpose was merely to bolster the credibility of the new courts martial system, which was being totally reformed.
I am not aware of any murder or manslaughter case involving a person subject to service discipline that has been tried by court martial arising out of incidents in the United Kingdom, but rape and sexual offences are very different. A significant disparity in conviction rates in rape cases where courts martial have been employed was found by the statistics before Judge Lyons: 16% were convicted in a court martial, as opposed to 34% of defendants in the ordinary courts. That is an unacceptable disparity.
It was referred to in Sarah Atherton MP’s Defence Sub-Committee report published in July and entitled Protecting Those Who Protect Us. Paragraph 175 of that report, which is now only three or four months old, says:
“We do not believe that the problems highlighted by the Lyons Review in the handling of sexual offences in the Service Justice System have been fully resolved. While we accept there is a limited set of circumstances where it may be appropriate for the Service Justice System to be used for UK-based sexual offences (for example when there are offences both in the UK and overseas), this must require the Attorney General’s consent. There may be other compelling reasons, such as the young age and vulnerability of the victim, when it is more appropriate for the civilian justice system to hear these cases. In our view, the fact that a UK case may involve a victim and a perpetrator who are both Service personnel is not a sufficient reason for the Service Justice System to be used.”
Sarah Atherton’s report went on to call for the implementation of the very first recommendation of Judge Lyons’s review—he made a large number of recommendations—in which he said:
“It is … recommended that the Court Martial jurisdiction should no longer include murder, manslaughter and rape when these offences are committed in the UK, except when the consent of the Attorney General is given.”
The Atherton report also called for the implementation of the Lyons recommendations to place all domestic violence and child abuse cases in the civil jurisdiction when committed in the UK.
Why is that recommendation from Judge Lyons, repeated by the Defence Sub-Committee chaired by Sarah Atherton, a Conservative Member, resisted? The Government may now feel that reverting to the pre-2006 position may be seen as a vote of no confidence in the court martial system. I do not believe that to be so, and I do not think it a proper justification. In 2006 it was not seen by the Conservative Party to be a sufficient reason to support the Labour amendment of this historical common-law position that service personnel who commit offences in the United Kingdom will be tried in the ordinary courts.
It is a breach of the basic principles that a person subject to service law is still a citizen and that a British citizen has a right to be tried for serious offences by a randomly selected jury of 12 ordinary fellow citizens. That was a point strongly urged by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, at Second Reading and in the extension of that in his amendment linked to this, which I fully support. I shall leave it to him to explain the purposes of that. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the first of these amendments but, before explaining my reasons, my primary purpose in tabling these amendments is to try to ensure the proper morale of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and the standing in which they are held by the public. One has to bear in mind always that in the modern criminal justice system, where successive Governments have ensured that the victim or complainant —I will use the words interchangeably—is put at the heart of the system, that is taken fully into account. One can see this so often. For example, recently, the public look at the way in which the police investigate and they will look at the way in which people are tried. Are they being tried fairly and is there a proper balance?
It is important to realise that what I seek is, first, to achieve a much greater degree of certainty in relation to these matters and, secondly, to try to ensure that the Armed Forces are not subjected to yet more complaints about the nature of the justice system. It is evident from the report of Judge Shaun Lyons, a most distinguished Naval Judge Advocate—and a judge who is in charge of a major London criminal court—that there ought to be the change which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has so carefully gone through. I fully support his amendment but, in view of the difficulties that arise, it is necessary to go a little further.
If I may explain, I want to deal with two issues, one of which, the position of crimes committed overseas, I regret to say the Minister was not happy about last time. However, there is a serious issue and I shall take a moment or two to refer in detail to the law on this subject. The other is in relation to crimes outside the ambit of the proposal to deal with sexual offences, murder and other serious offences.
It is right to begin by recording that, particularly in relation to the most terrible crimes that have occurred, one can go back a very long way. I have seen many of these crimes myself, although the first of them occurred one year after I was born. It concerned the involvement of a battalion of the Scots Guards in an event at a place called Batang Kali during the Malayan emergency. That case was not investigated properly at the time; it is now abundantly clear and there remained a residue, which went right down to the early 2000s, about the way in which it had been approached.
In more recent times, there were the cases involving Baha Mousa and others in Iraq. There was the Blackman case, to which I regret I will have to return, and there were the points raised by one newspaper last Sunday. From what I have seen in each case, regrettably, one has to be sanguine about the fact that such conduct may well occur again. We have to deal with it in a way that is fair and just, while maintaining the morale of the Armed Forces.
We shall turn to looking at investigation when we come to consider the report of Sir Richard Henriques but, on this amendment, we are concerned with jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction to try a case? Jurisdiction is not like deciding whether you prosecute. It goes to the fundamental position of the court and, over the centuries, it has always been the position that Parliament controls the jurisdiction of the courts. As I mentioned at Second Reading, it is also a fundamental principle that for certain offences there is a right to trial by a jury of 12 people. It is very difficult to see any justification whatever for taking that right away from one of Her Majesty’s citizens. It is fundamental; one has only to read Lord Devlin’s classic work on the jury to realise how core this principle is to our justice system.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to my contention that Clause 7 should not stand part. It is a probing amendment. First, may I say that I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister’s opening remarks about the differences between members of the Armed Forces and others? This always needs to be foremost in our deliberations on disciplinary matters. Indeed, I stressed this point when the House was considering the Human Rights Bill in 1998.
At Second Reading, I expressed particular concern that the effect of this new clause would be to make a vital part of disciplinary procedures for the Armed Forces subject to devolved treatment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has mentioned. The Armed Forces are a national, United Kingdom force. Any devolution of their oversight or control from central government does not make sense.
I further expressed concern about the protocol which this clause alludes to but is silent on what it should say in detail. Other noble Lords have been suggesting what should be included. Clause 7 suggests that protocols are to be agreed in the three legal jurisdictions between the Director of Service Prosecutions and, as we have heard, the equivalent civilian prosecutors in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Will they be identical? Certainly, the Director of Service Prosecutions cannot ensure that. He is expected to deal with three separate individuals, all of whom have the right to the final word. One way to finesse these two points might be for the Director of Service Prosecutions, guided by an agreed protocol, to be given the final word.
New Section 320A(7) requires the Secretary of State and others to be consulted but it is not clear that even the Secretary of State could reject the proposed protocol. Surely the Bill should be much clearer than at present about these possibly different protocols. It may be argued that any divergence of view would, in practice, be unlikely to arise and “common sense” would prevail. However, this is far from ensuring no divergences. I pointed out at Second Reading that there is no guarantee of how the three civilian prosecutors would view handing serious criminal military cases about which there is already a wide divergence of view, as amendments before this Committee make clear.
Finally, while the pressures to move service justice under separate independent scrutiny and handling have steadily increased following the major disciplinary changes of the 2006 Act, the impact of excessive delays in civilian courts should not be overlooked. As the NAO recently reported:
“The backlog of cases in the criminal courts is likely to be a pervasive issue for several years”.
Surely, swifter justice in a court martial—there are only about 400 on average every year and very few are in the serious category—might be welcome to the accused and to any victim of the crime.
To quote Gladstone:
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
What is fair about adding long, excessive delay to court proceedings for the accused service individual? The service interest may also be damaged if an accused is acquitted, having spent months or years away from their post awaiting trial. Is there not a case for the accused to be allowed to elect for court martial trial if that were significantly to speed up the process?
The integrity of the court martial system remains essential to the Armed Forces. It may at any time be deployed globally; it should not be diminished. I fear the judgment of noble and learned opinion favours more use of civilian courts.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, the two proposals before the Committee in this group have the same aim: so far as serious crime is concerned, to make the procedures similar to those in our criminal courts. The first amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, supported by two other members of the Committee. We are indebted to him for his historical analysis, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for his unrivalled experience, which will be of great assistance to the Committee. The second proposal is the new clause tabled under my name and that of the noble and learned Lord; I am grateful for the support I have received.
My proposed new clause does not go so far as Amendment 5, but imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to commission a panel to review the courts martial and, in particular, to consider bringing courts martial into line with specific Crown Court procedures. I would be content if either amendment or my proposed new clause were accepted. On reflection, I find the mandatory terms in Amendment 5 very attractive.
I first raised my concern about the court martial system for serious offences as far back as 2016. The Ministry of Defence moved with unaccustomed speed to set up an independent inquiry led by ex-Judge Advocate Shaun Lyons. We are indebted to it, and to Ministers, for their speedy action. It was the case of Sergeant Blackman, already mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, that aroused my interest; many in the Committee will recall the case. My experience of courts martial is limited. I was a young officer newly arrived in BAOR, and it became known to alleged wrongdoers that there was a barrister in their ranks. To my adjutant’s dismay, there were other priorities, with the South Wales Borderers preparing to go to Malaysia. Little did my potential clients know how wet behind the ears I was, not having yet done a pupillage. Apart from a few courts martial then, I had nothing to do with the system when I returned to a lifetime of criminal practice. Since then, I have kept an interest in well-published cases, both as a Defence Minister and as Attorney-General. When I put in place a protocol for various prosecuting authorities, including the military, involving the supervision of the Attorney-General, I was in fact not troubled by the military.
My proposals are not concerned with the courts martial that deal with minor offences; they concern only some of the most serious offences. However, a verdict of 2:1 in any case does not fit particularly well the standards and needs of the 21st century. I propose that serious consideration be given to bringing courts martial that are trying specified serious crimes into line with ordinary criminal procedures. I do so for the following reasons. First, our Armed Forces—I am proud to have served in them—are today much less separate from ordinary civilian life than in the past; indeed, some civilians are tried by court martial. Secondly, our forces are mostly based in the United Kingdom and live in, or close to, civic communities. They are not the press-ganged sailors and soldiers of bygone centuries.
Thirdly, trials of serious cases are comparatively rare. Perhaps the Minister can remind us how many murder, manslaughter or rape cases we had in the last year. I think we are all concerned with the rate of conviction in rape cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, mentioned. Such trials should be presided over by experienced judges who try such cases day in, day out. Even then, only a minority of the circuit judges are licensed to try cases such as murder or rape. Although I was a Crown Court recorder for many years, with the powers of a circuit judge, I would not be given such responsibility. Those who are licensed to try such cases are very experienced. I know that sometimes, maybe fairly regularly, Judge Advocates sit in our criminal courts, but that does not mean they are licensed to try such cases.
Fourthly, there are now well-hallowed procedures in our criminal courts for trial and the taking of verdicts. I confess that I had my doubts when the proposal for majority verdicts was first put forward, but long experience at the criminal Bar has proved beyond doubt that the procedures are both just and efficient to render justice without undue delay. In such cases, the judge should be nominated by the Lord Chief Justice and the jury should comprise 12 jurors. Soldiers, sailors and airmen should have the same rights as ordinary citizens. The number 12 was hallowed by the eminent jurist Coke many centuries ago.
When a criminal jury now retires to consider its verdict, the judge gives a direction that it should seek unanimity. It is then given considerable time to achieve this. Only when sufficient time has elapsed and there appears to be no prospect of reaching such a verdict is the procedure put in place whereby a verdict by fewer than 12 of its number can be accepted. It is told again to try to achieve unanimity, and only then, when it fails, is a verdict by at least 10 of its number acceptable. The numbers required for a majority verdict speak for themselves; it is the overwhelming majority. When the verdict is delivered, the numbers are announced publicly in court—quite different from a court martial.
The Minister has sought to justify a 2:1 verdict as arising only in minor offences, but such a verdict can have serious consequences for the individual. I have my doubts about a practice in courts martial that I am told of, whereby the most junior member of a court martial is expected to announce his decision first, and so on in the military hierarchy. If I am right—I may be wrong—it could be quite intimidating, in particular for a junior member sitting for his first court martial.
If our proposals are not accepted today, I hope the ground has been laid for the inevitable reform next time the legalising of our Armed Forces by Act of Parliament is considered. Every soldier, sailor and airman should have the same right as an ordinary citizen of a trial by a jury numbering 12.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start my first contribution in Committee by thanking the Minister and her officials for the courteous briefing and the informed and courteous way in which she has conducted the Committee and this work. It is extremely helpful to us all, so it is worth publicly thanking the Minister for that and for the way she has tried to engage with us.
I had a great speech written—well, I do not know if it was a great speech, but I had one written—in support of Amendment 5. However, one of the important things that the Minister does is to try to respond to the debate, and I want to pick up on what I think have been some brilliant contributions to this discussion. We all support a covenant. We all support the Armed Forces Bill and what is in it. We all believe that this is a step forward, we are all pleased that the Government are putting a legal duty on local authorities to do this, and so on. We all agree with the Bill so the discussions taking place here are about how we can make it even better, and to get the Government to clarify some of their thoughts and put their intentions on record for people to read.
I was particularly moved—I say this with trepidation because I am neither a lawyer nor a military person, but I think it is important in these debates to speak from where the public would come from—by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said: this element of the Bill, on how the military deals with sexual offences and some of the most serious crimes, goes to the heart of the confidence that the public have, or do not have, in the Armed Forces. You can see that as an analogy with the police at present; I come from a police family so I understand that issue. Surely that is the point that the Bill is getting at.
I know the Minister will point to the reforms that are going to be made, the welcome introduction of the tri-service serious crimes unit and so on, but we all agree that some of the things that we read about—and I intend to quote some because it is important to put some of the statistics before the Committee—are truly shocking. We saw a particularly horrendous example in our papers at the weekend. I know that the vast majority of the military, whether they be privates, sergeants, officers, Royal Navy, airmen or soldiers, want this dealt with as well.
The challenge for us in the Committee is how the system that we set up will best reassure the public that these matters are being dealt with—how it will help with the reputation of the Armed Forces but also allow service men and women to get the justice that they too deserve. That is the purpose of Amendment 5, which I put my name to and was moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
If it is not to be done in the civilian courts, which is what the amendment is pushing for, how will we know—and how will the public be reassured—about some of the things that they are reading about, where terrible, unacceptable sexual crime, rape and murder take place and have no consequence, or where people do not believe that the system works and therefore do not come forward? That is the challenge. As noble Lords have said, the amendment is all about jurisdiction. What jurisdiction would best deal with these offences in the way that I have outlined?
It is not just me. Judge Shaun Lyons and Sir Jon Murphy recommended that the most serious crimes should be removed from the military justice system; the recent report by the Defence Select Committee recommended the same; and Johnny Mercer MP, who was a Defence Minister, has now said he believes that should happen. These are serious bodies of opinion supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as well as other issues that have been raised.
I know much of this will come forward when we talk about the tri-service serious crimes unit, but I want to put on record the recent Times article that I was particularly struck by, which said:
“Complaints of rape and sexual assault made by girls under 18 in the military have risen tenfold since 2015, Ministry of Defence figures reveal.”
That is shocking—and it is from the MoD’s own figures, unless the Minister says that the Times has got it wrong. The article says that
“girls under 18 in the armed forces have made 41 complaints of rape and sexual assault to the military police since 2015 … equivalent to one report for every 40 girls. This makes girls in the armed forces more than twice as likely as their civilian counterparts to report a rape or sexual assault to police.”
The amendment is intended only to pose the question, given the statistics being reported, of whether a change to the jurisdiction would, first, give more confidence to people to come forward; and, secondly, give more confidence to the public, because such horrific incidents and cases, which we all abhor, are best dealt with by the civilian courts.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I beg the Committee’s indulgence. This is my first time back in this Room, and I am afraid I got my body language wrong. I was hoping to come in before the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Perhaps I may briefly speak in support of Amendment 5. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, as you would expect from legal people, were very carefully balanced, but I shall speak unashamedly in favour of the victims. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the Times report about under-18s to which I was going to refer. I shall refer to another Times report from April, when 4,000 servicewomen and veterans came forward to speak about their concerns.
We know that there is a problem with prosecution of the crimes of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence in all areas, but it is obvious where we want to invest our effort. If we do so in the civilian courts, that is where the real speciality and ability will lie. I and others have framed this as an issue of violence against women and girls, but it is also worth thinking about male victims of domestic violence, rape and sexual assault, and how difficult it may be for them in that context.
This will be my only intervention in Committee. Your Lordships’ House is not taking recess for the COP 26 climate talks, although we recently took recess for the party conferences, which happen twice a year. I apologise that I will not be able to take a full part, but I hope to come back on Report.
Finally, there was a great deal of discussion of this at Second Reading, and I was expecting more discussion of Amendment 5 today, because this is something that we really need to see change and progress on.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
First, I want to thank your Lordships for what has been a profound and stimulating discussion. I am conscious that much of the debate has centred on fairly technical legal issues, not least in particular reference to the criminal legal system, both for civilian and service justice systems. I shall do my best to address the issues raised.
By way of preface, in response to points notably made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and echoed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, we all want a service justice system that is fit for purpose. I think we are all absolutely united in seeking that objective, and that is exactly what the Bill aims to achieve. That offers me the opportunity to say to your Lordships that much had to move at pace, involving a considerable volume of material. I apologise for that, as I know that you have all been deluged, first with the publication of the Henriques report and then the tabling of government amendments to create the defence serious crime unit.
While I think that these are regarded as very positive developments, I understand that it has put pressure on everybody to try properly to assimilate and understand the report and amendments. I took the view that the amendments did not make a lot of sense without the report, and I had to navigate my way through a fairly tangled jungle of clearances to make sure that we could get both things out into the public domain. I felt that it was important that we did that; it seemed to me that the amendments the Government were then able to table to the Bill in respect of the defence serious crime unit provided reassurance and perhaps answered some of the questions raised today. I think that gives a clear signal of intent about the desire to ensure, as a number of noble Lords have observed this afternoon, that the criminal justice system is absolutely fit for purpose and as good as it can be.
I will now address the amendments in this group. I shall do that beginning with Amendment 5 and then move on to Amendment 6—and then I shall speak to the intention expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, to oppose Clause 7. Finally, I shall speak to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said that there has to be confidence in the justice system, and I totally agree with that. He rightly referred to recent statistics, which are deeply troubling—and I make no pretence about that. As he probably knows, there has been ongoing work in the MoD over the last decade to try to address cultures and behaviour, to provide people who have been treated wrongly—whether it is the victims of unacceptable behaviour or of a criminal offence—with the confidence to come forward, and to try to reassure those within our Armed Forces, not least our women, that this is a good and safe place to be. That has been a Herculean struggle; it has been a huge challenge, and I am not going to pretend otherwise. What I can say is that there has been systematic progress of very good work.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the Commons Select Committee report, in which the MoD very readily engaged—and the Secretary of State took the courageous and absolutely correct decision to allow serving women to appear as witnesses before the committee. I thought he was absolutely right to do that, as it is the only way in which we can get evidence out into the open. Very troubling evidence was heard, and some of it was utterly appalling. What I drew comfort from was that, to the end, a very high percentage of the women who gave evidence said that they would recommend a career in the Armed Forces to other women. I felt encouraged by that. There was recognition that, while unacceptable practices and attitudes have existed in the past, there is a discernible recognition that the direction has changed.
In relation to the stats to which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred, they are troubling, but they do tell us that people are now coming forward. One problem that we had was that people would not come forward; they did not have the confidence to do that—and that to me strikes at the very heart of the probity and integrity of, and the confidence that people should rightly have in, the system.
We have been and are reforming the service complaints system. A huge amount of work has been done among the single services to that end.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, it might help if everybody knew that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is intending to participate remotely in the next group, has just arrived. There is possibly a little technical adjustment to be made so that she does not find herself inadvertently speaking in the wrong debate.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I shall leave that to those who are much more technically gifted than I am to resolve.
I say to the Committee that I absolutely hear the concerns expressed and am not giving some cosmetic response to them. These concerns are being addressed, and in many respects have been addressed. I hope that we are going to see that a much healthier climate exists within the Armed Forces.
I turn specifically to Amendment 5, which seeks to ensure that the most serious crimes as listed in the amendment are tried in the civilian courts when committed by a service person in the UK, unless, by reason of specific naval or military complexity involving the service, the Attorney-General has specifically consented for such crimes to be tried at court martial. I realise that there is much interest in the Government’s decision not to follow recommendation 1 in the Service Justice System Review. While we accept the need to improve the decision-making processes in relation to concurrent jurisdiction, we do not believe that the introduction of an Attorney-General consent function is the best way to achieve it.
By way of background, I would like to be clear that the primary reason the service justice system was established was, as we discussed earlier today, to support operational effectiveness and maintain the service discipline of our Armed Forces. The recently published review by Sir Richard Henriques and the service justice system review by His Honour Shaun Lyons were unanimous in accepting that premise; they strongly supported the continued existence of the service justice system. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to the importance of public confidence in that system. I entirely agree: it is vital that the public and victims, and service personnel, have confidence that this system can act adequately in respect of what it is asked to do.
Sir Richard Henriques stated in his review, published just last week, that he agreed with the Government’s decision to retain unqualified concurrent jurisdiction for murder, manslaughter and rape. Sir Richard, a retired High Court judge, found the service justice system to be fair, robust and capable of dealing with all offending. This endorsement of capability echoes the conclusion of the process audit conducted as part of the Lyons review, which previously found that the service police have the necessary training, skills and experience to investigate any crime. The service police, prosecutors and judiciary are trained, skilled and experienced, while independent prosecutors can be trusted to make appropriate decisions on jurisdiction.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who raised the issue of statistics on conviction rates. It is not possible to draw a meaningful statistical or data comparison between the service justice system and the civilian system, because the small database in the service justice system means that variances have a disproportionate effect, which I think everyone can understand. That can lead, frankly, to false conclusions.
We are confident that the service justice system provides an effective and fair system of justice for our Armed Forces. What we recognise, as in the very point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is the public confidence issue and that it can be maintained only if the service justice system not only has but can be shown to have the capability to deal with all offending fairly, efficiently and in a manner which respects and upholds the needs of victims. That is why we continue to implement the recommendations of the Service Justice System Review, some of which are measures in the Bill. This will ensure that the service justice system is more effective and efficient and provides a better service to those who use it.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
On the point about circuit judges being allowed to try these very serious offences, will they be of a similar calibre to those judges who are licensed to try rape and murder cases? Maybe the Minister will not be able to deal with this now, but perhaps she could later.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble and learned Lord makes a good point. Obviously at the heart of this is making the service justice system as good as it can be. Clearly I cannot give a specific undertaking as to what criteria would be adopted in making such a selection, but I hear what he says and it will be given careful consideration. I cannot be more specific about that just now.
I was saying that I hope the noble and learned Lord is reassured that we have considered this matter in detail, having regard, as we have been discussing this afternoon, to the military and operational environment in which our armed services function. In these circumstances, I hope he will not press the amendment.
I omitted to answer a specific question posed by the noble and learned Lord about the most junior member of the court martial voting first. I am informed that the most junior member of the court martial does vote first.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I want to ask about two matters. First, I raised the point about judicial review but I also raised the serious issue of concurrent jurisdiction relating to murder committed overseas, and I gave the references. I would be grateful if the Minister could reply. I would not expect her to do that now but I would be grateful if she could write and deal with these two rather important points.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I certainly undertake to look at Hansard and endeavour to frame a response to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for the very careful and thorough way she addressed these amendments. I feel that she slightly misrepresents the nature of Amendment 5. I am not suggesting that in every case the Attorney-General be woken up by the telephone in the middle of the night and come to a decision in her pyjamas. That is not quite what I have in mind, which is that serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and domestic violence should normally be tried in the civil court. There is no question of protocols: that is the normal way you go about it. But in the event that there is some very specific naval or military complexity involved—I had in mind, for example, the working of a gun in a tank that causes another person to be killed on Salisbury Plain—one could imagine that there might be a case for the authorities to say, “This has a bit of a military tang to it. Therefore, we will see whether the Attorney-General will agree, in this very unusual case, that a trial by court martial would be more appropriate, because the panel might be more used to that sort of thing.”
We are talking about murder, rape, manslaughter, domestic violence, and child abuse by serving soldiers or servicepeople in the United Kingdom. It is important that that should be realised. Normally they would be tried in the Crown Court by a jury in the ordinary way.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, raised the issue of confidence. That is what this is about: public confidence in the system of service courts. That is what is needed. I repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said: people will not come forward. If you have a situation where servicepeople who complain of rape find that only 16% of the complaints result in convictions, that means that 84% of victims will have gone to the court, given their evidence and found that the defendant has been found not guilty of the offence against them. Does that give confidence, not just to the victim but to the family? They will leave the service; this is the sort of situation in which a person says, “I’m not going to stand for this. I’ve gone before a court martial; they don’t believe me.”
This is an extensive problem in the United States. Four or five years ago I gave evidence to a congressional committee in Washington on what the British system was because they were considering sexual assaults in the military over there. I was in the unlikely company of Senator Gillibrand of New York, a Democrat, and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who is known to have certain right-wing views. They were all on the same side. Nothing happened. President Biden has within the first six months of his Administration set up a commission to deal with sexual offences in the military. This is a very important point and it is very necessary that we deal with it properly.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, pointed out to the judicial review that took place in the Blackman case that our protocols for overseas jurisdiction have not worked. His proposal that parliamentary approval of any protocol should underpin that protocol is entirely correct, sensible, right and common sense, because it would prevent the bringing of judicial review against whoever is in charge—the Director of Service Prosecutions or the director of prosecutions in another jurisdiction—as the protocol would have parliamentary approval.
I support the noble and learned Lord in that. The fact that it does not exist at the moment is neither here nor there; what we are concerned about is having something that does not give rise to parades and demonstrations in Parliament Square, as happened in the Blackman case. That is an important point, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, will pursue it.
Lord Coaker
“(d) a relevant employment function,(e) a relevant pensions function,(f) a relevant compensation function,(g) a relevant social care function,(h) a relevant criminal justice function, or(i) a relevant immigration function.”
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are getting used to various constituencies. I expect the Minister to come forward with Scottish towns for us to compare with Welsh ones.
This is another important group of amendments. I shall speak also to Amendments 10 to 13. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for signing up to the amendments in this group, which expand the definition of the covenant to include more policy areas. Oh, I think I can hear her speaking remotely. It is nice, because in the other place you get used to barracking, so it makes you feel a bit more at home.
We all believe that the Armed Forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between government and service communities, guaranteeing them and their families the respect and fair treatment that their service has earned. Clause 8 places a duty on specified persons or bodies to have due regard to the principles of the covenant, if they are exercising a relevant housing, education or healthcare function. However, service charities are rightly concerned that the scope is too narrow, containing nothing specific on issues such as service accommodation, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. The service charities themselves have pointed out that this narrow focus could create a two-tier Armed Forces covenant.
The Government’s own press release announcing the Bill stated that it would
“ensure armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged by their service when accessing key public services.”
It stated that it would
“embed the Armed Forces Covenant into law by introducing a legal duty for relevant UK public bodies to have due regard to the principles of the Covenant, a pledge to ensure the UK Armed Forces community is treated fairly.”
That is an excellent statement by the Government, but despite this promise there is a wide chorus of concern that Ministers have failed to follow that through. Help for Heroes said that
“by limiting the scope of the legislation to Healthcare, and some aspects of Housing and Education, rather than the full reach of the Covenant, many issues of vital concern to veterans … within the criminal justice system”
could be excluded. It added that:
“The absence of social care is a significant issue”.
The Army Families Federation said:
“This limited scope will address only a small proportion of the disadvantages that Army families face.”
The Royal British Legion called on the Government to extend the Bill to cover
“employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice, and immigration,”
and the Naval Families Federation said that it would
“welcome a widening of the scope to include all aspects of the Armed Forces Covenant.”
I have tabled the amendments in this group so that the Government are able to fulfil their own promises to service communities but also to take account of the very real concerns that so many military charities have raised. Amendments 8, 10, 11 and 12 do exactly what they say: they expand the scope of the covenant in the Bill to include employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. It would be interesting to know why the Minister is opposed to that.
Amendment 13 is perhaps less explicit but has the same intention. It requires the Secretary of State to set out how powers in the Bill could be used to widen its scope to address all matters of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces covenant, again for employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. I expect that the Minister will say that the Government have chosen the scope of the covenant duty carefully and in consultation with the Armed Forces community, and that they think that these issues will make the greatest improvements to family life. Indeed, they will make some difference. However, the Royal British Legion has said that the Government have not produced any statistical or other evidence for this position and that it is not aware of any specific consultation with the Armed Forces community which resulted in that conclusion. I would be interested in the Minister clarifying that point.
The near unanimous evidence submitted to the House of Commons Select Committee on the Bill showed that those working with the covenant on a day-to-day basis are clear that the policy scope is too limited and does not reflect the reality of the issues presented or their complexity and, indeed, interaction. Evidence from users of the Veterans’ Gateway, which is part funded by the MoD, shows that finance and pensions top the list of issues raised, and the Government themselves have publicly claimed employment to be the most critical issue affecting veterans’ life chances. The legislation must be wide enough to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed and that the postcode lottery on veterans’ access to services is addressed. I will be interested in the Minister’s response.
I want to pick up on one other point related to Clause 8. The Delegated Powers Committee has called for regulations defining “relevant family member” to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Can the Minister confirm or otherwise whether the Government intend to accept that recommendation? I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
Does the noble Lord intend to move his amendment?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I first apologise for the technical glitch. This is the first week of new remote contributions to Grand Committee. It is such a shame that we always notice the problems rather than the vast majority of smooth remote contributions. I pay credit to all the staff involved in helping those of us who are disabled Peers and can attend only remotely at present.
I commend the Minister for the principles behind the Armed Forces covenant, which are an admirable start to providing that morally binding commitment to current and past service men and women. But frankly, as these amendments seek to point out, it is somewhat patchy at the moment on the services that current and former service men and women would be able to access. Why is one function included and another excluded, when the barriers to accessing services are exactly what the covenant is trying to resolve?
Amendments 8 and 10, to which I have added my name, would add a number of functions to the relevant functions listed under proposed new Sections 343AA and 343AB. Amendment 13, to which I have also added my name, addresses how the Bill can widen the scope to other forms of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces covenant, including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has addressed very ably why this is needed, so I want to focus briefly on access to social care as one illustration.
The covenant already recognises that health is a vital service, where serving personnel and veterans can face particular problems, but social care—whether for the serving person or veteran, or for a member of their immediate family—is not. While social care is commissioned by local authorities it can, due to the circumstances of the individual, often involve a number of bodies. Some are within central government, for example on disability benefits; some are public bodies, for example health and local authorities; but some are also private, such as for those who are given a personal budget and will purchase their personal care that way. It can be very difficult and messy to navigate if you are new to it or have had to move.
Let me give an example to illustrate this point. Serving families with a severely disabled child have found it extraordinarily difficult when moving from one posting to another to transfer their child’s essential social care support, without falling off the bureaucratic cliff and having to go through reassessments in their new area, then waiting for the reports from those assessments. No services were given at all, so all help was denied them until the end of this new process. The child’s needs had not changed; their serving parent had merely been posted elsewhere. To be clear, this is not just a bit of social support every now and then. Disabled children, like the one I am describing, may have severe epilepsy or be fed with a tube, or be on ventilators some or all of the time. The help of carers at home supports the unpaid parent carer, who is already on duty pretty well 24/7.
Shockingly, the consequences of not having that help mean that a child might even be taken into care and away from their parents, not because the parents cannot cope but because one of them has been posted elsewhere. Adding social care to the covenant would protect the family and prioritise the ways of continuing the help that they are getting, when the move has made the difficulties entirely apparent.
For service men and women, and veterans, the complexities about access to services if they have mental health problems can be just as acute. Too often, we think of mental health as solely the domain of the NHS and those specialist charities such as Combat Stress, which I have been working with. The reality is that severe mental health problems disproportionately affect access to every part of the individual’s life, including discrimination in employment, access to criminal justice and compensation, and even to pensions, as well as social care. If the principles of the Armed Forces covenant are to ensure the well-being and support for current and former Armed Forces personnel, surely it cannot be possible for certain parts of the public sector to ignore it.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 65 and to Amendment 64. Like my noble friend Lady Brinton, I support the other amendments in this group brought by her and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. They have given us clear arguments why those amendments are important, and I do not think they need to be rehearsed again.
On Amendment 64, my noble friend talked about people who have come here under ARAP. She and I raised this at Second Reading, and the Minister was kind enough to take some time to discuss it with me yesterday; I am grateful for that. There is clearly a question of scope in an Armed Forces Bill such as this. To suggest that we might extend the Armed Forces covenant to people who have not been service personnel with the British Army, Commonwealth or Gurkhas might raise some eyebrows. There were certainly some questions about that around tabling Amendment 64, which is why there is a specific bit of phrasing about extending the covenant
“to cover civilians subject to service discipline”.
My noble friend Lady Brinton asked whether we have a moral duty. The answer is surely that we have a moral duty to support in every possible way the people coming to the United Kingdom under ARAP. By definition, they are arriving here under ARAP because they worked as interpreters for our Armed Forces, with other allies or perhaps for the British Council. Those who worked for the British Council are vulnerable. It is easy to assume that it is simply interpreters putting their lives on the line, but those who were out teaching English now find that their lives are under threat. It is incredibly important that we look at them, not just at interpreters—although the situation with interpreters is very important. Why bring this amendment? Clearly, the ARAP scheme is in place and remains open, but those coming in under ARAP have worked closely with our Armed Forces and potentially put their lives on the line for the United Kingdom.
Surely we owe them a duty. Given that the Armed Forces covenant is supposed not to give advantage to service personnel and veterans but to ensure that they are not at a disadvantage, so there will be many issues facing people here under ARAP that are very similar to those faced by service personnel and veterans. I would like the Minister at least to explore what provisions we can make for people under ARAP, in particular to ensure that anybody arriving under ARAP can work from day one, because most people who come here under other Home Office arrangements seeking asylum are not permitted to work initially. That is very important.
My Amendment 65 is slightly different and perhaps should have been decoupled, because it relates to the duties put on local authorities and local health authorities. The Bill talks about having “due regard” and requesting local authorities to do certain things. At Second Reading, the Minister suggested that they have to have due regard, but there will not necessarily be financial provision for them to do so because they already have a duty to do certain things, so incorporating the Armed Forces covenant into law will not really make a difference. The way I phrased it may have sounded muddled, but I have been left muddled by the Government’s intention. If there is a purpose to putting the Armed Forces covenant into law, surely it is precisely to ensure that it makes a difference. If local authorities find that in paying “due regard”, now on a statutory basis, to the Armed Forces covenant they are required to engage in further expenditure, where will that money come from?
It is not possible within the scope of a Bill in the House of Lords to table a line saying, “Please give local authorities additional funds”, so we are not asking for that. We are asking for the Government to report on the financial implications of enshrining the Armed Forces covenant into law. If local authorities, housing associations and local health authorities incur financial consequences when engaging in their duties by supplying services such as social care, housing or health, we would then know that and it may at some suitable point be possible to bring forward relevant legislation. If no assessment is made, it is impossible to know the consequences.
The amendment is in a sense a probing amendment because we need to understand the real consequences of enshrining the Armed Forces covenant into law. If it is causing local authorities additional costs over which they have no say we should try to ensure that the finances are there to cover that.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this group. I have no fundamental objection in principle to extending the categories as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. When I was the Minister responsible for this Bill five years ago there was great discussion of what the categories should be.
My concern—not an objection—is practical, which is perhaps the purpose of Committee. There has been some cynicism about the effectiveness of the Armed Forces covenant since we first created it, and its implementation has been patchy across the United Kingdom. Given how many local authorities are recovering from the pandemic and have been overwhelmed, I am slightly concerned that by adding all these categories now—the key word is “now”—we run the risk of overwhelming various bodies and simply adding to the cynicism that we have not managed to implement the Armed Forces covenant when they fail to implement it effectively.
My suggestion is a sensible one, though perhaps not for today, as to whether there should be an incremental addition to the categories that we put in the Armed Forces covenant. I am sure it cannot be beyond the ability of the Bill to attach dates for when categories are potentially added. I am not saying that we could necessarily sort that out today, but it may be a sensible compromise as we seek to slowly expand the Armed Forces covenant and make sure that we do not lose public consent to it being implemented effectively as we do so.
Equally, I have great sympathy with Amendment 64, having served in Afghanistan and worked closely with interpreters. There is no doubt that they were subjected to the same sorts of pressures and stresses that members of the Armed Forces were. Of course, having now crossed the line where we have rightly welcomed them into the UK, although it is a question of scope, and it may well be beyond the scope of the Armed Forces covenant to include them, I think the Government have a duty to explain how exactly, if they are not going to be included in the covenant, we will ensure their ongoing welfare.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
I must apologise for not being here at Second Reading when I was unable to come over from Northern Ireland. I declare an interest in that we are involved at my home with veterans and I am president of the Northern Ireland RFCA. Whereas it is different in England, we have not responsibility but more interaction with veterans themselves.
What worries us all is the “due regard” and how that is treated by our different and separate Administrations. I am not shining a light on Northern Ireland in particular nor asking the Minister to make any comments about Northern Ireland, where we have a special issue. However, this problem is seen as an issue by veterans. When we talk about the mental welfare of veterans, one of the biggest issues is who we are talking about. We have veterans who we know individually have mental welfare problems, but the big problem is the one that we do not know about: the vast number of veterans who have mental welfare issues but do not come forward. They do not do so for many reasons and we cannot go into them too much, but they include pride and the fact that they live with their families and do not want to admit the problem.
We know that the length of time between leaving service or being traumatised and presentation has gone down since Prince William and Prince Harry drew attention to it, from roughly 12 or 13 years to some six or seven, which is tremendous. However, the doubt as to how the covenant works and how it benefits our veterans inhibits a lot of them from coming forward. It is very difficult to admit that you have a problem and then be turned away due to a postcode lottery. Indeed, which Administration you live in can make it more difficult.
At the moment, I think the covenant is the beginning of a story and of a method by which we can support our veterans. It is not a done deal but a start. I therefore support the gist of the amendments because they would take us in the right direction, though I appreciate that some of the scope and the lack of teeth are only a start. We have to make sure that we can take it further and cover an increasing proportion of those people.
The statistics, which are roughly equivalent to American and Danish statistics and therefore correct, show that 6% or 7% of all service people—interestingly, this relates outside this business to police and other front-line services—suffer some form of mental illness, while 17% of those on operations do so. So there is a very large body of people out there, and we have to enable this commitment to the covenant and to our people to be extended.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Once again, I thank noble Lords for a stimulating and interesting debate. I appreciate the contributions, to which I have listened with care.
To set a context for my response to the amendments, I would just observe that I clearly and firmly feel that the Bill, by including the reference to the covenant and imputing to it a statutory effect, is taking us a very significant step forward. I understand the frustration and impatience on the part of some that the pace is not moving more quickly and that the reach of the definition in Clause 8 is not being broadened. However, in that context, I shall try to address the points that have been raised, all of them very worthy; in no way would I wish to dismiss them.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, would widen the scope of the new covenant duty to the areas of employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. In considering how to take forward our commitment to further strengthen the covenant in law, which we have discharged in the Bill, we looked first at what the covenant has already achieved. The considerable number of successful initiatives across many different policy areas that we have seen through the Armed Forces covenant to date shows how the careful use of legislation could provide a firm basis and the flexibility for a much wider range of work to develop.
We bore this model in mind in the development of the new covenant duty to ensure it can provide a secure framework that allows scope for innovation, change and future growth. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that this is about our service personnel, our veterans and their families. In approaching this, we recognised that delivery of the functions relative to healthcare, education and housing in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would benefit from what I might describe as a more uniform awareness of the covenant and perhaps a more universal application of the principles that underpin it.
This has been difficult to encompass, as I think your Lordships will understand, for obvious reasons. The first thing I want to do is to give thanks to the devolved Administrations. They have been co-operative and helpful. I simply explain to your Lordships that even progressing the statutory import with the three areas of healthcare, education and housing has not been straightforward. It has been complex. Your Lordships will understand why. We have a range of delivery mechanisms across the United Kingdom. We have different responsible elements. We have different responsible Governments. We are trying to increase awareness across the UK and achieve a more universal recognition of the principles of the covenant in delivering services.
The question was asked: why healthcare, education and housing? The new duty is designed initially to focus on these three core functions. That not only reflects those already in statute—where there has to be obligation —but also addresses the most commonly raised issues affecting the day-to-day lives of our Armed Forces community. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who asked how we know that. It is a perfectly legitimate question. There has not been a specific consultation on that but, as the noble Lord will be aware, the covenant now embraces the MoD and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. There are our partnerships and discussions with charitable entities, not least the Royal British Legion. We also discuss regularly with families, federations, local government and devolved Administrations what the needs imposed by the covenant are. I can say to the noble Lord that there has been significant experience of dealing with issues coming through to the covenant team in the MoD and their subsequent discussions with the other parties to which I have referred.
The three entities, healthcare, housing and education, seemed to be the most prominent features in that work. That is why we have focused on them. Importantly, the Bill provides for further consideration of additional areas of concern and it grants the Government powers to make any changes as a consequence. In this way, the covenant duty can effectively adapt to the needs of the Armed Forces community in the future. Future areas of concern will be addressed as and when they arise through the powers in the Bill that allow the Government to widen the scope of the covenant duty, if needed, through secondary legislation. We are working with key stakeholders to establish an open and transparent process by which the scope of the legislation can successfully adapt to address the changing needs of the Armed Forces community.
We have to consider the practicalities of extending the covenant duty to further policy areas. My noble friend Lord Lancaster alluded to this. Indeed, to achieve the extension sought by this amendment would require the amendment to specify which functions would be relevant, in the way that we have defined a relevant health, housing and education function. The list of specified persons and bodies subject to the duty would also need to be amended to include the bodies which exercise the relevant functions envisaged by the amendment. That would require extensive consultation with stakeholders and the devolved Administrations to identify the appropriate bodies and functions to bring into scope.
I suggest that a perhaps wiser and better way forward at the moment lies in first working through and resolving any practical implications arising as the new covenant duty is implemented. That will give us a good indication of where amendments may be required to better meet the changing needs of our Armed Forces community in future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, also raised the important issue of mental health, and were absolutely right to do so. I was asked for some detail. We are committed to enhancing health and well-being for veterans; I highlight the recent launch of Op Courage, which simplifies access to NHS England veteran services. That is among excellent work being done within the serving Armed Forces in relation to mental health, where there is far swifter and better recognition of persons who may need support and a much swifter reference point to direct those individuals to where they can get that support.
I return to the amendment. By retaining the flexible nature of the legislation, the Government hope to establish a firm legal foundation for the covenant while avoiding any unnecessary administrative burden. The new duty builds on the existing widespread commitment to the covenant, thereby contributing to a further strengthening of covenant delivery across the UK. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who specifically asked about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its recommendations. I am seriously considering its report and will undertake to update the Committee on Report.
I have attempted to explain in relation to Amendments 8, 10 and 13 why the Government have a difficulty. I hope that my remarks have been received sympathetically and have not been regarded as obstructive, but I invite the noble Lord and the noble Baroness not to press their amendments.
Amendment 64 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, refers to civilians subject to service discipline; these are civilians who come within the jurisdiction of the service justice system and include groups such as families of service personnel living on bases overseas, Crown servants working with the Armed Forces overseas, or civilians on board military ships or aircraft. I understand that the amendment was actually intended to apply to locally employed staff in Afghanistan but I am required to address the amendment as scripted, although I will come to Afghanistan more specifically.
The Armed Forces covenant was designed with the Armed Forces past and present, and the families who support them, at its heart. That was in recognition of the unique obligations of and sacrifices that they make on behalf of the country in serving us. In practical terms, the covenant is focused on ensuring that the Armed Forces community gets a fair deal when accessing public goods and services in comparison with their civilian counterparts, with the aim of mitigating any disadvantage that they may face as a result of service life, and to allow special provision to be considered for those who have sacrificed the most.
The covenant is therefore directed primarily within the UK, and I do not think that it would be helpful or appropriate to include in its scope locally employed staff working for the United Kingdom Government, whether in Afghanistan or any other country. Those individuals are employed as civilians under their own bespoke terms and conditions of service within their own countries. However, importantly, the Government will take further action where necessary. In Afghanistan, we completed Operation Pitting, the biggest and fastest emergency evacuation in recent history, bringing around 15,000 people to safety in the UK and helping 36 other countries airlift their own nationals.
The whole UK Government are engaged, via Operation Warm Welcome, in ensuring that those Afghan nationals relocated to the UK are provided with the best possible support and start to life in the UK that we can give them. That comes from a variety of sources; it comes from across government departments and may involve the devolved Administrations or come from other public agencies. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that it includes assisting these Afghan nationals into work. I am informed that some ARAP people are now working in the UK as we speak.
We have made it clear that our commitment to Afghanistan and those who supported our mission there continues. Our message to those people to whom we have made a commitment is clear: that commitment to you is enduring. However, the covenant is not the appropriate mechanism to accomplish that support and help.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I refer her back to her earlier comments about the addition of functions, and her feeling that this would be an overload on the functioning of the covenant system. Perhaps these functions could still go into the Bill but be brought into force through statutory instrument at various stages in future. It seems to me that the opportunity to get them into the Bill is one that we should not miss.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble and gallant Lord knows, I have the greatest respect for him. I have no doubt whatever about his commitment to and interest in these issues. I have tried to indicate that even to get to where we have reached has been challenging and difficult. Notwithstanding all that, it has got us to a good place. It is far better to put our toe in the water, make progress in these three significant areas—and they are significant—and assess how that is working in practice. Then we can make an informed decision about whether expansion is needed and, if so, where. Is it proving a source of concern to our Armed Forces personnel and veterans? That further work will be important to establish, first, whether a need is there and, secondly, how to meet it. As I said earlier to him, that requires extensive consultation with a large variety of bodies, not least the devolved Administrations.
I should not want to give people boundless hope that we could deliver things that, although in an Act of Parliament, could prove problematic to deliver. That is my major concern. We should manage expectation. Quite honestly, we should allow this to unfold and see how it runs. We are under an obligation in the covenant to report every year on how matters are progressing, and we have the facility in the Bill to take forward expansion if that need is identified. I suggest to the noble and gallant Lord that this is a more prudent and sensible way in which to proceed.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, I thank her for everything she said and for being so open-minded. However, she said that a veteran—or a veteran’s family—who goes to get help and is refused will then go to an ombudsman or through a complaints system. I think she is a bit optimistic, because veterans who have given their hearts to the country in Afghanistan and who have fought for their lives should not have to fight for this. I would rather that she had suggested a way of monitoring from the other end the refusals of help and the circumstances. My experience is that, even without mental welfare problems, veterans have given their lives to this country fighting, and they are reluctant to go public or to drag others in. We are talking about initiatives from up the chain of authority, which is monitoring and picking them up, rather than relying on our veterans to fight once again.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I can understand why the noble Viscount articulates that point. If we draw a distinction between active service personnel and veterans, I imagine that our active personnel in service at the moment are more likely to be interested in health and education. I think that our veterans are more likely to be interested in health and housing, for obvious reasons.
One of the difficulties with the noble Viscount’s suggestion is that we do not know, and we have no reason to know, whether anyone is encountering problems. To take the example from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we do not know whether a parent has a problem with getting her child adequately placed in a suitable facility until that person comes and tells us that there is a problem. We are trying to ensure that they have a much simpler route to finding the solution they need because of what the Bill is doing. That is why the obligation is being placed on the delivery end. The individuals seeking the particular facility or the help actually want to go to the provider and say, “This is what I need, please can I have it?”
In the disappointing eventuality that help is not forthcoming, if that person is in service then there will certainly be help available within the armed services to support them. If the person is a veteran, there is a plentitude of help from charitable agencies, some of the Armed Forces charities and other support charities. If there were a delay or obstruction in the necessary service being received by the person who needs it, I hope that that would be very quickly picked up so that the person knows they could go to the provider and say, “You’re failing me. You’re falling down on the job. That is not good enough.” It is very difficult for anyone else to know whether that person, first, wants a service, and, secondly, has been disappointed or obstructed in trying to get it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for a very constructive reply. While she was responding, I looked again at the power to add bodies and functions in the Bill. To take up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and some of what the Minister was saying, it seemed that she was not saying that there was never going to be a need for bodies that need to “have due regard to” to be added to the covenant, but the issue is the practicality of it. From looking at the Bill, I wonder whether an appropriate amendment could come forward on Report to put a bit of meat on the bones, rather than the Bill just saying that there is a power to add bodies and functions. If I have not mistaken what the noble Lord said, maybe there could be some kind of timeframe and greater certainty, but perhaps we will be able to look at that in response to what the Minister said and the suggestion that he made. I thought that was very helpful.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, for his contribution and the point he made about what “due regard” means. I hope we do not have a judicial review about that. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I know what “due regard” means. I am sure you can argue it, but I think we all know what it is supposed to mean. I will leave that to the lawyers.
I also apologise to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Smith, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. As many of us will have done, I read lots of documents and Bills related to this over the weekend. I did not properly read Amendment 64, which raises a really important issue that the Minister, to be fair, sought to answer. I will read this out, because people read our affairs and they will not know what we are talking about when they read it; I apologise, but it is important. The noble Baronesses suggest that the covenant
“should be extended to cover civilians subject to service discipline who have been employed by the UK Armed Forces while on deployment.”
I think a lot of people would think that was probably already the case. The Minister, to be fair, said that of course the Government have due regard to people who had done that, because they have a duty of care, responsibility and so on, but the amendment seeks to put that into primary legislation. It is certainly something worthy of further thought and consideration. I appreciate that the Minister sought to answer this, but it is a particularly important amendment. I think that in bringing it forward, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Smith, have done the Committee a service. That is what I have to say about the attention to detail.
With those brief comments on what I thought was, again, a helpful debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Coaker
“(za) the Secretary of State;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place the same legal responsibility to have ‘due regard’ to the Armed Forces Covenant on central government as the Bill currently requires of local authorities and other public bodies.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This amendment again applies to the covenant. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Smith, for their support on this amendment. It seeks to extend the application of the covenant to central government. Using the test that I always use, I think people would expect that to be the case, but no doubt we will hear from the Minister why the Government seem to be resistant to it.
We all believe that the Armed Forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between government and service communities, guaranteeing them and their families the respect and fair treatment that their service has earned. The Bill creates new responsibilities for a wide range of public bodies, from school governors to local authorities, to deliver the covenant, yet central government is not included. Amendment 9 seeks to change that. In practice, without it, we would create a situation, which I think sounds farcical, in which a chair of school governors, for example—and you can make other examples up—has a legal responsibility to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant, but government departments, including the Ministry of Defence, do not. I find that really strange, to be frank.
As the Royal British Legion has pointed out, many of the policy areas in which members of the Armed Forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national government or based on national guidance. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said at Second Reading, it is
“questionable whether it will be successful without incorporating central government, with its policy responsibilities,”—[Official Report, 7/9/2021; col. 742.]
into the Bill. The British Medical Association has called on the Government to
“expand the ‘specified persons and bodies’ section under clause 8 of the bill to include … Her Majesty’s Government and Secretaries of State with responsibility for the functions specified within the bill.”
Giving evidence to the Bill Select Committee, General Sir John McColl of Cobseo said:
“I do think that there is a strong argument for the inclusion of central Government functions … At the moment, the central Government traction that we have is that there is a moral requirement for Government to comply with the Covenant. That is fine as long as it works, but in some cases it absolutely does not work.”
It should be a part of this Bill, in primary legislation.
The MoD has said, in defence of not including central government in the Bill, that it was already in many ways subject to a duty of regard to the covenant. Personally, I do not think that is enough; it is insufficient. Central government should be included in the Bill. The Bill Select Committee report said:
“The Committee notes that by excluding central government as a responsible public body, Service accommodation is not covered by the duty of due regard. The Government may wish to consider adding this as an area where the duty applies in the future.”
Again, that is just one example of the Bill Select Committee looking at this and giving a practical example of what happens if central government is not included in the Bill. With those remarks, I will leave it there. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 9. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already said, at Second Reading a number of noble Lords, including me, raised the fundamental problem with the Armed Forces covenant. While local authorities and other public bodies offering key services are listed, there is one glaring omission: central government is not required to have due regard to the covenant, and the noble Lord has just ably explained why that is such a contradiction.
The Government need to understand that in creating the covenant they have created demand and expectation. To use the closing comments by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, from the previous group on my Amendment 64, if you asked anyone outside the Bill they would think that the Government were already included. That service accommodation is not included is a helpful pointer to why the Government need to reconsider.
Without the same responsibilities for central government and its services to provide the covenant, frankly it is nothing more than warm words. I am sure there are plenty of arguments to say that it should, and probably will, be covered by different parts of government services, but the point is that the amendment can remedy that. The amendment would go further than the Government want to at the moment, but if the Government do not accept that they need to have the same responsibilities as other bodies, frankly they are not truly committed to delivering the covenant.
The police covenant being proposed at the moment in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has this same lack of responsibility for central government while imposing it on other bodies. I have to say that it is beginning to look a bit worrying.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment because I think it is extremely important. The covenant with the Armed Forces is an agreement putting obligations on our country in favour of people serving in the Armed Forces and those who have served in the Armed Forces. The covenant therefore contains specific obligations, which have been listed. It is true that in practical terms most of those will be local; if one wanted some health help, normally one would get that locally. It is therefore quite natural that the local authorities have a responsibility, but there seem to be quite serious possibilities that veterans and acting members of the Armed Forces will want government help.
One illustration that came to my mind when thinking about this before Second Reading was in relation to the first Iraq war. Noble Lords may remember that there was serious concern before and as the war started that our troops might be subject to a form of poison gas that would be very damaging to them. It was suspected that it was a gas of a particular kind. Exactly what the basis was for that I did not know, but it certainly resulted in protection being handed out to many of those in our services taking part in the first Iraq war.
When the war was over, it was discovered that some people who had served in the Armed Forces were beginning to suffer from a strange, rather neurological type of disease. There was a question about whether the disease had been caused by the protection that had been given to them against the gas. The gas, I may say, never emerged, so the protection turned out not to be necessary, but the protection had been given and could have had its own effect on those to whom it was administered.
That problem, of whether it was a consequence of the prescription, was a difficult and very deep question of medical research. It took quite a long time, as your Lordships may remember, and there was some dispute among the medics as to whether it was so. That is a special illustration of the necessity for the Secretary of State for Health, for example, to be involved because you could not expect the local authority or the local health trust to be responsible for looking into that national problem.
As one approaches this covenant, one also has to remember that it has obligations. That is not just a sort of wishful thinking; it has specific obligations. When the Bill says, as I hope the Act will, “have regard to the covenant”, it means looking to see what obligations in the covenant affect me. If I am a local authority, a local health authority or a local education authority, it will be the obligations in the covenant which have bearing on my responsibility. I therefore regard it as a close legal obligation that is created by the Bill to support those in the Armed Forces presently serving, and the veterans.
As the Minister has said, of course, the nature of the help that veterans require may be rather different from the help that service people require. For example, on moving between areas, if you have medical care in one area and have to move you may well have problems registering. There are quite a lot of problems nowadays in some places for somebody coming into a district in getting on to the medical register of a practice. That kind of thing can readily arise in relation to the local authority.
I have no doubt whatever that if the local authority has an obligation in a particular way, the finance for that is required under the local authority financial provision because this is one of the statutory provisions that are binding on the local authority. I regard the Bill as putting quite a fixed and rather balanced obligation on local authorities, but I see no reason whatever why it should not include central government. It will put obligations on them only in respect of an obligation in the covenant which applies to them at a particular time. In the example I have given, it would apply to the Government when a question was raised as to whether what they had done in the way of seeking to protect our people against a gas had in fact caused such a neurological condition. You would not expect the local health authority to be able to deal with that sort of problem; it would require the considerable resources of research that this country can command to see whether it was a cause and, if so, how it could be cured.
It is extremely important that the Government—the Secretary of State, as our amendment says—should be responsible. This provision would not put any responsibility on him or her that is not already in the covenant, so far as it affects him or her. I am not obliged to do anything under the covenant, except where an obligation encompasses me. The Secretary of State would not be put under any obligation which it was not a proper reading of the covenant to allot to him or her. I very much support this amendment. I mentioned it to my noble friend the Minister in general terms, based on my example of the first war in Iraq. I hope that the sensible effect of this amendment will be appreciated and that we can get it into the Bill.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
I endorse what the noble and learned Lord has been saying about what was known as Gulf War syndrome. Of course, I was involved in that Gulf War but after it I was also involved for many years in the investigations and the attempts to get investigations into what was known euphemistically as Gulf War syndrome. There was a great reluctance, perhaps understandably in government, to accept that there was something special here. It took a great deal of persuasion, study and effort before it became more recognised. It was that experience that makes me believe what noble and learned Lords have been talking about, and how important it is that the Secretary of State and central Government, in effect, have a responsibility which may need to be discharged in this type of situation. I hope it does not arise again but if it does, it can be dealt with at the central level.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief because we have had contributions from all parts of the House—Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Cross Bench—supporting this amendment. I should be very grateful if the Minister answered the question I asked at Second Reading, which was:
“What assessment have the Government made of creating a duty for themselves to pay due regard to the Armed Forces covenant?”—[Official Report, 7/9/21; col. 766.]
Has the Minister had a chance to think about that so far? If not, would the Government like to think about it ahead of Report?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, again this has been a fascinating debate and I arise with trepidation when one of the contributors is my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. A number of significant points have been made and I will try to address them as best I can.
Amendment 9, as has been discussed, centres on the desire to make central government departments subject to the duty of due regard. Again, to provide some context, we designed the new duty to initially focus on the three core functions of healthcare, education and housing because, as I indicated in debating a previous amendment, these are prominent among the concerns of both Armed Forces personnel in service and veterans. They not only reflect issues that are already in statute, but also address the most commonly raised issues affecting the day-to-day lives of our Armed Forces community.
As our Armed Forces are a very mobile population, frequently moving from local authority to local authority, it is often the variation of service delivery across local areas that can inadvertently cause disadvantage. Consequently, it is vital that those delivering these key public services are sufficiently aware of the challenges faced by the Armed Forces community when accessing these services. It is right that we look at this area first.
We also took into account that central Government are responsible for the overall strategic direction for national policy and for delivering on the manifesto on which they were elected. However, the responsibility for the delivery of these functions and their impact rests at more local level. I would argue that Governments are answerable, ultimately, to an electorate when a general election comes round and, before that point, they are most certainly accountable to Parliament, and that is an accountability no Government would ever take lightly.
Senior engagement regularly takes place between the MoD, the Cabinet Office, other government departments and the devolved Administrations to drive an increase in covenant awareness across national healthcare, and housing and education policy to improve the lives of the Armed Forces community. Additionally, the Government’s delivery of the covenant is, as we all know, subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the existing annual legal obligation to report progress delivering the covenant across the UK to Parliament. This is in addition to regular parliamentary scrutiny through other channels, such as Parliamentary Questions, reviews by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee and debates called by Members with a particular interest in certain aspects of defence.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern raised in support of his argument the certainly interesting event that occurred during the first Gulf War. As he explained, in anticipation that troops might be exposed to gas issues and had to be protected against that, protective equipment was handed out. As he indicated, people then suffered from a neurological type of disease on their return and tried to identify where it had come from. As my noble and learned friend said, they had not actually been exposed to any toxic gas, so the suspicion was that it was from the protective equipment. He adduced this instance in support of his argument that central government should be brought in.
I have two observations on that analogy. The emphasis on what the Government are doing in this Bill and what we have endeavoured to make possible is, first, to give the covenant a statutory impact, which is innovatory and very important; and secondly, to try to make it much clearer across the United Kingdom, for the whole panoply of services being delivered in respect of housing, education and health, how there needs to be greater awareness and understanding, and a much more universal approach to delivering these services to personnel who may be in service in the Armed Forces or veterans. That is about ensuring that, when they need services, they can access them.
The question that my noble and learned friend poses about the instance that he describes, with the reference to the first Gulf War and the particular situation that developed there, is a legitimate illustration to give the Committee. I accept that that was a serious situation, but the question running through my mind as he spoke was that surely the important thing there was remedy. This is not about people needing something, not being able to get it, and making sure that the providers of that service are much more alert to providing it; it is about a situation where, under orders of government, Armed Forces were sent abroad and then apparently—I do not know the facts myself—experienced neurological disorders when they returned, and considered that was attributable to protective equipment that was defective, with which they had been issued.
That is not a complete analogy with what the Bill is trying to do. If you ask what solution was needed, the answer, quite simply, is that those people who suffered in that way needed to be given advice and helped, and needed to find a legal solution, if that was what was available to them. I do not know what happened to that particular group of people, but I imagine that the first thing they needed was medical support, which I hope that they got. I imagine that, within the Armed Forces, there would be a concern about the manifestation of that situation and a desire to support, but the bottom line is that, if the culpable body were the Government and the MoD, if these individuals sought and obtained good legal advice the MoD would find itself, quite properly, the subject of litigation. That is how the solution would be sought. If the court was satisfied that the negligence alleged by those who had suffered was proved, remedies would follow.
I say with the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay that I absolutely understand what he is driving at, but I still do not see a complete dovetail analogy with what we seek to deliver through the Bill. The situation that my noble and learned friend outlines is serious. It may very well happen in future, but the MoD is very vigilant and conscious that if it falls down on its duty to its own people it will expect to be sued—and it is. Not only is it sued and expected to provide redress but support is given to people who find themselves in that grouping. Including central government in the Bill is unnecessary. The Government are already subject to a legal obligation to report on the delivery of the covenant, and there are many and sufficient levels of public scrutiny.
Let us bear in mind that the Bill is about trying to improve the levels of awareness across the United Kingdom and a better and more universal provision of essential services for those members of our Armed Forces and veterans who need them. My problem with the amendment is that, were it accepted, we would create an obligation on central government. We cannot impose a comparable obligation on devolved Governments because that would be incompetent and not within the scope of the Bill. We would then once again create disparity rather than universality across the United Kingdom. We would have central government bound in one way but not devolved Administrations. That is not a desirable outcome.
I am not at all immune to the importance of the arguments advanced by my noble and learned friend. He makes an important point. The situation to which he refers was grave. I suggest that that can be addressed by existing means. It does not need the inclusion of central government in the covenant, which, indeed, would not necessarily have prevented the problem. The question is: how do we provide a remedy to people who have been affected by such an unfortunate development? My response would be: by providing support. Advice is available—legal advice if that is required—for people to follow through the remedies they seek. It is not necessary to bring central government into the legislation. It is much more important that we focus on what we are trying to do as a first step, make sure we get that working properly and then, as we have been discussing, consider whether there is a need to expand that provision of duty.
I am unable to agree that this amendment is either necessary or would help the situation; it could create a difficulty where one does not currently exist. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I never mentioned negligence. I am not suggesting for a minute that there was necessarily any negligence. The Armed Forces put in requirements for the people who were taking part for protection against what they thought might come. That was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Some of them took the treatment. The question was: what was the result of that? That was a question for the Secretary of State. It was him who had to look into that; it was a national question. It had nothing whatever to do with negligence or some other basis of claim. The claim was because the Government had approved a covenant, which I said should protect them in respect of their work in the Armed Forces and after they had left. That is what this was—nothing more, nothing less.
I am sorry to interrupt, but I have to make it clear that there is no suggestion in my argument that there was any negligence or any sort of enforcement available at the time. This is a new remedy, and it should be given.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for expanding that further. I understand the point he is trying to make. I was making a distinction between areas where, if the MoD was culpable, it could expect a claim of negligence. My noble and learned friend outlines a situation where something happens and maybe no negligence can be established but people suffer. In that event, we would want to do two things: we would want to find out what happened and provide help to those affected. But is it not the case that the covenant already provides a route for question and accountability of the Government to Parliament? The annual report could be presented and Parliament could say, “We absolutely dismiss that report”, and ask why it has made no reference to the situation of the type my noble and learned friend referred to. I argue that there is accountability and, separate issues flowing from that, our support and solutions for those affected, but these could be provided in other ways. They do not require a covenant to secure that.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s thinking has not necessary moved on very much from Second Reading, when she said
“I would say that government is held to account by Parliament and the purpose of the covenant duty is to raise awareness among providers of these public services”.—[Official Report, 7/9/21; col. 770.]
Parliament can and should hold the Government to account but, if the legal duty to have due regard is put only on local authorities and certain other providers and not on the Government, yes, we can ask questions but we cannot actually hold the Government legally accountable. The points the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, made are surely right: if we want to think about aspects that go beyond the duties to local authorities, that duty needs to put on to central government, not just local government.
The Minister suggested there might be a problem that we as Parliament or Her Majesty’s Government cannot put duties on the devolved Administrations. Surely that is precisely because defence is a reserved matter so, if we are putting a duty on to anybody, apart from local authorities and local health authorities, it ought to be on to central government, not on to the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
With the greatest respect, that might seem a tempting analysis of the situation, but the bottom line is that an inequity and disparity would be immediately introduced in the United Kingdom, because a Government would be bound and other devolved Governments would not be. That is profoundly undesirable.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. She is in a bit of trouble on this one. Logically, I do not think that some of what she said holds together. In her answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, she clearly talked about negligence, people being sued and things like that, whereas what the noble and learned Lord talked about, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, talked about very movingly from his own experience, is that we are seeking to require central government to have due regard to the covenant. Placing that obligation on central government in the same way as we are placing it on local authorities and other bodies is consistent with the principle that we are seeking to drop adopt through this legislation. This is not about moving into an area where a Government are negligent.
All I would say to the Minister is that we will have to come back to this on Report. I wonder whether she could reflect again on the discussions that have taken place in Committee to see whether there might be a way forward for us all. With that, I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
“343AG Regional committees(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to give committees established under section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989, known as Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, additional functions specified in the regulations relating to all former members of Her Majesty’s forces and their relevant family members, and a new name.(2) The regulations may in particular provide that it is a function of the committees—(a) to report and make recommendations to the Secretary of State on matters that are or may be relevant to—(i) their armed forces covenant report, and(ii) sections 343AA to 343AD and guidance issued under section 343AE;(b) to provide a distinct, identifiable, and independent point of reference in their region for both the veteran community and all those supporting it;(c) to raise awareness of, and support the implementation of—(i) services provided to the veteran community alone or with others,(ii) the Government’s strategy for veterans, and(iii) the terms of armed forces covenant;(d) to act as an advocate, promoter, facilitator, or communicator of services that are relevant to the veteran community;(e) to report and make representations and recommendations on existing or proposed services that are relevant to the veteran community.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to extend the statutory functions of Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees (VAPCs), currently limited to functions relating to compensation schemes for veterans and their families (the War Pensions and the Armed Forces Compensation Schemes) to all aspects of veteran life.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I first raised the subject of Amendments 14 and 15 in my name at Second Reading. I hope they will prove uncontroversial. Indeed, to pick up on the conversation we have had over the last few groupings, all these amendments seek to do is effectively to support the Government in what they are already doing and, equally, to try to embolden a committee to deliver the Armed Forces covenant. I shall be very brief.
Specifically, the amendment enables the Secretary of State to extend the statutory functions of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, VAPCs. They are regional statutory committees—nine in England, two in Scotland, one in Wales and one in Northern Ireland—established by a statutory instrument made under Section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989. Each committee has between 12 and 20 members, who are all volunteers. They are public appointees who act independently of their sponsoring department, the MoD, and so provide evidence and views from that independent standpoint. During my time as Minister for Veterans, I felt that as a body they played a valuable role, both as advocates on behalf of the MoD and as a source of candid advice to me as a Minister and to the wider veteran community.
However, the issue is that the enabling power limits the statutory functions that can be given to VAPCs solely to functions relating to the compensation schemes for veterans and their families, namely the war pensions and Armed Forces compensation schemes, and as such are mandated to engage with only a relatively small part of the veteran community and not the Armed Forces covenant in general.
As we seek to improve the implementation of the Armed Forces covenant, it strikes me that, through their independent approach and regional structure, the members of the VAPCs are well placed to make a useful contribution to the Government’s drive to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran. Indeed, just one aspect of this drive is the implementation of the duty introduced by Clause 8(3) of the Bill to have due regard to the principles of and relating to the Armed Forces covenant. In my view, at least, this is not only timely but long overdue.
Interestingly, we have in all honesty been talking about expanding VAPC powers for some time. As I recall, it was a proposed amendment put to me as a Minister when I was responsible for taking the last Armed Forces Bill through Parliament five years ago, but due to lack of preparation time was ultimately not included. We really have been talking about this for a very long time.
It is also an argument that has already in part been conceded by the Government, by their agreeing in principle that members of each regional VAPC be invited by terms of reference to join parallel informal regional groups to perform functions relating to all veterans. This is exactly what this amendment is trying to do, and they are proposing to do it. We even now have a position in which the Government are actively advertising the role of membership of VAPCs as extending beyond the original statutory functions. I have sent this to the Minister. I was rather surprised to discover that on the public appointments website, dating back over four years—the current appointments are equally advertised—the principal role for the chair of the south-east England VAPC, the first role it describes as being required, is to
“act as advocates for implementing the Armed Forces Covenant and associated measures at a local level”,
even though at this point it was not mandated within the statutory requirements. They have already been advertising it, so it seems logical that we should enshrine it in this legislation.
To be fair, this amendment is carefully crafted to ensure that it ties in with the Government’s intent to review the interim solution that they are proposing for the function of VAPCs after one year, after which it will enable the Secretary of State to give VAPCs functions relating to all veterans only if it should be concluded after that review that this is potentially the best way to maximise their contribution to helping support the Armed Forces community.
My plea to the Minister is simple. The Government have accepted in principle that the role of the VAPCs should be expanded by delivering this interim solution. The Government are even actively advertising it as an expanded role. All that these modest amendments would do is put in place the ability for the Secretary of State—if, and only if, he so wishes—to make that change after the review period rather than having to wait yet another five years for the next Armed Forces Bill.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am generally supportive of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. He very ably made the point why the time to act is now rather than waiting a further five years before something is done. I very much hope the Minister can respond positively to what I think is a very sensible amendment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for tabling this amendment, and I understand his motivation for doing so. I want to develop this a little further because he has raised some interesting arguments. He has described how the amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State for Defence the power to amend the scope of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees’ statutory functions by regulations in the future.
My noble friend has described extensively what the VAPCs do across the UK. They are established under the Social Security Act 1989, with their functions set out in the War Pensions Committees Regulations 2000. Indeed, they used to be known as War Pensions Committees and their original role was expressly to raise awareness of the War Pension Scheme and latterly, the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, and to make representations to the MoD on behalf of recipients. For that reason, the enabling Act for the VAPCs, the Social Security Act, sets out that their statutory functions are limited to the cohort of veterans and their families who are claiming for or in receipt of one of the two compensation schemes. It is that limitation that my noble friend’s amendment seeks to remedy.
In practice, as my noble friend knows—he alluded to this—members of the VAPCs have for many years performed activities that go above and beyond that scope. For example, many members have taken on a role promoting the Armed Forces covenant locally to all those who might have an interest in it. They have done that on a non-statutory basis and there have been no substantive issues with them doing so. I therefore suggest that in this respect my noble friend’s amendment is not necessary to achieve the outcome that he seeks.
However, there is a desire on all sides for greater clarity on the role that VAPCs have. My honourable friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans joined a conference with the VAPCs yesterday and confirmed that he had signed off on a new set of terms of reference agreed by both the VAPC chairs and officials in the MoD and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. The terms set out two new specific principles: first, to set out the activities that members of VAPCs as individuals and as members of informal regional groups are asked to carry out relating to all veterans and their families and, secondly, to provide direction relating to their performance for an initial period of 12 months beginning from 26 October, in order that we give the chairs a sensible period of time to adopt the new terms of reference and show how they can deliver against them. Following that initial 12-month period, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans will review the terms of reference and performance against the activities set out and will then make a determination on the next steps.
I say to my noble friend that the Government have a clear way forward over the next 12 months that has been agreed with the VAPCs themselves. We want to give them the chance to perform under the new terms of reference before we take any decisions about their longer-term future. We want to use the next 12 months to gather the evidence that we need to take an informed decision.
That is why I feel that my noble friend’s amendment is premature at this stage. To pass it now would put the cart before the horse. It would give the Secretary of State a power that we do not yet know if he would need or use. It would pre-empt the outcome of our work over the next 12 months and would imply that a change to the VAPCs’ statutory role was required when we have not yet actually come to any decision about that. It would provide only for a specific and rather limited adjustment to their statutory role when we might instead wish to consider more fundamental changes.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I am of course grateful for my noble friend’s courteous reply. Indeed, if nothing else, having waited for seven years, if coincidentally, yesterday, the terms of reference were finally signed, then perhaps we have achieved something through tabling this amendment. That is good news. However, I must say to my noble friend—and she is a dear friend—that I am slightly disappointed by the reply. The one aspect that she did not address is why it was deemed necessary to put some of the roles of the VAPCs on a statutory footing, yet now it does not seem necessary to put on a statutory footing the extended role. There seems to be an illogic in that argument, which was not addressed. That is something we can discuss, because it certainly was not my noble friend’s point and we did not have the opportunity to meet before Committee.
I reserve the right to look at this again, because there is a strong sense of feeling. I know that many people listening to this debate will be feeling that, yet again, the Government are kicking the can down the road. When the Government issue adverts luring people in to be members of these committees, because they would apparently be supporting the Armed Forces covenant even though they are not on a statutory footing, that sends a very poor message. For the time being, however, I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Goldie
“(a) omit “(a “full-time service commitment”)”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, group six comprises Amendments 16 to 37 inclusive. In total, these relate to a minor, technical amendment to Clause 9, which introduces important changes to Section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable our reserve personnel to do more and for defence to offer them more. The changes we are making to Section 24 will in future enable reservists to undertake periods of full-time and part-time service, or a combination of both under one continuous commitment.
On reflection, we feel it more appropriate to refer to our new continuous service commitment using neutral terms, such as “a Section 24 commitment”. This will avoid any suggestion that reservists are in continuous service only in certain circumstances. Reservists are serving members of the Armed Forces during their entire term of service, not just when they are on duty or in training. It is a purely technical amendment and I can confirm that, importantly, it will have no impact on how the new measures we are introducing under Clause 9 will operate. It will allow our Reserve personnel to do more and enable the Ministry of Defence to make better use of their knowledge, skills and experience, but avoid any possible confusion as to nomenclature and meaning. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I accept the Minister’s assurance that this is a wholly technical amendment. If my assistants find that not to be true, I shall return to it ferociously on Report. But assuming that is the case, I am content with the amendment. I make the point that the next group goes into a fundamental area, and I would greatly object to any attempt to move into that group tonight.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I am grateful to be able to contribute briefly on this group, which is an area of particular interest to me. I declare my interest as chairman of the Reserve Forces Review 2030, which is the 10-year review of the Reserve—the outcome of which is, I should like to think, partly responsible for some of the Bill’s provisions on the Reserve.
The headmark of that review was the integration of the Regular and Reserve Forces. Within that, we attempted to create a spectrum of service—right of arc, full-time regular service; left of arc, a civilian—and within that spectrum of services, enabling the principle of bringing civilian skillsets through Reserves into delivering against defence demand signals. We encountered two principal barriers to that spectrum of service. The first, frankly, was money. Unlike the Regular Forces, the Reserve Forces are always considered to be a marginal cost and therefore, as soon as there are pressures on costings, it is the Reserves’ budget that will be reduced.
The other, to which this technical amendment goes directly, was terms and conditions of service. Of course, we already have full-time Reserve service, but we do not have the ability for reservists to have not a contract, per se, but an assured Reserve capability. That could be on a part-time but enduring basis—for example, not being contracted to work five days a week and becoming a temporary regular, but to be able to do it as part of a portfolio career. That would enable you to come in and, perhaps, work one day a week but over an enduring period. It would make the Reserve much more effective in delivering almost as augmentees, working on a daily basis, and moving away from its traditional role as a contingent capability that trained at weekends and was always used as that traditional Reserve.
That is why this government amendment is so welcome, to my mind. It helps to deliver that traditional Reserve capability for a Reserve which will be very much suited for the 2030s.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I wanted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, before I spoke because I thought that if there were any heffalump traps, he might have spotted them, given his expertise on reserves. I seem to recall that when we were looking at flexible working for the regulars it garnered some concern from certain Benches and perhaps from some noble and gallant Lords who were a little concerned that you could not be a part-time soldier. Actually, that was never what was being suggested.
Looking at these amendments one by one, a bit like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I could only assume that they were all doing what the Minister said they were doing because they look so technical. I think the statement given by the Minister and the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, both suggest that this is helping to bring the reserves into an even more effective place. The reserves clearly play an important role, and if there can be a logical movement between full-time and part-time work and that counts as continuous service, that has to be all to the good. The only thing I would say, if anyone were looking at a complete guide to plain English, is that by the time anyone is looking at this Bill it will be totally unreadable because the language seems to be so arcane. I hope it will keep the government lawyers working for many years to come.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I want to make one comment. It is slightly out of context but what the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was talking about there, bringing the reserves in more and greater integration, also moves things. His report will take consideration of civilian contractors who come under military law. We are beginning to bring the whole thing together, and a previous amendment about making the covenant more available to those contractors who may be under military law becomes even more relevant.
Baroness Goldie
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision in Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision in Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Baroness Goldie
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision in Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision in Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision in Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
“(2) For subsection (1)(a) substitute—“(a) in service under section 24 commitments; or”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
“(b) omit subsection (3)(d).”Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of several amendments in the name of Baroness Goldie which would clarify the effect of provision made by Clause 9 about commitments under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Lord Puttnam
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Climate Change: Global Temperatures
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published on 9 August; and what policy areas they intend to reassess in response to the finding that global temperatures are rising faster and will have worse consequences than previously predicted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The IPCC report reaffirms the importance of net zero. On 19 October, we launched the net-zero strategy, supporting up to 440,000 jobs and leveraging up to £90 billion in private investment by 2030. Our strategy sets out clear policies and proposals for keeping us on track for our coming carbon budgets and our ambitious NDC.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
How on earth does that and the Government’s net-zero plan fit with the fact that the Chancellor has just given us a Budget that is so carbon intensive that we should all just give up everything that we are bothering to do? He has reduced the duty on domestic flights, which are the most carbon-intensive form of travel, and he has frozen the fuel-duty escalator for the 12th year. This Treasury does not understand the climate emergency, and the noble Lord, who hears us all here, has to take that back.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course I always take the noble Baroness’s comments back to the department for discussion, as she well knows. I think that she is being a little unfair with her comments and I know that she would not want to be. The Chancellor has also announced £3.8 billion-worth of funding for domestic low-carbon heat installation systems, social housing decarbonisation and public sector decarbonisation—we talked about that in our statement a few days ago. It is important to bear in mind that many communities in the UK—people who live on remote islands et cetera—rely on their air services. Domestic aviation accounts for less than 1% of UK emissions. I also remind the noble Baroness that the Chancellor recently announced considerable funding—something like £180 million—for sustainable aviation fuel.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, working with the devolved Administrations, could the Minister indicate what new policy proposals the Government will bring to COP 26 next week, in respect of financial innovation, green finance and technology, to ensure that a comprehensive scheme of carbon capture is in place to assist with climate change mitigation by the Government’s 2030 target, over and above the Budget today, which was rather limited in this respect?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Some noble Members opposite have obviously listened to a different Budget from the one that was actually announced. We have £1 billion-worth of funding for carbon capture, usage and storage proposals. The noble Baroness will be aware that, only the other day, we announced the first two clusters in north-west and north-east England. These are world-leading, exciting proposals; no one else in the world is being as ambitious as we are on CCUS.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, returning to the issue of domestic air passenger duty, does the Minister recognise that short-haul flights are the most carbon-intensive form of travel? Ahead of COP 26, what signal does the Minister believe it sends to announce a cut to domestic air passenger duty while presiding over a record rise in rail fares—one of the least carbon-intensive forms of travel?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I refer the noble Lord to the answer that I just gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Many communities in the United Kingdom rely on air travel for international and internal connectivity. Some parts of our nation are islands, separated by water that trains do not go across. Therefore, it is important to retain connectivity. At the same time, the Chancellor also announced an increase in long-haul air passenger duty.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Is not the premise of the noble Baroness’s Question—namely, that global temperatures are rising faster than previously predicted—the reverse of the truth? When the IPCC was established, it forecast that over the ensuing 30 years, now complete, the global temperature would rise by 0.3 degrees per decade. In fact, it has risen by just 0.17 degrees per decade—barely half that amount—and all 39 models used by the IPCC produce estimates higher than reality. Reality is actually quite reassuring.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can see that the noble Lord has the House with him on that one. Even putting aside his scepticism about the accuracy of the IPCC report, surely even he would agree that, given the current spike in gas prices, for instance, it is a good thing to reduce our usage of carbon-intensive fuels. If we can generate more electricity domestically in a renewable and green way, that has to be a good thing because it reduces our reliance on importation.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, can we park the constant sideline bickering over China’s CO2 emissions? The discussion pre-COP 26 is unbalanced. We hear endless criticism of China for its 6.5 tonnes per capita emissions record, while there is a deafening silence over the record of the English-speaking world of Australia, Canada and America with their average emissions of 15 tonnes per capita—two and a half times those of China. The China bashing needs to stop. No wonder it may not attend COP 26.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry, but I just do not agree with the noble Lord. China is responsible for one of the largest emissions totals in the world. This is very much a global problem and, if we are to make any progress, every nation has to make its contribution, including not only the English-speaking world but also China.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
Can my noble friend say whether any of the pumps that are being suggested to substitute for gas boilers in our homes are yet in a state to be widely used?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can reassure my noble and learned friend on that basis. Heat pumps are a mature heating technology and currently the market-leading low-carbon option. I am also delighted to tell him that the largest UK manufacturer, Mitsubishi in Scotland, produces 10,000 of them a year.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the unpredicted intensity of freak events such as the heat dome in the US and Canada has left scientists reeling. Oceanographers are monitoring with concern the anomaly in the Gulf Stream, which helps to regulate our world’s weather, and the cold spot south-east of Greenland is particularly worrying. Does the Minister accept that it is time to stop dicing with the future of our planet, to keep fossil fuels in the ground and therefore to ditch the abominable policy that places a legal duty on our Government to extract every last drop of oil from the North Sea?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Committee on Climate Change has made it clear that we still need fossil fuels for the transition. I remind the noble Baroness that the UK is responsible for only 1% of worldwide emissions. Yes, we must do our bit, which we are—we are a world-leading power in that respect—but we also need to work on a worldwide basis with other nations, because just stopping emissions in the United Kingdom will not solve the problem.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, the Government had four key objectives for the summit next week in Glasgow. The third of those, and the one that was in many ways among the most important because of the failure to deliver it over the past decade, was the objective on finance and delivering $100 billion per annum of support for those developing countries that would miss out as a result of moving towards net zero. The Government have admitted this week, in advance of the summit, that that objective is not going to be met. Does the Minister agree that one reason for that might just be the fact that our Government—our country—withdrew on their commitments to the world’s poorest people this year and that that might just have affected the atmosphere around decision-making and the commitments that might then be made by others?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No, I do not accept that, because the UK, even after the recent reduction, still has one of the largest international climate finance facilities in the world. Again, on international finance, we are world-leading as well. It was an immense diplomatic effort to get many other nations on board—credit goes to the Prime Minister and to Alok Sharma for managing to do that. We have got the commitment, albeit maybe not as early as we would have hoped for, from 2023.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
What is the target date for the Minister’s own departmental buildings to be carbon neutral?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Lord is probably well aware, under the heat and buildings strategy, another of the Chancellor’s announcements last week, we have allocated hundreds of millions of pounds to the public sector decarbonisation scheme to go with the £1 billion that we have already spent in the past year on the PSDS. I could point the noble Lord to numerous examples across the country, both in London and elsewhere, of excellent schemes where the public sector is using these funds to deliver meaningful carbon reductions.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
The Minister mentioned the carbon capture and storage facilities that have been approved. He will also be aware that the one that was most ready to go ahead is at St Fergus in Aberdeenshire, but that was not given approval. Why? Are the Government deliberately setting out to upset Scotland and the Scottish Executive?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think that the noble Lord knows the answer to his own question. A rigorous process was gone through to determine which schemes should get the go-ahead. It is not true that the scheme to which he referred was the most advanced. An independent panel of experts studied all the bids. It is not the case that we are not going ahead with the scheme; it is on the reserve list. It will almost certainly proceed, but just not in the first wave.
Social Care
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wood of Anfield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of the new Health and Social Care Levy will be allocated to the provision of social care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
On 7 September, we announced £5.4 billion of new funding for adult social care over the 2022 to 2025 period. We have also announced that this includes more than £3.6 billion to reform the adult social care charging system and to help local authorities better sustain their markets by moving towards paying providers a fair rate for care. It also includes more than £1.7 billion for much-needed wider system reform. Further details will be announced in a White Paper later this year.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, the Health Foundation has calculated that, over the next three years, the funding required just to meet current social care demand is bigger than the extra money going into social care from the levy. So this levy will not even start to address issues such as the need for better pay and conditions for social care staff, local government’s lack of resources, and the need for community care, personalisation, et cetera. Could the Minister explain how he expects the country to believe the Government’s plan that, after three years of operation, the NHS portion of the levy, which is currently the majority, will be cut and transferred to social care? Can he confirm that the plan is really to cut NHS funding in 2025 in the face of ever rising demands on its services?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government have always been clear that the share of the levy going towards the NHS to tackle the backlog was temporary and that, in the longer term, we would move to funding social care. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, for decades, Governments have kicked the can down the road and have not tackled this difficult issue. The Government have been quite firm in committing money and have been learning, in our constant discussion with stakeholders, how best to reform the social care sector.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
Can the Minister give an assessment of whether the health and social care levy will enable more people with moderate care needs to become eligible for social care funding?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. I am not able to answer it directly now, but I will send an answer.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from the right reverend Prelate, I understand the concern that the proceeds from the ring-fenced levy may not be enough to relieve all the pressure on social care. So will the Minister encourage the NHS trusts, which are receiving the bulk of the extra funds, to use Section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006 to commission social care, thereby taking some of the pressure off local authorities?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that suggestion, and I will take it back. What we have to remember about the way social care is funded is that, in reality, it is mostly private providers that provide social care, and these are funded by private and state-funded patients. Quite often, we find it is private patients who cross-subsidise state-funded patients. I will take the question from my noble friend back and send an answer.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, the NHS hospital system is the carer of last resort. When the community’s needs are not being met as they ought to be by social care or primary healthcare, they go into hospital. This puts excessive demand on hospital resources, which should be devoted to dealing with the elective backlog and waiting lists. Does the Minister recognise that this distortion, with its damaging effects on the NHS, can be corrected only when the NHS is partnered by a well-funded and reformed social care system?
Lord Kamall (Con)
It is quite clear that, if we want to make sure that the social care system is fit for purpose, we have to make sure that, in the model, enough money is going in to reform the system. Part of the funding does go to helping local authorities push for reform, but, at the same time, it is true that some of the additional productivity as a result of digitisation will help make the NHS more efficient.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, is it not an unfortunate fact that not a single penny from the levy will actually go to the front line of social care to relieve those overworked and underpaid staff making 15-minute visits, which is the real urgency? Even when the money does come to social care, some way down the line, will not much of it be taken up with bureaucracy, in making assessments and testing eligibility for the cap that the Government have put into the system? Surely that is something that we have to look at. How much of the money is actually going to go to the front line, not just now but in three or four years’ time.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point: we have to see reforms in the social care sector. The spending of £5.4 billion includes £1.7 billion for wider system reforms, including at least £500 million to support the adult social care workforce in professionalisation and well-being. We are also working closely with providers of care, local government charities, the unions, professional bodies, and users of care and their representatives, and will respond to their views in the forthcoming adult social care system reform White Paper, later this year.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, so far the Minister has responded only on the issue of adult social care. Freedom of information requests from every local authority in England by the Disabled Children’s Partnership reveal that 40% of authorities cut the respite care for parent carers during the pandemic. This comes as eight in 10 parent carers are experiencing some form of anxiety—a rate much higher than among the general population. Can the Minister outline specifically how the health and social care levy will help restore short breaks and respite care for families with disabled children?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point that we should address. In looking at the wider picture, we recognise that unpaid carers play a vital role in our care system and make a considerable contribution to society, alongside the paid social care workforce. The Care Act encourages local authorities to support unpaid carers and provide preventive care to stop people’s early care needs escalating. The announcement of the £5.4 billion funding marks the next step in our transformational plans for the sector.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, if the care system is to improve, a critical element is that of a suitably skilled workforce. Can my noble friend tell the House what plans there are to deliver a new deal for the care workforce?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that important point. We have listened to the sector and prioritised the adult social care workforce. The investment of at least £500 million over three years will deliver new qualifications, progression pathways, and well-being and mental health support. This workforce package is unprecedented investment, which will support the development and well-being of the care workforce. It will enable a fivefold increase in public spending on the skills and training of our care workers and registered managers, as well as on their well-being.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, has admitted that the Government cannot commit to clearing the NHS treatment backlog generated by Covid within three years. This is despite the fact that £12 billion a year raised from the levy will mostly go to fund this work and that he is also announcing another £6 billion in capital funding for the same purpose. Does this recognition of the scale of the NHS challenge mean that social care will have to wait even longer than three years for any levy funding? Can the Minister confirm, as he failed to do last week, that the £162.5 million announced for the social care workforce and recruitment fund was new money and not part of previous repackaging, as we have seen with the Chancellor’s pre-spending review announcements so far?
Lord Kamall
The funding commits us from 2022 to 2025—it is three years’ funding. The point that the noble Baroness makes is that, of course, we are hoping that we can clear as much of the elective backlog as possible. After that, the money will be moved and will focus on social care reforms. On her specific question, I will write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, my question builds on that of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Can the Minister explain how social care is to cope now, when there is a crisis, without a larger allocation of the levy in addition to funds announced, and, in particular, how delayed transfers of care from acute hospitals may be reduced? Should there be central guidance to the NHS to commission social care services to assist in safe rapid discharge?
Lord Kamall (Con)
In looking at how we reform the adult social care workforce, we have consulted a wide range of stakeholders, not only on what we do from 2022 to 2025 but on what we do in the short term. Further details will be announced soon.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, £1 in every £12 spent by local authorities on social care goes towards funding mental health social care, supporting people of all ages who live with severe mental illness, and their carers. Can the Minister say what proportion of the planned levy will be used to fund mental health social care, which provides such a lifeline to all those affected?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a valuable point about the need to look at mental health and social care. The issue is that, sometimes, for some of the patients who are being helped, it is not only mental health that we are looking at; there is a multiplicity of issues. I will try to get a specific answer and will write to the noble Baroness.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19: Vaccinations Administered Abroad
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when COVID-19 vaccinations administered abroad will be recorded on the NHS app.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, a pilot was launched in England on 30 September for residents vaccinated abroad who request that their vaccines are uploaded to the national database. Vaccines equivalent to those that are UK-approved—those regulated by the FDA, EMA or Swissmedic—can generate an NHS Covid pass, currently AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna or Janssen in the US, EU, EEA and Switzerland. So far, 53 individuals have had their records updated, covering 22 countries. Vaccination centres have been quick to adapt and users so far are happy with the resolution.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Government say how important it is for eligible people to have their Covid booster jab, but those vaccinated overseas are not being called forward for their boosters because their initial vaccinations are not recorded on NHS systems. When will the Government fulfil the promise made by the then Vaccines Minister in the other place in July that this problem would be fixed by August, and how can those vaccinated overseas get their booster jabs?
Lord Kamall (Con)
What we have done is look at a wide range of vaccines that are being administered worldwide and look into how we understand the vaccines that have not yet been approved by the MHRA. We are requesting trial data, for example. Only a couple of days ago, I was in a meeting with a Chilean Minister who was asking me about Sinovac, which was very important. It was very helpful that they were sharing data with the MHRA so that it could make a decision as quickly as possible.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, on a recent visit to France, I found that it was very easy to transfer my English record of vaccinations to the French anti-Covid app, which I then used when going into restaurants and public buildings. This system worked well for residents and tourists alike. Yet, according to the Government’s own website, the English Covid app cannot generally even import the records from Scotland, never mind other countries. What discussions are the Government having across the UK and internationally to ensure that the pilot that he mentioned is rolled out properly and that we have a fully effective system in the future?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very important issue about the devolved Administrations. As the noble Baroness will know, health is a devolved matter; we are keeping the devolved Administrations informed of progress on the overseas vaccination solution and they are looking to set up similar processes within their own jurisdictions. A Northern Ireland service has just launched. Bidirectional data flows have also been set up by NHS Digital for those who have been vaccinated cross-border between England, Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man. Bidirectional data flows between England and Northern Ireland will be live soon.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, in July, the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, told your Lordships’ House that the problem with registering Covid vaccines—whether it was UK residents jabbed abroad or those who had taken part in clinical trials—would be resolved by August, in time for the holidays. A further problem is that the app still cannot tell the difference between a third dose and a booster dose. That is important because third-dose people need a further booster dose. To hear that only 53 people have now got their records on an app is appalling. What are the Government going to do about this mess?
Lord Kamall (Con)
One of the reasons for the delay has been the wide range of vaccinations that have been administered worldwide. MHRA is working to make sure that it is confident about recognising them in a Covid pass. There is also a range of issues relating to anti-fraud measures that have to be put in place to maintain the integrity of a Covid pass service. The multi-organisation approach that has been adopted has ensured a high-quality service. NHS England has engaged vaccination centres, provided training and enhanced the vaccine data resolution service capability. NHS Digital has updated the API to allow overseas vaccinations to flow from the vaccine database—the so-called national immunisation management system—to the Covid pass. Also, NHSX has built the certification rules to enable overseas vaccinations in the Covid pass.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The noble Lord, Lord Flight, is not present, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, another group of people who are not having their jabs recognised are the public-spirited people who took part in the Novavax clinical trial. Novavax has said that it cannot guarantee that having a Pfizer booster is safe for those in their trial, because it has not trialled it. Yet, the Government are now saying that they can have the booster—or they can start all over again and have one of the other jabs. Why?
Lord Kamall (Con)
One of the difficult issues we face is pushing international partners to agree that the participants of well-regulated vaccine clinical trials should be treated as fully vaccinated. Only a couple of weeks ago I was on a call with G7 health and transport Ministers, trying to push them to ensure that they recognise those very brave people who came forward for vaccine trials. So far, sadly, we have not had much success. We continue to push them, but, in the meantime, we have found the solution of giving people another vaccine in order for them to be recognised. However, we would prefer international recognition.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I think the Minister needs to simplify this for the House—it is a very simple issue. If it is possible to register in France that you have been double vaccinated through its systems, why is it not possible to do that in the UK? While the JCVI may be working to fix the issue for UK residents who have been double jabbed abroad, British entry regulations have left foreign visitors in limbo. So, although two doses of Covid vaccine administered by a UK-approved regulator is enough to enter Britain without having to self-isolate, it does not seem to be enough to avoid being pinged by what has now been exposed as our expensive and not very effective test and trace system. Does the Minister agree that this does not make sense, and can he confirm that the JCVI review will also aim to resolve this?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As I said, we are looking to resolve as many of these issues as possible. There is no logical reason for this not to happen—it is just that we have to push international acceptance but also make sure that we have gone through the processes, especially for those vaccines not recognised by the MHRA.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, about Scotland, does the Minister realise that there has been a huge amount of buck passing between the Northern Ireland authorities and the English authorities about people who are temporarily working in England who have a vaccination and then try desperately to get the Covid pass when they go back? It is really not acceptable. Will he give an assurance now that anyone from any part of the United Kingdom who has been double vaccinated will be able to get a Covid pass, no matter where they got that original vaccination?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Covid pass can be accessed via the NHS app, but, where that is not possible, patients are able to go to the NHS website or to call 119 to get a letter version.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I remind the House of my interest as a member of the Army Reserve. Many serving personnel and their families have been vaccinated overseas, either by defence medical services or local practitioners, and they too have had a challenge getting their vaccines on to the NHS app. Equally, in reverse, many serving reservists here in the United Kingdom have been unable to get their vaccinations on to JPA—the MoD administration system —meaning that there is a potential delay in their deployment. Since this is not an international problem but a national one between two government departments, can my noble friend simply use his good influences to sort it out?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for making me aware of that issue; I was not aware of it. On the availability of the Covid pass, I repeat that the NHS Covid pass is available online and via NHS.UK, provided that individuals already have an NHS login. Users can then access it from anywhere in the world and download a Covid pass PDF. Individuals need to be in the UK to download the NHS app, but, once it is downloaded, it can be accessed worldwide. In terms of the conversations between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Defence, I will make sure that I do that, and I will write to my noble friend.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
Following on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, if you are double jabbed in England and test and trace tells you that you have been in contact with someone who has tested positive, you can get a test and, if it is negative, carry on regardless. If you have been double jabbed abroad, you cannot—you have to self-isolate for 10 days. So these people are restricting their social contact with others in case they have to self-isolate. Why can the two categories not be treated equally?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very fair point. This is what we are trying to achieve, but we have to work through the trials and the data to make sure that we can do it as soon as possible.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Health Care and Adult Social Care
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Care Quality Commission The state of health care and adult social care in England 2020/21, published on 21 October, and in particular the concerns about staff shortages this winter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I am on a hat trick. The department welcomes the report by the CQC and recognises the challenges that providers and local authorities are currently experiencing in recruiting and retaining staff, especially social care staff. While local government has a key role to play in tackling staff shortages, the department has been monitoring the situation closely. We have already put in place a range of measures, including funding to help local authorities and care providers address workforce capacity pressures.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the CQC’s concern about the desperate social care staff shortages this winter and warning about a tsunami of unmet need unless urgent action is taken is very worrying. It is clear that the health and social care levy will not provide any real means of dealing with chronic staff shortages for at least two years. The recent £162.5 million for the workforce retention and recruitment fund gives less than £100 per social care worker, according to this week’s analysis from the Homecare Association of care providers. The CQC has echoed the Commons Health and Social Care Committee’s call in May for an urgent total overhaul of workforce planning in light of workforce burnout after dealing with Covid; a people plan for social care; and an annual independent report with workforce projections. Can the Minister tell the House what progress is being made on this and when we can expect a fully costed and funded workforce plan for this key sector?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her reference to the £162.5 million of funding for social care through the workforce retention and recruitment fund to help boost staff numbers and support existing care workers through the winter. This is on top of the third infection control and testing fund, introduced in October 2021, which is providing a further £388.3 million of adult social care Covid-19 support until March 2022. This means that, during the pandemic, we have made available more than £2.5 billion in funding specifically for adult social care. We are also taking action to support adult social care providers through a national recruitment campaign.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, this important report is challenging reading for all those who worked on the front line of the pandemic. Its most challenging section is undoubtedly the part on the recovery of services; in particular, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, said, the importance of
“investment in workforce development and formal changes in service specifications.”
Can the Minister give us some more precise details on how that budget will be spent?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question and for the advice he has given me to date. Even though I have size 11 feet, I am finding it rather difficult to fill his large shoes. On the funding announced, local authorities have a key role in supporting recruitment and retention in their local areas. We are working with them to make sure that they support local providers by identifying workforce shortages, developing workforce plans and encouraging joined-up services. We also continue to work closely with providers, councils and our partners to assess the situation and consider what further action may be necessary.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the CQC’s annual report highlights the challenges faced by people with learning difficulties, their families and their informal carers. Does the Minister acknowledge this problem? The CQC accepts that its inspection procedures require more emphasis on the knowledge and experience of family and informal carers, following Professor Murphy’s report on the failures and abuse in Whorlton Hall. How can we hope that the CQC and other agencies in health and social care will give priority to the role of family and informal carers when the Government’s main policy statements and papers still virtually ignore their existence?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government recognise the valuable role that paid and unpaid carers play in social care. We are looking at how we can make sure that we recruit and retain staff. We understand the challenges that many care homes, quite often those in the private sector, face when trying to recruit and retain staff, given the competitive pressures around the jobs market. The Government certainly take seriously the role of unpaid and paid carers.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, in addition to the winter’s and next year’s workforce plan, the CQC reports that providers of residential care showed the vacancy rate rising month on month from 6% in April to 10.2% in September. Some care homes whose attempts at recruitment have failed are now having to cancel their registration to provide nursing care, leaving residents looking for new homes in local areas that already are at, or close to, capacity. In recent weeks, two homes in York have announced that they are closing. I appreciate the discussion about planning for the workforce but this is a current crisis. What is the Minister going to do as councils are overwhelmed trying to find beds for patients when there are none?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the specific examples that she gave. The department is constantly monitoring the workforce capacity pressures. We are continuing to gather a range of qualitative and quantitative intelligence in order to have a strong and live picture of how the risk is developing and emerging. In more detail, this includes drawing on evidence gathered by a regional assurance team and regular engagement with key stakeholders, including the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services in England, local authorities and care provider representatives. We are also monitoring data from the capacity tracker, Skills for Care’s monthly workforce reporting and wider market data. To ensure that we are aware of any emerging workforce capacity pressures, we are strongly encouraging providers to continue sharing available capacity and completing the capacity tracker.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I conveyed my commiserations to the Minister last week. As he said, he is on a hat trick today, but he is no Salah just yet. The noble Lord is obviously not a Liverpool fan. As the report says, over the past year the pandemic has further exposed and exacerbated health inequalities. Case rates and mortality rates were higher in deprived areas—2.4 times higher than in the least deprived areas for mortality. The report stated that
“strategies to identify and tackle health inequalities were not yet well established.”
What is the Government’s strategy for this, given that deprived areas, such as those in London, are often next to the wealthiest?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises an important point but before I answer that specifically, I reassure her that I am a Liverpool fan, as well as an Enfield Town fan. It so happens that my middle name is Salah. I think that I can wear that name on the back of my shirt with pride. I assure noble Lords that I did not line that question up. One reason why the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities was set up in the first place was to look at disparities across a wide range of issues, not only in social care but in relation to gender inequalities, ethnic minority inequalities and some of the other inequalities and disparities between various areas. As the noble Baroness rightly says, sometimes one can find some of the poorest communities right next to the some of the wealthiest. We are hoping to address those issues through the work of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, by first identifying where disparities are and then addressing them.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, with more than 105,000 vacancies in social care, we have a bit of a crisis. Which job would the Minister advise a low-paid worker to take when offered one of these three full-time jobs, all advertised today: a delivery driver at £11 an hour, a supermarket shelf stacker at £10 an hour or a senior care assistant at £9.25 an hour?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I do not see myself as someone who is able to offer jobs advice or careers advice. But the points made by the noble Lord help to explain in many ways some of the pressures that care home providers are facing when recruiting in a competitive market. The Government have looked at funding and how we can work with care providers, particularly as many are in the private sector, as I said earlier. They are not directly controlled by the Government and we can therefore work with local authorities and care providers on how to make sure that they pay a competitive salary to attract care workers to work in the social care system, as opposed to some of the more competitive sectors that the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, one of the areas where there is most pressure has been that of unpaid carers. Not only are they having to take on a much greater load but for a long period they could not even visit their loved ones in care homes. In all the programmes that the Government are taking on, can the Minister say explicitly what is going to be done to support carers in their invaluable role?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I think that all noble Lords will agree with the point made by the noble Lord about the importance of unpaid carers and also paid carers. In relation to unpaid carers, we hope that as the social care reforms, in particular, come through, patients will be able to take advantage of social care. That will remove some of the burden from unpaid carers and free up their time. We are, however, looking closely at the implications and consequences of some of the proposed reforms.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today.
Critical Benchmarks (References and Administrators’ Liability) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 27th October 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Critical Benchmarks (References and Administrators’ Liability) Act 2021 View all Critical Benchmarks (References and Administrators’ Liability) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move an amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
On Monday, Nazanin’s husband Richard began a hunger strike outside the FCDO. I hope that as many noble Lords as possible from across the House will visit him if they have not already done so. When I met him on Monday, he repeated his description of the Government’s policy on Nazanin as a policy of waiting. Does the noble Lord think that is correct? In 2019 the Government granted Nazanin diplomatic protection. Will the noble Lord explain what this has achieved? What precisely the United Kingdom is doing, with our international allies, to bring an end to state hostage-taking by Iran?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, first, I think that I speak for all noble Lords in saying that we stand very much with all families experiencing the dreadful situation of their loved ones being detained in Iran. The Government will continue to do all we can to ensure that not only are representations made but that we seek their earliest release from Iran, so that they can be reunited with their families.
On the noble Lord’s specific point, we are very much aware of Richard Radcliffe and his situation. As the noble Lord said, he has begun a hunger strike. Tomorrow my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will meet Richard to discuss the issue, and I know that she has been very seized with the situation since her appointment.
With regard to the diplomatic protection, as the noble Lord will know, that move raised the issue to formal recognition in terms of state representation. Nevertheless, Iran still fails to recognise Nazanin’s dual nationality status.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I agree with the noble Lord in encouraging noble Lords to meet Richard, as I have done in advance of this Question. In last week’s debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I raised Iran’s contravention of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. A statement by the previous Foreign Secretary indicated that it was UK policy that Iran was in contravention of the convention. The concern is that with every new Foreign Secretary—and there have been five since Nazanin’s detention—officials wipe the slate clean. When the Foreign Secretary meets Richard, will she commit to press Iran to investigate this case formally, which is its duty under this convention?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. On my return from your Lordships’ House, I will make sure that this issue is raised specifically in the briefing that is prepared.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that the Iranian authorities maintain that we owe them a very large sum of money relating to a cancelled contract some years ago? What is the Government’s position on that matter, and does it play a part in these discussions?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, one thing that we have been clear on is that this situation—the debt referred to by my noble friend—is a live issue bilaterally between the United Kingdom and Iran. On the debt itself, as I said last week during the debate on a QSD asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, there has been an adjournment on this case. I cannot go into the details, but the next hearing on this case and its details will be in April 2022. We have been clear what needs to happen is that Nazanin and others who are being held should be returned.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, if the Iranians believe that we owe them £400 million, and believe that we have promised that that money will be paid, without excusing the Iranian Government for any of things they are doing to the hostages, surely the Iranians have a sense that we have not been straight with them. Can we look at this £400 million again? Never mind the legal action, which has just been delayed. The Urgent Question repeat uses fine language but does not add up to anything at all. I put this to the Minister: there is a belief that there is more going on than we know about and that there is some reason why the Government keep hedging their bets and not getting on with it. What is it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I said, I cannot go into the case itself; notwithstanding his comments about the sensitivity of commenting on an ongoing legal hearing, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that I have shared as much as I can on the details of the case.
On what we are doing to seek Nazanin’s release and that of others, I assure the noble Lord that we are working in diplomatic channels and with international partners. I mentioned the Human Rights Council last week. We are raising these issues consistently and directly with the Iranians as well.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, this sorry saga has been going on for more than five years. Each time, the Government’s involvement seems to have made matters worse, not better. Will they recognise that the dual nationality issue is an excuse by Iran? This woman is a British citizen and should expect to be supported by the British Government. How come we have a claim for a global Britain but are unable to find a solution to release this shamefully wronged British citizen?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord that the Government have not prioritised this case and others. We continue to do so. Of course, there is a relationship with Iran on wider issues as well where, again, the Government have taken what I believe to be the right line, particularly in connection with the JCPOA. On this case and others, we will do all we can to ensure an early release. As far as the wider issues are concerned, they play into the general narrative but we are very much focused on individual cases.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister say whether it has been possible to make a reasoned assessment of Nazanin’s health and whether she has been able to access any medical care?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. We are consistently in touch with Nazanin directly. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to her on the 16th of this month. We are in direct contact with her, Richard Ratcliffe and other families to ensure that the issues my noble friend raises around health and general welfare are being addressed.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, if it is true that the Government owe Iran some money, is it not possible to have some form of compromise and a discussion with government lawyers to see whether something can be paid to it? The detail of whether there should be interest and that sort of thing can go through the laborious process until next April. Give Iran some money and see whether it does any good.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as ever, the noble and learned Baroness puts forward a practical solution. However, she will know better than me the specific issues around the legality and sensitivity of ongoing legal proceedings. For me to comment any further would not be appropriate.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, having watched this cruel saga play out over the years, it is obvious that the Iranian regime—or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, to be more accurate—is playing mind games with a British citizen who is being used as a political pawn. Does the Minister agree that this matter must be completely divorced from any financial debt that may or may not have been incurred by different Governments of the day? If the UK Government accept liability in principle, surely the matter can now be settled amicably without either side losing face and the torture of a mother and her family can be brought to an end.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord articulates the position very clearly; we should not focus on seeking to join the two issues. We do not believe that there is any reason for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe to be detained in Iran, which is why we continue to implore the Iranians to ensure her early release and continue to campaign on that very principle.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, we cannot join these two things together, but this is about a hostage who has been taken. If she is released for some money, there will be another issue and the Iranians will take another hostage for another reason.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend articulates the position very well and I agree with him.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, while I accept what my noble friend has just said, there is a debt and there is a hostage. Following on from the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, can we not lodge this money with the United Nations, so that we acknowledge there is a debt and when she has been released, as she should be immediately on humanitarian grounds, we can go forward?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, again I hear what my noble friend has said but I cannot say any more than I have already on the case and legal proceedings.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, when he was Foreign Secretary, the man who is now our Prime Minister misspoke about the reason for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe being in Iran. Should he not now take personal responsibility for getting her out, as those words undoubtedly worsened her position?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister takes the issue of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and indeed all detainees in Iran, very seriously and is personally engaging on this issue.
Arrest of Sudanese Prime Minister
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, on Monday Vicky Ford welcomed the United Nations Secretary-General’s condemnation of the military’s action, stating that the UK was actively calling for a briefing at the UN Security Council. She added that she would be speaking to her US counterpart later that day. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of these initiatives? The release of Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok yesterday is welcome but the statement by his office said that other government officials remained in detention, their locations unknown. Can the Minister tell us what discussions in the last 24 hours Ministers in the department have had with the security and military forces in Sudan to urge the release of those who have been unlawfully detained?
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the UK strongly condemns the arrest of civilian members of Sudan’s transitional Government by the military yesterday. We are also deeply concerned by reports of protesters having been shot. Over the past two years, Sudan has been on a delicate pathway from oppressive autocratic rule towards freedom and democracy. The Minister was in Khartoum last week, as she told the House of Commons, where she stressed the need for all parties to support the civilian-led Government’s work to deliver the democratic transition process that has been widely agreed.
In response to the noble Lord’s question, together with the US and Norway we have issued a troika statement condemning the suspension of the institutions of state, the declaration of the state of emergency and the detention of Prime Minister Hamdok and other members of the civilian leadership. The statement also calls for the immediate release of those unlawfully detained.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as outlined in the register. I was due to be in Khartoum next Friday, scheduled to meet Prime Minister Hamdok on my 13th visit to Sudan before, during and after the democratic revolution. It is an absolute tragedy that has afflicted the people of Sudan, especially the women and young people, who have been so active in the transition process. There is considerable concern that diplomatic access will be refused to officials, many of whom I have spoken to over the last few weeks leading up to the coup. Can the Minister update the House on ensuring that there is diplomatic access to Prime Minister Hamdok and other Cabinet Ministers who have been detained and are now under house arrest in their own properties?
Secondly, there is significant concern that certain countries allied to the UK may well be offering significant sums of money to the military, which has now taken power. Will the troika and the EU work together to ensure that allies of our countries will not financially support military dictatorships that overthrow democratic transitional administrations?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. It is clear, as everyone would agree, that the actions of the military are unacceptable. We are reassessing our commitment to restart a phased defence engagement in light of what has happened. The noble Lord also mentioned the impact particularly felt by women and girls. It is worth acknowledging, as the Minister for Africa said yesterday, that women were a major driver of the 2019 protest and fought so bravely for democracy. Last week in Khartoum, Minister Ford from the other place met a number of those inspiring individuals who have shown the vital role that women and girls have to play in the country’s future, and the UK solidly stands with them, both from over here in the United Kingdom and through our humanitarian assistance and overseas development programmes.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to move the amendment in my name—
Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill
Wednesday 27th October 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 View all Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 October 2021 - (26 Oct 2021)
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Wednesday 27th October 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40-III(b) Amendments for Committee (supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (27 Oct 2021)
Baroness Bertin
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify on the face of the legislation that the definition of serious violence, for the purpose of the proposed Serious Violence Prevention Duty, includes domestic abuse, domestic homicide and sexual offences.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I apologise for being a bit quick off the mark earlier.
Amendment 55 would clarify in the legislation that the definition of serious violence, for the purpose of the serious violence prevention duty, would include
“domestic abuse, domestic homicides and sexual offences”.
While it is right to acknowledge the many male victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence—and this amendment would serve them also—the change we seek today is about stamping out a culture where violence against women and girls has been tolerated for too long. Zoë Billingham, the excellent outgoing inspector for Her Majesty’s Constabulary, described the level of violent and abusive offending against women and girls in this country as an “epidemic”. She is right: 1.6 million female victims of domestic abuse; 892,000 female victims of stalking; 618,000 female victims of sexual assault; 55,000 rapes, with less than a 2% charge rate; and, finally, 110 women murdered last year. Some names we know, but many more we do not. This grim tally should mark a watershed in our attitudes, and I heap praise on the domestic abuse commissioner and her team for their leadership in this regard.
I also thank my cosignatories—the noble Lords, Lord Polak, Lord Rosser and Lord Russell of Liverpool. This amendment is truly cross-party, as it should be. The strength of feeling on this issue bridges the political divide and, for once, I am absolutely delighted by the gender imbalance in this line-up of names. While of course it is men’s behaviour that is the problem, we must be careful not to pitch this as men versus women. This is about violent men versus the whole of society, but we need men—all men and all society—to engage in this and be part of the conversation and the solution.
The main justification for excluding sexual offences and domestic abuse from the Bill has been its focus on localism and flexibility, allowing local leaders to fit the strategy to local crime profiles. That is of course entirely reasonable when talking about gun and gang crime and such issues, where there are clear geographical hot spots, but this simply is not the case with domestic abuse and sexual offences; these crimes are happening everywhere. To my mind, localism is about where we put new housing estates and schools. It should never be about allowing individual areas to opt out of prioritising domestic abuse and sexual violence. This is the wrong issue on which to devolve decision-making, but it is already happening, which is why this amendment is more crucial and urgent than ever.
Of the 18 violence reduction units that have already been set up, only eight have included domestic abuse and sexual violence in their plans. Indeed, the Government’s own serious violence strategy makes no meaningful reference to sexual violence and domestic abuse, which is a problem, as often local boards refer back to it when making their policies. I am keen to stress that this amendment would not restrict flexibility at a granular level; of course a strategic needs assessment would still be carried out and specific interventions would differ from area to area.
I also say, on the record, that I absolutely do not doubt the Government’s commitment on this issue. I know they listen and I know they care. They listened to people on the front line a great deal during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act, and look at the changes that have come in: the rough sex defence has been ended; revenge porn, coercive control and economic abuse offences have been extended; and upskirting is now a crime. Very importantly, they have extended the period of time in which you can put forward an assault charge based on domestic abuse; that was crucial. I will not list them all, as the list is long, but it is important to acknowledge that the Government have done a good deal. I hope they continue in that vein.
I strongly believe that explicitly including these offences in the duty would maximise the potential for a multiagency, public health preventive approach. We have talked about this a great deal in the House, and we all know that this is the only way to see real change on such a deep-seated societal issue. If we do not take this approach, we will be making these speeches again and again, for many years to come.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Does she agree that the passing of her amendment, or something like it, would send out a clear message to the Crown Prosecution Service that its policy change-based failure to prosecute significant numbers of rape offences and other serious sexual offences should be reviewed as soon as possible?
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and absolutely agree. Of course, it would not solve the entire issue, but it would set us on the right path in sending that signal to the CPS, as well as to the police.
The multiagency, public health preventive approach is so important. Education plans, health plans and a more standardised perpetrator scheme would all be part of what this change could look like. It is important to note that the HMIC report that the Home Secretary commissioned warned that this duty, as it stands, would not go far enough in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Polak, mentioned in his speech at Second Reading that we need to make sure that such landmark legislation, the Domestic Abuse Act and this Bill, does not stand in isolation. We need to sustain the momentum of this ambition. Let us once and for all try to buck the trend of silo policy-making and bring together this work in a meaningful way.
As others have discussed in previous debates, it is right that the burden should not fall entirely on the police. I think we spoke about “broadening the base”, and that is why it is crucial that we get this duty right. Nevertheless, the specific policing response and the CPS response deserve a lot of attention. One-third of all violence reported to the police is domestic abuse related. This is not a small slice of their work. While their response to this crime has certainly improved over the past decade, and there are pockets of excellence and dedication, which we must acknowledge, there are still inconsistencies at every level in how the police respond to victims of domestic abuse and sexual offences, and shocking variations in how frequently—perhaps infrequently would be more appropriate—different forces use the protective powers available to them. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will speak at length on stalking; some forces around the country seem entirely unaware that stalking protection orders are available to them, and this has to change.
Another statistic that shocks me is that three-quarters of all domestic abuse cases are stamped with “no further action”. We know from the rape review that was launched this year, and as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has pointed out, that that happens with so many incidents of sexual offences. It cannot continue. The lottery of standards among the 43 police forces in this country, and within individual forces, means it very often boils down to who picks up the phone or who responds to the call as to how victims are dealt with.
I will make one further point before I finish. As with other high-harm crimes, such as terrorism and organised crime, I believe strongly that violence against women and girls should be marked with a clearer focus, better funding, minimum standards and far more national co-ordination. This amendment is only part of the answer—of course it is—but it could be instrumental in starting that journey to greater consistency. Small actions taken together can make a big difference. While this amendment is relatively simple, its effects could ripple out.
Finally, you do not wake up one morning and become a murderer or a rapist; you work up to it. The horrific chain of events leading to Sarah Everard’s terrible murder laid this bare in the starkest of terms. We have to act to do all we can to stop this kind of behaviour in its tracks before it escalates and takes lives. There is an opportunity in this Bill, and we must take it.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 56, I will start by saying that I completely agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has just said. Amendment 56 adds to Amendment 55’s
“domestic abuse, domestic homicides and sexual offences”
the words “and stalking”, to be added to the definition of the serious violence prevention duty. As the noble Baroness identified, this is a keen interest of mine. I also support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pushing for a charging review for this range of crimes. Too often, they are either ignored or charged at a much lower crime rate.
The Minister will remember that, during the passage of the then Domestic Abuse Bill, many hours were spent looking at the typical progression of violence in obsessed perpetrators. Some of us asked the Ministers to look at the reverse structure of someone who had committed a crime of serious violence. All too often, the elements of behaviour were there from early on in their fixated behaviour. I understand that that is why the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and others have laid their amendment to ensure that this trajectory of behaviour starts to be monitored early; and it also recognises when domestic violence accelerates very quickly. Adding
“domestic abuse, domestic homicides and sexual offences”
is absolutely vital.
But I regret that stalking was not on the list in her amendment, and I will focus briefly on that. First, victims of stalking say that they often do not go to the police until around the 10th worrying event has happened. Shamefully, it often takes many more before stalking is taken seriously by the police. But many perpetrators of stalking, as I have said, progress in their fixated behaviour, and serious violence and homicide are too often evident.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, referred to stalking protection orders. I was pleased when they were implemented, but they are far too sparingly used, and some victims are told, “That’s all you need. It’ll be fine now”. Yet injunctions still have to be taken out and cautions still have to be issued, and, all the while, their stalker’s behaviour is becoming worse and worse.
According to Dr Jane Monckton-Smith, stalking sits at point 5 of the eight points on the homicide timeline, due to the fact that risk to the victim escalates at the point of leaving an abusive relationship. Monckton-Smith’s 2017 study of 358 homicides, all of which involved a female victim and a male perpetrator, revealed stalking behaviour as an antecedent to femicide in 94% of the cases. These figures demonstrate how vital it is to work on prevention for stalking cases.
There is a misconception that stalking is almost exclusively perpetrated by people on former partners and, therefore, probably covered by domestic abuse. This is untrue. The real figure is closer to 50%. Too many victims of non-partner or former-partner perpetrators of stalking report that, the first time that they talk to the police, they are told that they are overreacting, and some, especially young women, are even told that they should be grateful for the attention.
So stalking victims are too often ignored, and that is worrying. There is no other word for it than “ignored”—I know. The man who stalked me and other colleagues—he stalked men, too—over a three-year period grew progressively more fixated. Among other very unpleasant acts, such as abusive anonymous letters and telephone calls, his violence was initially against property—breaking windows, pulling down signs and scratching cars—but, each time, it was a bit stronger, more aggressive and more distressing. It took well over a year and 130 incidents before the police started taking it seriously. But their attitude changed completely when, night after night, he started using a very large knife to slash tyres. Their forensic psychologist warned that they expected that he would start using that knife on his targets next. We all knew who the perpetrator was, and, finally, we saw that the police started to move. He was then arrested quickly, and he pleaded guilty.
More recently, in June this year, Gracie Spinks, who, like many stalking victims, was let down by police because they did not take any of the early reports and link them together, was murdered at the riding stables she worked at by a former colleague from a previous job. She had reported her concerns to police four months earlier. He had turned up unannounced at the stables. Separately, a bag containing knives, an axe, a hammer and a note saying “Don’t lie” was discovered very close to the stables six weeks before Gracie’s murder. That breadcrumb trail was all there, and it was typical of a serious stalker, too—the perpetrator profile is well known. Gracie’s father, Richard, has said that if only the police had connected the incidents, his daughter would not have died.
Neither Gracie’s nor my case would have been covered by Amendment 55. Stalking needs to be added to this section on the serious violence protection duty just as much as domestic abuse, domestic homicides and sexual offences.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to add my name to Amendment 55 and pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Bertin for her leadership on these matters. I was also pleased to have worked with my noble friend, together with the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Russell of Liverpool, during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill.
The amendment in our names is an extension of our previous work. I shall not repeat and rehearse the reasons why it is important that the definition of serious violence for the purpose of the proposed serious violence prevention duty must include domestic abuse, domestic homicides and sexual offences. For me, it is straightforward, and I make a simple appeal to my noble friend the Minister, who was so instrumental in piloting the Domestic Abuse Bill through Parliament with such professionalism, dedication and patience. There is an opportunity to cement and build on that historic and vital legislation, to build on what was achieved, so that it can be possible for the serious violence strategy to recognise domestic abuse and sexual violence. Can it be possible for a serious violence strategy not to recognise them as forms of serious violence? It would be difficult to understand.
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, has said that the Government risk missing an opportunity to make a “historic shift” in the handling of this problem. She went on to suggest that this amendment could deliver a step change, ensuring a focus not only on crisis provision but on early intervention and prevention measures to stop abuse occurring. I totally agree with her.
The Home Office’s draft guidance says that local areas “could” consider violence against women and girls as part of the new duty if they choose to. I am still trying to get my head around “could”. How about “must”? This short and succinct amendment is so important, and I just do not understand who could not support it.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I thank her for putting it so cogently and the noble Lord, Lord Polak, for following up.
The Minister has been nothing but consistent in advocating what the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, described as localism, which is enabling local areas to decide for themselves what they include in their definitions of serious violence. Here I pay tribute—which may surprise some people—to our Home Secretary, because earlier this year, in the wake of the tragic murder of Sarah Everard, she commissioned a study by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, under the leadership of Zoë Billingham, referred to earlier, to look into the circumstances which had allowed the murder of Sarah Everard and so many other women to take place. That report was published three days after Second Reading of this Bill last month.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I add my support for the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, in Amendment 55, and I will speak in support of Amendment 56. I want to develop the theme that both she and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, have been talking about, which is of the inconsistencies in the local response to this huge challenge.
I go back to HM inspectorate’s report, because it laid this out. It started by paying tribute to dedicated professional police officers, which is absolutely right, but it found that, at individual level, victims reported very different responses, depending, as the noble Baroness said, on which officer they spoke to or which call handler took the call. It told us that some officers showed exceptional care and sensitivity, while others made the victims feel that they were not believed. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the specifics of her own case and the huge challenge that she had in getting the police to start to take it seriously.
The inspectorate goes on to say,
“at force level: there are unexplained variations in how frequently different forces are using the protective powers and orders at their disposal to protect women and girls; at local partnership level: roles and responsibilities for partners working together in multi-agency safeguarding arrangements vary considerably; and at national level: actions to improve the police response are split over multiple Government strategies. These structural, strategic and tactical inconsistencies must be addressed if the police and their partners are to make inroads in tackling the deep-rooted problem of VAWG offences.”
That is why we need some action at national level. If we leave it to local forces and the local safeguarding arrangements, I am afraid that nothing will happen to improve the situation.
I want to say a few words in support of our Amendment 56. We would like to add “stalking” to the noble Baroness’s amendment and perhaps persuade her to come back on Report with a more comprehensive amendment, if at all possible, because we are all batting off the same wicket. We know that stalking is a very serious crime, but it is underreported and underprosecuted. We debated this during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill. The case is as strong as ever. Stalkers are often mischarged with other crimes and it is common for the National Stalking Helpline to see high-level stalking cases managed as low-level nuisance behaviours. As a result, stalking behaviours are not being adequately identified. We believe that the noble Baroness’s amendment could be enhanced by the addition of stalking as a serious issue that is not being tackled effectively at the moment. I am sure that I speak for many noble Lords in hoping that we can pull all this together in a consensus amendment on Report.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I applaud my noble friend Lady Bertin’s eloquent speech about something so sensitive and dangerous.
During the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill, we had lots of discussions about stalking. I rise to speak because my name is on Amendment 56. It saddens me that we are still battling in this area, which is so fragile and misunderstood by the agencies that are there to protect. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister, who listens to our speeches all the time and takes them on board, but I reiterate the seriousness of what my colleagues have said. We are talking about human lives. We are not talking about figures or money; we are talking about human lives that are being brutally lost.
This is where we need to gain some perspective on what we are doing in legislation. Legislation is important to legal people, politicians and your Lordships’ House but, on the outside, how does it protect an individual who is being stalked or is losing their life through domestic abuse? Where do we draw the line in saying, “Enough is enough, we’re going to protect you”? As we have heard, Dr Jane Monckton Smith’s report says that stalking sits at point five of eight on the homicide timeline due to the fact that risk to the victim escalates at the point of leaving an abusive relationship. We need to include stalking in my noble friend’s Amendment 55 because that is the only way in which the serious violence reduction duty will guarantee robust prevention work being rolled out consistently across the country. We talk about localism and centralism but, for everybody on the street, that is not language that they understand. This is about their safety and agencies understanding the issue.
In the dictionary, stalking is like a cat chasing a bird. Put simply, that is what is happening to these people. There is a delicate line in proving it when people are traumatised and are being brutalised in their home, in their workplace and wherever they travel. If we cannot get this right in the Bill, we simply are not listening to the figures on the human lives that are being lost every day. As we speak, somebody is being stalked and going through that. I ask my noble friends the Minister and Lady Bertin: please can we look at this? I would love to have this issue included at the end of Amendment 55.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 57A and 59A have been grouped here. I am always hesitant to follow with a small, perhaps technical, point on important points such as have been made this afternoon.
My amendments are intended to inquire of the Minister the place of online activity in this issue. The clauses that we are looking at are very much place-based—this part of the Bill refers to “area” almost throughout—but what prompts the violence may not be place or area-based. Given the statutory requirements for the assessment of the criteria, my amendments probe whether the role of online activity has a place in that assessment. Grooming and other activities may be generated in one geographical or police force area but directed more widely.
There are examples, obviously, of violence online intended to prompt copying, which this amendment is not specifically directed at. I dare say that the answer to that will be the online harms Bill. But I would like to ask the question, perhaps in another way, of how this legislation is to work together and to be assured that we are not at risk of missing opportunities or leaving gaps.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support Amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bertin, and I pay tribute to all the work she has done in this area. This is a relatively straightforward amendment which would send a very strong message to police forces, local statutory agencies and the public that domestic abuse and sexual violence are priorities to be both prevented and tackled.
Too often, our response to these types of crime comes too late for the victim. The benefits of this duty would be to ensure that we have a robust preventive approach that brings together a range of different partners and ensures that police forces are considering domestic abuse and sexual violence within the definition of serious violence for the proposed new statutory duty.
I, too, congratulate my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on calling for the HM inspectorate report following the tragic death of Sarah Everard. The report, whose authors I also congratulate, points to
“the co-ordinated and bespoke multi-agency response that is needed specifically for VAWG.”
It also says that the current drafting of the proposed serious violence prevention duty in the Bill does not go far enough.
The Government have already made significant progress on tackling domestic abuse through the Domestic Abuse Act, and I pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister and her team for all the dedication and hard work that have gone into that landmark piece of legislation. There is still more to be done. I think this amendment could be the missing piece of the puzzle to help maximise the approach in regard to domestic abuse, homicide and sexual offences.
I understand that the Government have some concerns that Amendment 55 could undermine the flexibility of the duty, but it simply clarifies the nature of the definition. It does not bind local areas to that definition, but it would require them to take this issue more seriously and would, I hope, prevent some of the dreadful acts we have heard about today and at Second Reading. This amendment is supported by the domestic abuse commissioner, and I join in the thoroughly deserved praise that the commissioner and her office have already received. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench, who I know cares passionately about these issues as well, will listen to the strength of the arguments on this amendment.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I start by apologising to the Committee for not speaking at Second Reading—I am afraid that I had a household full of Covid. I am finally here and delighted to support Amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bertin, and congratulate her on her brilliant campaigning.
I am quite surprised that my noble friend still has to campaign. While I had Covid, I watched the debate from start to finish and listened to the Minister’s response. I think, first, that my noble friend’s amendment is clearly on the right side of the moral argument; there is no disagreement there. But because she is so persuasive, we have to test the counterarguments. I have done that, and I think that it is entirely properly thought-through and proportionate, so perhaps my noble friend the Minister could help me with some things I genuinely still do not understand about the Government’s hesitation.
I noted in particular the Minister’s reference to scope and her concern that other offences could, in effect, be pushed out should my noble friend Lady Bertin’s definition be added to the Bill. In other instances, however, where the Government believe that clarification is necessary, there are named forms of violence; for example, against property. This is a general question rather than a veiled assertion. Can the Minister clarify this for me?
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I too add my support to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. Many points have been covered, and I simply want to say that if the definition of serious violence is not expanded in this way, the concern is that many local areas will not consider it within their strategies.
Join-up on this is absolutely vital. Local strategies to prevent domestic and sexual violence through education, research and specialist violence reduction units are key, including primary prevention, which I have raised before in your Lordships’ House. We must do all that we can to enable work across services and through effective partnership.
As has been said, the Domestic Abuse Act is a very good thing, yet a lot of time was spent during the passage of that Bill in this House trying to highlight overlooked groups and issues. This amendment once again highlights these issues by creating the necessity of more joined-up thinking between key agencies and ensuring that they remain cognisant of the issues. This amendment is vital.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I support everything that has been said so far. I will speak to Amendments 57 and 58, in which I am endeavouring to specify the broad categories of serious violence, ensuring that any violence that is serious enough to result either in injury requiring emergency hospital treatment or harm constituting grievous bodily harm would meet the threshold for serious violence.
I am grateful for the general support I have had, especially from those noble Lords with long policing experience who see merit in what I present today. It might be that, as yet, we have not quite got the wording right. It is a bit like the debate that we have been having so far. There is a case for us coming together if in fact we can convince the Minister that, in principle, there is merit in what we are arguing; we could come together later, perhaps, to get the wording right, if the Government are to be so convinced.
My amendments are not solely about knife crime, but the intention is to ensure that the broad categories of serious violence are specified so that local partnerships must address such violence in their prevention plans and take full account of the information available on serious violence, which comes up in the A&E data. That is particularly important.
When the Home Secretary introduced the assessment of the public health duty—the public health measures—on 15 July 2019, he said that collaboration to reduce serious violence was particularly important. The Government have of course moved to introduce this legislation following that.
The violence that constitutes serious violence is not specified in this Bill. Good legislation depends on such specifications and definitions. It will rightly be for the local partnerships to decide how they will reduce serious violence, but it would be neglectful if this legislation does not state what serious violence includes.
The impact assessment signed by the Home Secretary relies heavily on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use by local partnerships of data collected in hospital accident and emergency departments for the prevention of serious violence. This approach, known as the Cardiff model for violence prevention, has been found in rigorous evaluations to reduce violence related to hospital admissions and serious violence recorded by the police by as much as 38%.
This approach has four principal advantages in the context of the Bill. First, it specifies a broad category of serious violence: violence serious enough to result in emergency hospital treatment. Secondly, it makes sense from a public health perspective, which is missing in what is, after all, a public health duty. Thirdly, following the implementation of the emergency care data set, the Cardiff model data on violence location, weapons and assailants, for example, can be recorded and shared for violence prevention by every NHS trust with an A&E. Fourthly, these NHS data are valid and reliable measures of serious violence, which would be available for joint inspections. Most importantly, even if just 5% of partnerships achieved the Cardiff-model benefits identified in the impact assessment, total benefits are estimated to be at least £858 million over 10 years and a reduction of around 20 homicides a year.
On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to the invaluable work of Professor John Shepherd at Cardiff University. Professor Shepherd has helped greatly in the scheme that has been running in Cardiff—he certainly helped me in preparing these amendments and for speaking today. He makes the point that, if the amendments are not adopted, the Bill when enacted is most unlikely to achieve the reductions in serious violence. There is nothing specific around which to achieve that objective. Violence that results in emergency hospital treatment, and which affects all age groups and both genders, in and outside the home, would not be considered serious. The Bill when enacted would not resonate or easily be owned by the NHS and by clinical commissioning groups; they would not be obliged to commission this approach.
We therefore have to make sure that the local authorities get the data, get an outline of what needs to be done, and then get a clear instruction, from within the Bill itself, that there must be action taken and that they must not ignore what has been produced in this very valuable information.
I therefore hope that we can move forward collectively in looking at the range of amendments and see if we can produce something that actually puts specifics in the Bill, that then can be acted on lower down the line.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 58 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, but I think all of the amendments in this group are extremely worthwhile. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, gave a thoroughly well-argued pitch for her amendment, to which the Government have to listen. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also argued very comprehensively for the inclusion of stalking, and I agree with that very strongly.
I wanted to sign every single amendment to this Bill, so I have ended up signing a sort of weird collection, and I apologise for that; I care about it all because I am so distressed about the Bill in general.
On Amendment 58, we need to know exactly what the Government intend with their duty to reduce serious violence. We talked earlier about intrusions, particularly relating to confidentiality, so it is quite important to have a redefined definition of serious violence. Because we have identified those intrusions, without safeguards, we must be sure that Parliament is clear and precise about the situations to which we intend this duty to apply; otherwise, we are left with a vague duty that interferes with people’s right to privacy in arbitrary and unfair ways. I very much hope that the Minister is listening and agreeing.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 55 and 56, principally because, apart from their justice, it is naturally the right thing to do. As importantly, the amendments move the police into the preventive area more than they are now. I keep urging the Government and the Home Office in particular to make statutory the preventive duties. I am afraid that that is not yet taking shape, and this is a way in which it could do so.
There is a consequence of this. People have talked about the inconsistent approach around the country. That will generally tend to happen: with 43 organisations, we will always end up with an inconsistent approach. For me, 43 is at least 42 too many. That is my view; others will have different views but having so many organisations will lead to inconsistency.
More importantly, we are asking for officers to be more specialist in their investigative capacity. If it is left to the front-line officers, often they do not always have the time, or, frankly, the skills, to investigate these serious types of crime. The natural consequence of that is that more people will be moved out of uniform and into specialist areas. We all need to keep in mind that although part of the public will urge being able to see officers more often, officers are more effective when they are more specialist. How we get that balance right is difficult. This is not a plea for another 20,000 cops; it is about getting the balance right between the specialist who can be more effective and the uniformed officer who is more visible. That debate continues, and the amendments support that.
I rose to talk in particular about Amendments 57 and 58, which I support. Professor Shepherd has achieved some incredible things from his base in Cardiff. There are two big reasons why I support those amendments. The first is the constant bid for consistency. They provide a further test on the definition of serious violence, such as the requirement for hospital attendance, particularly at A&E. There is a danger, of course, that some people will attend A&E who do not really deserve to go there—they believe that they are seriously ill, when in fact they are not—but that risk is fairly low. Most importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, the amendments will urge the health service to share the data it has to better inform the police and the Home Office on the strategies for the future. I am afraid that if the police can be inconsistent, so can the health service in sharing data that is vital to understanding the nature of serous violence around the country. Without that information, neither the Government nor the police, nor others, can take action.
For those reasons, I support these amendments, which are sensible conclusions.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I have already made a comment about serious sexual offences but there is something else that I want to raise, into which I have been provoked by my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe. The point I want to make is about consistency. I do not agree with my noble friend that we should have a single national police force, but I do believe that 43 territorial police forces is a real recipe for inconsistency. I regret very much that successive Home Secretaries, from all political parties, have failed to take on this issue. What actually happens—Charles Clarke did it when he was Home Secretary—is this: when a Home Secretary has the courage to say they are going to reorganise police forces to bring policy consistency on issues such as this, immediately that Home Secretary is told by Members of another place that the world will fall apart if the Loamshire police force is abolished, because how could the world continue without it?
I was a Welsh MP for 14 years. There are still four police forces in Wales; there should not be. The Dyfed-Powys Police, the force in my constituency, operated generally well, but I could not possibly argue that more than one police force is needed, in Wales, at any rate. I therefore ask the Government to take consistency as a major theme in this matter and reflect—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
We are going into a wider debate. My personal view is that we should never have abolished the Oxford City Police force in the 1960s, because we never recovered when it became part of Thames Valley Police, and we had our own watch committee. But there is an issue here, is there not, between what might be regarded as operational efficiency and overpoliticisation? Frankly, the experience in Scotland is not a good example of the risks of too direct a relationship between a national Government and a police force. That would surely be the risk in Wales.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I realised when I started on this that there were one or two noble Lords around the House—I saw one agreeing with me, I think—who are, or have been, police and crime commissioners, who might disagree. I respect the noble Lord enormously, as he knows, but I say to him that the experience in Scotland was not good to begin with but is much, much better now.
I will cite just one piece of evidence. The small number of counterterrorism units operate very well as a group. They have a very good collegiate function and there is real consistency between their operations. In my view, the way that CTUs have developed is a paradigm for the reorganisation of the police. I do not want to prolong this part of the debate, but I urge the Minister to consider whether the best route towards consistency is to reorganise the police, reluctant though many will be.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, perhaps we should leave the reorganisation of the police to another occasion. The first attraction of Amendment 55 is its utter simplicity and simple, clear language. You have no idea how anybody who has had to spend a lifetime looking at criminal justice legislation greets with acclaim a simple piece of legislation, which this is. There is no misunderstanding about it. It does what it says on the tin. Nobody can reconstruct it afterwards or say Parliament had a different intention—it is there.
More importantly, the argument is irrefutable. I had prepared quite a long speech to make today—long by my standards—but I will not make it. We have heard the arguments. This is a special, national problem—full stop. The best solution to a special, national problem is for it to be dealt with nationally. I therefore support this amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, first, I have absolutely no doubt about the Minister’s commitment to dealing with the sorts of offences we are talking about today, particularly violence against women and girls. I also have absolutely no doubt about the Government’s commitment to tackling those issues. This makes the Bill even more puzzling. We support all the amendments in this group, but I want to look at this from a slightly different angle.
This group of amendments is intended to ensure that certain categories of crime are always included in the serious violence duty. It raises the wider issue of what this whole chapter of the Bill is about. Crime and disorder partnerships—noble Lords will know from previous debates that I am quite keen on these—have for many years been responsible for a multiagency approach to preventing and tackling crime and disorder in their areas, including serious violence. They have the advantage of being able to assess what local needs are and prioritise the crime and disorder that is a particular problem in their areas.
In light of these well-established existing partnerships, one must ask why there is a need for an additional serious violence duty. There has been much concern about knife crime in recent years and Scotland has demonstrated how successful a public health approach to the problem can be, where police enforcement is just part of a multiagency, multipronged approach to tackling knife crime. There may be characteristics of the knife crime problem in Scotland and solutions tailored to tackle them there that may not be completely transferrable to other parts of the UK, but the general principle is sound: law enforcement is only one of many approaches that need to be brought to bear on a problem.
If the Government were focusing solely on this type of serious violence, one could understand, in the face of the growing public concern, that a public health approach to knife crime might be mandated—but that is not what the Bill says. However, there are clues in other parts of the Bill that that is what the Government were initially thinking. For example, we will shortly come on to offensive weapon homicide reviews and serious violence prevention orders, which are all about knife crime.
The Bill talks about serious violence generally, including threats of serious violence but excluding terrorism. It goes on to talk—in Clause 12(4)—about a list of factors that must be taken into account, such as: the maximum penalty that a court could impose; the impact on the victim; the prevalence of the violence in the area, and the impact on the community. Presumably, other factors could be considered when the local area is considering its own serious violence. This effectively makes any violence serious—for example, hate crime. Hate crime should be considered serious violence because, by definition, it has a serious impact on the victim.
Amendment 55, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, says that domestic abuse, domestic homicides and sexual offences should always be included in the serious violence duty. As the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said, how can any of these offences not be considered serious violence? If the Government do not accept this amendment, can the Minister say what types of domestic abuse, domestic murder or sexual offence are not serious, or in what areas they are not far too prevalent? Amendment 56 also includes stalking, for the reasons that my noble friend Lady Brinton so powerfully argued.
Amendment 57, from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, includes all violence that results in emergency hospital treatment, or GBH—for very good reasons. As I mentioned in discussion on an earlier group, as the noble Lord did just now, the Cardiff model—that of sharing depersonalised accident and emergency information on knife and gun crime with the police—has proved invaluable. Furthermore, as the definition of serious violence includes threats of serious violence, my noble friend Lady Hamwee is quite right to point out that social media and other electronic communication—the impact of which may go beyond the geographic area for which the authorities that have a serious violence duty have responsibility—require a duty that goes beyond a single area.
In defining serious violence in such a wide way, the Government must either accept that all violence has the potential to be serious, or risk being accused of saying that violence associated with hate crime, violence against women and girls, domestic violence, and almost any other form of violence, is not serious, or should not be treated as serious in every police area.
What the Government should have done, and what they should do now, is go back and look at crime and disorder partnerships, which are already established and responsible for preventing and tackling all forms of crime and disorder—as their consultation on this issue said they should. They should look at where crime and disorder partnerships need to be strengthened —whether, perhaps, to include partners not currently involved—or where legislation needs to be changed to facilitate co-operation and the exchange of information, instead of mandating others to provide information to the police to enable a police-led enforcement approach to tackling serious violence—whatever that means. Of course, we will support all the amendments in this group for as long as the Government continue with such a broad definition of serious violence.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, like other noble Lords I await with interest the Government’s response to all the amendments in this group. My name also appears on Amendment 55, which, at the beginning of this debate, was so ably and comprehensively moved, as we knew it would be, by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. This issue was raised by the shadow Minister for Policing in the House of Commons, and I only hope it receives a more enthusiastic hearing from the Government in this House, given that it is being presented with such strong cross-party support across the House.
The serious violence duty introduced by this Bill, as we know, requires local authorities, the police, fire and rescue authorities, specified criminal justice agencies and health authorities to work together to formulate an evidence-based analysis of the problems associated with serious violence in a local area and then produce and implement a strategy detailing how they will respond to those particular issues. Prison, youth custody and education authorities may also need to work with these core partners.
As more than one noble Lord has said, the amendment is clear and straightforward in its intention, which is to make clear in the Bill that the definition of serious violence for the purpose of the serious violence prevention duty includes domestic abuse, domestic homicide and sexual offences. That begs the question of why this amendment is necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said, and he was not the only one, is it not obvious that domestic abuse, homicide and sexual offences must come within the definition of serious violence? Apparently it is not. Despite domestic abuse representing one-third of violent crime recorded by the police and despite 20% of all adult homicides and 50% of adult homicides where the victim is female being domestic homicides, the Government’s serious violence strategy does not recognise domestic abuse and sexual violence as forms of serious violence.
No doubt, that is one explanation why between April 2014 and March 2020 the annual number of domestic abuse-flagged cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police fell by 37%, with similar declines in prosecutions and convictions. No doubt, it is also one explanation why over the same period of time the annual number of prosecutions in rape-flagged cases fell by 55% and the annual number of convictions fell by 44%. No doubt, also, it is one explanation why in the year ended March 2020 only 9% of domestic abuse-related crimes and 1.4% of rape-flagged cases recorded by the police led to a charge or summons.
This Bill’s proposed serious violence prevention duty places a requirement on public authorities to collate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence. While Clause 12 explicitly includes some named forms of violence, such as violence against property and threats of violence, to ensure that they are regarded as a form of violent crime across the board, violence against women and girls is not put in the same category, even though rates of domestic abuse and sexual violence, as so many other noble Lords have said, are consistent across England and Wales and do not vary greatly from one area to another.
Instead, intended Home Office guidance simply says that local areas can consider violence against women and girls as part of the new duty if they choose to and not that it is expected. Clearly, the Home Office is not too fussed one way or the other what areas decide on this very serious issue. There are attacks on statutes, and the Home Office gets very troubled. There are violent domestic attacks on human beings, particularly women, and the Home Office, however different the reality may be, appears so laid back that it wants to leave it to other people to make their own decisions on whether to regard these attacks as serious violence. It appears to want to leave it to other people to decide whether these dreadful attacks come within the scope of the serious violence prevention duty and the requirement on a range of public bodies, including local statutory agencies and the police, to work together to prevent and tackle serious violence with the aim of reducing the numbers of victims and perpetrators of such dreadful crimes.
Explicitly including domestic abuse, domestic homicide and sexual violence in the sexual violence reduction duty and its multi-agency approach would send a clear message to the police, prosecutors and a range of statutory agencies, including local agencies, that violence against women and girls is just not acceptable and that they all have to play a crucial role in tackling it.
At the moment there appears to be a distinction within the criminal justice system so that violence that takes place in the home or at the hands of an intimate partner is regarded as less serious than violence perpetrated in the public sphere. Only around one-half of police forces, as I understand it, have opted to take up Women’s Aid’s Domestic Abuse Matters specialised training on domestic abuse. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, said, only eight of the 18 violence reduction units established in police force areas, which are funded by the Home Office and considered forerunners to the new violence prevention duty, name domestic abuse in their strategies.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I assure noble Lords that I will not be getting into a debate about the number of police forces we should have, but I will say two things on that: first, consistency is key; secondly, good leadership is crucial. That said, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Bertin, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for setting out the case for these amendments, which have, quite rightly, attracted a wide-ranging debate about the scope of the serious violence duty. I am also pleased about the gender balance of the tablers of the amendments, and I join my noble friend Lady Bertin in paying tribute to the DA Commissioner and join the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, with whom I have worked on many occasions on stalking.
I will start by addressing Amendments 55 and 56. The Government remain absolutely focused on tackling violence against women and girls. There is no place in society for these abhorrent crimes. That is why in July we published a new cross-government Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, which includes a range of actions to help ensure that more perpetrators are brought to justice and face the full force of the law and that we improve support to victims and survivors and work ultimately to prevent these crimes, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, and send a message of clear expectation, as the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Rosser, pointed out.
The strategy builds on our existing work, as my noble friend Lady Bertin said, including the new legislation that we have brought forward, which includes specific offences of forced marriage, upskirting, and the disclosure of private sexual photographs. The Domestic Abuse Act, which secured Royal Assent in April and which I am very proud to have taken part in and led through your Lordships’ House, will strengthen our response to domestic abuse at all levels. The Act includes a new duty for local authorities in England to ensure the provision of support for victims of abuse, both adults and children, in refuges and other safe accommodation.
Amendment 55 seeks to make it clear on the face of the Bill that domestic abuse, domestic homicide and sexual violence are included within the meaning of “violence”. We recognise the importance of multiagency working to address these crimes, as my noble friend has stressed, and I assure noble Lords that the draft statutory guidance for the serious violence duty, published in May this year, does already make it clear that specified authorities will be permitted to include in their strategy those actions which focus on any form of serious violence which is of particular concern in a local area.
I note the point that noble Lords have made that domestic violence is prevalent in every area, but it could include domestic violence, alcohol-related violence, sexual exploitation, or modern slavery. Ultimately, the specified authorities are best placed to determine what the specific priorities are for that area based on the local evidence. However, all that said, I can see value in the intention of this amendment, to expressly provide on the face of the Bill—and avoid any doubt—that domestic abuse, including domestic homicide, and sexual offences, falls within the definition of “violence” that specified authorities should follow when considering what amounts to serious violence and making that evidence-based determination as to what the specific priorities should be for their area.
Regarding the specific addition of “stalking”, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for drawing attention to this important issue. I recognise that there are other forms of crime which disproportionately affect women and girls which local areas may want to consider for the purpose of the duty, and the draft statutory guidance highlights that they may wish to do this. However, we might risk creating confusion if we specified too many crime types under the meaning of “violence”, and we must consider carefully where to draw the line. I discussed this with the domestic abuse commissioner the other day and she agrees that the definition of “domestic abuse” should be broad enough to draw attention to this issue where it takes place in a domestic abuse context. In addition, while many stalking offences do take place in a domestic abuse context or ultimately involve violent behaviour, that cannot be said for all, and so I am not convinced that an express reference is appropriate.
In any event, we remain completely focused on our efforts to tackle these crimes. The Home Secretary will chair a new violence against women and girls task force to drive cross-government activity and help maintain public confidence in policing. We are funding the first full-time national policing lead in this area, Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth, as I mentioned during the Urgent Question yesterday, and later this year we will publish a new domestic abuse strategy.
Having listened to the debate, I am in no doubt about where the whole Committee stands on this issue. We can all agree in this place that we need to do much more to tackle violence against women and girls. The multi-pronged strategy we published in the summer is directed to that end. We intend to build on that further, having listened to the views of the Committee. The Government agree that part of the response must include the police, local authorities, health bodies and the other agencies to whom the serious violence duty applies, working together to prevent and reduce domestic abuse and sexual violence in their area. Therefore, I agree with the aim of my noble friend’s amendment and will work with her ahead of Report to agree how we might best reflect this.
Amendments 57 and 58 would require violence to be defined as serious in a local area should it result either in injury requiring emergency hospital treatment or in harm constituting grievous bodily harm. I agree that such consequences are clear indicators of the seriousness of the violence in question, but we want to consider further any implications of adding such specific language to the definition of serious violence in the Bill.
The Bill already specifies certain factors that specified authorities must consider when determining what constitutes serious violence for their local area: the maximum penalty that could be imposed for any offence involved in the violence; the impact of the violence on any victim; the prevalence of the violence in the area; and the impact of the violence on the community in the area. We expect the specified authorities to use the evidence gathered from their strategic needs assessment to answer these questions and set the priority areas for their local strategies accordingly. We think that current drafting ensures that specified authorities consider the most harmful types of violence, including those resulting in acute physical injury, as part of their local strategies. However, we recognise the need to further consider the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.
Finally, Amendments 57A and 59A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raise another important issue. It is true that serious violence is often not contained by local borders and, owing to electronic communication, perpetrators of violence are able to have an extended impact in areas far across the country and beyond. We fully recognise this, and it is why Clause 8 permits specified and relevant authorities to work across local government boundaries with other authorities and, in doing so, to collaborate on strategies that cover areas greater than those where they primarily provide services. This could include collaboration with authorities in neighbouring areas or further afield. We have also included advice within the draft statutory guidance to this effect. For this reason, we do not think these amendments are necessary.
The Government have been clear that internet companies must go further and faster to tackle illegal content online. It is already an offence to incite, assist or encourage violence online, and we will continue to work with the police to support proactive action against and to address illegal material posted and offences perpetrated online.
In conclusion, I assure noble Lords that I will reflect very carefully on this debate and, in particular, on the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Bertin and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I will continue to work with them to find an agreed way forward ahead of the next stage. On that basis, I hope my noble friend will withdraw her amendment, on the clear understanding that we will return to these issues on Report.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank everyone for their powerful collection of persuasive speeches supporting the amendment in my name, for which I am hugely grateful. The House is at its best when it comes together on an issue that bridges the political divide and about which we all feel strongly. I am grateful to noble Lords for that. I thank the Minister for her support and what she just said in response, in particular to my amendment. She always gives a huge amount of time and she is such a diligent Minister. The Government are lucky to have her. I think I speak for the whole Committee when I say that she works incredibly hard and cares so much. I am grateful and I thank her.
I consider myself lobbied by my noble friend Lady Newlove, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Royall—who is of course absent—and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. My noble friend knows that I agree with every word she said on stalking. I cannot promise that I will change the amendment, but I promise that I will go to bat and lobby as hard as possible, because there is a huge problem here. Some 1.5 million people are being stalked a year, and less than 2,000 people are ever brought to justice. There is a massive problem here and, for too long, it has not been taken seriously enough. I want to work more on that, and I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for saying that she will look at these amendments and that we can discuss this further before Report.
It is very difficult for me to respond to amendments that are not in my name, and I will probably not do justice to them, but I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for laying his amendments—he had hugely persuasive arguments—and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the amount of work she does on these issues. She is absolutely right that social media companies need to be kept in check. I could not disagree with the points that she made.
That is where I will leave it, but I am grateful and look forward to Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that references in Clause 13(2) to “the police area” are to the police area of the local policing body mentioned at the beginning of that provision.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 59 to Clause 13 is a drafting amendment. Clause 13 concerns the involvement of local policing bodies in local serious violence strategies. This amendment simply clarifies that references in Clause 13(2) to “the police area” are to the police area of the local policing body mentioned at the beginning of that provision. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has given notice of a stand part debate on Clause 13 so, if it please the Committee, I will hear from him, but, for now, I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches want to probe whether Clause 13 needs to stand part of the Bill. Can the Minister explain to the Committee why there is a need for legislation to allow a local policing body, presumably a directly elected mayor or a police and crime commissioner, to assist in preventing or tackling serious violence?
I could understand if the clause stated that local policing bodies must assist or monitor what specified responsible authorities were doing and must report their findings to the Home Secretary, but that is not what it says. It says that such assistance, monitoring and reporting are voluntary, in that these bodies “may” assist, “may” monitor and “may” report.
Subsection (4) states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision conferring functions on a local policing body”.
Does that mean that, although in primary legislation—the Bill—all this is voluntary, the Secretary of State can by regulation make it compulsory?
Subsection (5) states that the functions contained in regulations
“may include provision ... for a local policing body to arrange for meetings”.
Why does the Secretary of State need to pass regulations for a directly elected mayor to hold a meeting? Can the Minister explain why Clause 13 needs to be part of the Bill at all? We on these Benches are struggling to understand why.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for this stand part debate. If the Committee will forgive me, I will say, as quickly as I can, a word or two about how I perceive the role of police and crime commissioners up until now.
Clause 13 is clearly an important element in establishing, from the Government’s point of view, a serious violence reduction duty on a more statutory basis—if I can put it that way—than exists presently. This obviously involves police and crime commissioners in particular. It is important to remember—I think this is what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was getting at, in part—that police and crime commissioners have, in their nine-year existence, voluntarily worked hard to establish partnership working and commission partnership services. In many cases, they have taken a lead in those partnerships.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding—not, I am sure, in this Committee—that, somehow, the only real role for police and crime commissioners is to hold their police force, and the chief constable in particular, to account. That is a crucial part of their duties, but I point out—the Committee does not need this pointing out—that they are not just police commissioners but crime commissioners as well. At the very least, they should have a significant duty to find ways to prevent crime and its effects on victims and society, working alongside partners, of course.
This is not about dealing with crime that has taken place, whether it is antisocial behaviour or serious violence. It means dealing with what has become a hackneyed phrase but is crucial here: the causes of crime, going back to early childhood development and early intervention. It is always about poverty and its effect on crime. It is about bad and lousy living conditions, and it always involves looking after the vulnerable, whoever they may be—we are all vulnerable at some stage or other in our lives. Above all, it is about preventing lives being thrown away, whether they are those of victims or perpetrators. I have to confess—noble Lords may have already realised that this is what I am about to say—that this kind of work or duty, as I call it, gave me and many other police and crime commissioners the greatest buzz of all.
It was crucial to achieving anything that one worked with partners, local and national, very much including government. To their credit, the Government set up violence reduction units, changed their support—I do not mean that in any bad way—and became very keen on the public health approach to dealing with these matters. That was a huge and important change, and many of us were convinced by the work that we did and seeing what happened in Scotland that this was the right course to take.
Where I was police and crime commissioner, we have what we call a violence reduction network, rather than a unit. I argue that it has achieved quite a large amount already, with great projects. My predecessor as police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire ran and started an office of the police and crime commissioner-run strategic partnership board, or SPB, which, by the time I left office, included all—I mean all—of the main public services in the area covered by the force, from local government to health, education, the police, fire and ambulance services and more.
The other example I give is that I was the chairman of the East Midlands criminal justice board. Other police and crime commissioners were chairs of their local boards or whatever they chose to call it. Clearly, if Clause 13 and other parts of this chapter pass into law, there will be—I am guessing that this is how the Government will put it—more statutory backing for this way of approaching the serious violence reduction duty. I am not against that in principle, but my one concern is that, in my experience, police and crime commissioners are a little bit like elected mayors: if they are good, they are very good, and they can make a huge difference, but if they are not so good, they can make a huge difference the other way.
I was lucky in that I had a brilliant team working for me in my office. As it happens, it has been decimated by my successor, but that is for another day, certainly not for today. Also, when I was there, other police and crime commissioners, whatever their party politics or lack of it, seemed to me to be able people who wanted to do the right thing and were very committed. As the noble Baroness and the Committee will know, many new police and crime commissioners were elected in May this year, which is no doubt a good thing, and many more of them were women—it is about time, too. It is too early to say whether they will grab these extra opportunities, but I hope that they will.
There are two big issues as far as the future is concerned in the real world. One, of course, is data sharing, which the Bill is very concerned about, and so it should be. So often, people of good will get together on behalf of organisations that are not prepared to share data. That has to change in this area, otherwise there will be no achievement. The second issue—I hate to mention it but it is the usual one—is funding. If we are going to fund all these exciting proposals, it will require government to take a leading step in that.
I am grateful to the Committee for listening to my speech. I thought it might be useful in terms of this clause.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her explanation of government Amendment 59. She said it makes a minor clarifying change, and we have no concerns to raise on it. However, I look forward to the Minister’s replies on the questions and issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friend Lord Bach. I am not sure whether I have fully understood this issue, and if what I am going to say now indicates that I have not, I apologise in advance.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, indicated in his explanatory statement, which he repeated, that he has tabled the Clause 13 stand part Motion so that he can
“probe how the provisions of this Bill and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will work in practice; and the relationship between Crime and Disorder Partnership and Police and Crime Commissioners.”
As I understand it, Clause 13 provides that local policing bodies, such as PCCs and the Mayor of London, may assist authorities in delivering the serious violence duty, monitor how authorities are exercising their duties, report back on their findings to the Secretary of State and be given authority by the Secretary of State to assist the duty in specific ways, such as providing funding or convening meetings on the duty. It also provides that authorities must co-operate with local policing bodies. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created community safety partnerships, and that raises the issue of how this duty will interact with the existing duties on CSPs.
The Government have published draft guidance on the serious violence duty. It says:
“In order to comply with the duty it is not necessary to create a new partnership, instead the specified authorities should use existing partnerships where possible and with appropriate modifications.”
It goes on to say:
“The Duty is an opportunity to simplify and add focus to existing partnership arrangements rather than add any additional complexity to the current multi-agency landscape.”
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, with apologies for rising at this late stage, I lay my cards on the table and say that I have never been the greatest fan of legislating to require public officials to work together and creating byzantine edifices of legislative partnerships. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has a point. If this is to stand, we need to understand whether “may” means “may” or “may” means “must” or whether “may” will become “must” because of regulations that will be made under what Clause 13(4), as it is now, will eventually become. That is just good law-making.
Unlike my wonderful noble friend Lord Bach, I have not been a great enthusiast for police and crime commissioners. I have to be clear about that. I always thought that it would lead to a politicisation of the police and, I am sorry to say that in many cases I feel that that has been the case. I will not dwell on the very crass remarks made by a particular commissioner in the wake of the Sarah Everard case. I am not a fan of that particular politicised mechanism for holding the police to account.
We will no doubt come to this in later clauses, but of course we must have a public health or more holistic approach to tackling—dare I say it—the causes of crime, as well as crime. But setting the policing bit and the Home Office above the other parts of the partnership, with the powers to mandate and the money and so on, is a journey we began with the Crime and Disorder Act, probably 23-odd years ago, when I had the privilege of sitting over there, in the Box. It is a journey that we still seem to be on. I am sorry to say that the poor old Home Office is often the dustbin department, picking up problems in society when it is almost too late. A lot of the deep-seated causes of crime come from other places and need to be tackled; yes, by preventive action—many noble Lords have made that point—but such preventive action belongs in education, in health and in tackling poverty and inequality. We all know this—I am preaching to the choir—but to set up an edifice whereby the senior partner, with all the powers to mandate and all the money to donate, is the policing bit, the security bit, the interior bit and the Home Office bit, is something we need to explore further, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, intends, during the scrutiny of these clauses.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Clause 13 provides a power for a local policing body—namely, a PCC, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, or the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority—to assist authorities in meeting the requirements of the serious violence duty. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was absolutely correct, as was the noble Lord, Lord Bach—as I always say, we are immensely lucky to have Parliament’s only PCC in our place; the benefit of his experience is incredibly useful.
Local policing bodies have an important part to play in convening partner agencies. PCCs and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, as elected local policing bodies, are the voice of the local community in relation to policing and crime. This is reflected in their current functions in relation to community safety partnerships. Local policing bodies are responsible for the totality of policing in their force area—the noble Lord, Lord Bach, pointed out some of the things that they get involved with—as well as for services for victims of crime. They will therefore have shared objectives in relation to the prevention and reduction of serious violence. That is why this clause provides local policing bodies with a discretionary role in supporting specified authorities with the preparation and implementation of their strategies, as well as monitoring their effectiveness and impact on local serious violence levels. I underline that the PCC role is discretionary and that it cannot be mandated through regulations.
The PCC, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and the Common Council of the City of London will not be subject to the serious violence duty as specified authorities. However, as with the existing functions of these local policing bodies in relation to community safety partnerships, they may choose to collaborate with local partnerships. They may also take a convening role to support effective multiagency working.
Regulations made by the Secretary of State may provide further detail on the ways in which local policing bodies may assist specified authorities, including convening and chairing meetings, requiring certain persons to attend such meetings and providing funding to a specified authority to support the implementation of the local serious violence strategy. They will also have a power to require information for this purpose, as set out in Clause 16. In undertaking their monitoring functions, local policing bodies may report their findings to the Secretary of State to ensure compliance with the duty.
Specified authorities will have a duty to co-operate with local policing bodies when requested to do so. However, we have made clear in the draft support guidance the need for the relevant local policing body to consider the proportionality of additional requests and anticipated costs to specified authorities before making any such requests.
The overall objective is to provide additional support and leadership, if and when required, and not to place additional burdens on those authorities subject to the duty. The approach is very similar to arrangements in place for CSPs. There has been a mutual duty on PCCs and CSPs to reduce offending since the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. I am sure noble Lords will agree that, to engender an effective multiagency approach to preventing and reducing serious violence, we must ensure that all relevant parts of the system play their part and have sufficient support in place to enable them to do so. We believe that local policing bodies, including PCCs, are best placed to provide that support. I take also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about funding.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I have just a couple of questions. First, what aspects of Clause 13 are local policing bodies currently not allowed to do that the clause allows them to do? Secondly—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for articulating what is in the guidance—my understanding is that crime and disorder partnerships could be the mechanism chosen to deliver on the serious violence duties in a particular area, or it could be a different mechanism, and the police and crime commissioner might want to be part of that or might not. That does not appear to provide the clarity of leadership and accountability necessary to deliver a serious violence strategy. Perhaps the Minister can explain how this all works.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I shall try to. At the moment, PCCs and other local policing bodies have the powers to work with the specified authorities to support multiagency working. The serious violence duty is a new duty, and the legislation clarifies how it will fit together. PCCs are the elected bodies; they work with local forces. The multiagency working can be through the CSPs, or there is flexibility around how the local partnerships are constituted. Because it is a new duty, it is definitely worth clarifying in legislation how it might work out.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers before giving a direction under Clause 17 to a devolved Welsh authority.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I rise to explore whether Clause 17 should in fact stand part of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his support. He knows a great deal more about all this than I do. I will focus my remarks on Clause 17(1)(a), which refers to Clause 16(4). That subsection makes clear that a person employed by any specified authority who is requested to supply information to a policing body must comply with the request. Of course, these bodies may include a health authority as well as an education authority, prison authority, youth custody authority or any other authority named by the Secretary of State.
My objections to Clause 17, if I have understood it correctly—and I am humble enough to know that I may not have—are rooted in my objections to the earlier clauses requiring disclosure of information by public servants to the police. Clause 17 seems to add insult to injury by giving the Secretary of State powers to issue directions to any public servant failing to provide information in order to secure compliance with the duty. Clause 17 goes on to say that a direction can be enforced by a mandatory order. Can the Minister assure the House that these clauses exclude the disclosure of information that could identify an individual? This is vital, as the Minister knows—and I have a great regard for our Minister, who understands these things.
A doctor or teacher, for example, may take the view that to pass information that risks identifying a patient, pupil or other individual to the police would be contrary to the interests of that person and would not contribute significantly to preventing or reducing serious violence. They may make a professional judgment not to disclose information that could identify a patient, pupil or other. I seriously question the Government’s proposals in Clause 17, unless this issue can be clarified.
For example, a patient may suffer from mental health problems and may be causing difficulties, but may still be making good progress in a therapeutic programme. It is likely to be utterly destructive to draw that person to the attention of the police. Likewise, if a child has severe behavioural problems at school, is vulnerable and is being targeted by a drug dealer but has agreed to co-operate with a cognitive behaviour programme and other support designed to deal with his or her problems, it would be incredibly damaging to involve the police at this point. That child could be driven into a life of drugs and crime instead of being carefully steered away from such a path.
Having worked as a social worker many decades ago—goodness knows how many—and worked with families with problems, and having also been on the Police Complaints Authority for nine years, I think I can look at these issues from both points of view. I have considerable regard for the police, despite being—indeed, perhaps because I was—involved in investigating complaints against the police for all those years. I understand that they do want information about young people who may be committing crimes. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, knows well my view that a radical review of our Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to focus on drug treatment, rather than criminalising sick addicts, would be a great deal more fruitful in reducing drug abuse and serious violence, including county lines, than this Bill, the serious violence prevention orders and these disclosure clauses.
I hope that the Minister will explain what penalties the Government have in mind if a public servant fails to provide information in accordance with a mandatory order. Are the Government at risk of criminalising public servants? I hope the Minister can reassure the House on these issues and that she will, if necessary, seek the agreement of her colleagues to reconsider the approach in Clause 17 before Report. I look forward to her reply.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I have to support what I have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for reasons we began to articulate on Monday evening. Noble Lords will remember we began to have a discussion about what is to be shared and in what circumstances existing duties of confidence and existing professional duties need to be overtaken in the public interest. But who decides? The Minister kindly gave me a very specific answer at one point in our discussion, when she said that it will be decided by the person who holds the data, but, obviously, that can be subject to challenge. That of course is my traditional understanding of professional confidence.
Way before this, and way before the Crime and Disorder Act, that was the traditional position: if the doctor, the teacher or whoever is not minded to hand over to the police the data about a specific person, or more general data, the police will have to go to the courts and try to get a warrant. That is the place for those hopefully rare disputes between professionals and the police, who are coming at this from different positions, to be decided, rather than being decided by direction from the Secretary of State.
Of course, normally, we want the health professionals, the policing professionals and the educational professionals to be working in discussion and collaboration, but, where there is a rare dispute because of their different professional angles and ethics, it really is for a judge to decide and not for the Secretary of State to trump all those existing ethics and duties. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is nodding at me. That is the concern I hope the Minister can address in her explanation and defence of Clause 17.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, taking us back to very late on Monday night, if the Minister remembers, when we were discussing Clause 15, on the disclosure of information. The Minister—I think, from memory, although it was late—implied that the disclosure of information was voluntary and that the clause was there simply to facilitate the disclosure of information. In challenging the Minister in that, I quoted from Clause 17.
I can be brief. Clause 17 enables the Secretary of State, if satisfied that a specified authority, educational authority or youth custody authority has failed to comply with the duties to collaborate or disclose information—including, presumably, sensitive personal information and information covered by a duty of confidentiality—to direct the authority to comply and enforce her direction through a mandatory order. That is what Clause 17 says.
I have already explained at length why professionals should use their professional judgment—as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, just said—within existing policies, procedures, practices and protocols, rather than being forced to divulge sensitive personal information when it is not, on balance, in the public interest to do so. For example, there will often be a greater good to be derived from maintaining a relationship between, say, a youth worker and a young person at risk of becoming involved in serious violence than from divulging sensitive information to the police. All authorities dealing with these issues are committed to preventing and tackling serious violence. They may, from time to time, have a different perspective on the problem, or a different view on the best way to achieve what we all are desperately seeking to do.
This clause is one of the reasons why so many organisations believe that the Bill is really about a police-led enforcement approach, because it is the Home Secretary who can force them to comply, rather than the public health, multiagency, multifaceted approach that has been so successful in preventing and tackling knife crime in Scotland. Can the Minister give examples of where public authorities involved in preventing and tackling serious violence have obstructed efforts to achieve those objectives? If not, why is this clause necessary? We believe that Clause 17 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group starts with government Amendment 72, which I will say a brief word about. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers—not just consult them—before giving a direction under Clause 17 to a devolved Welsh authority. I understand that the change was requested by the Welsh Government, and we support it on this side of the House.
I turn to the debate on whether Clause 17 should stand part of the Bill, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who introduced it, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Their explanatory statement says that:
“The purpose of this amendment is to explore the extent of the Secretary of State’s powers to issue directions under this section and the consequences of failure to comply with such a direction.”
A number of very searching questions have been raised, and I have a few questions myself. It would be helpful if the Minister could give some more information on what a “direction” might be and what it might consist of under this clause. The central point made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was about the context of police-led enforcement rather than a more equal arrangement between other agencies such as education and the National Health Service.
In the House of Commons, the Minister said that it is envisaged that this power will be used extremely rarely. Nevertheless, could the Minister give an example of when this power might be used and what checks might be in place when it is used? What would the prior steps be before a direction is considered? How would an authority’s progress in acting upon a direction be measured? Further, can the Minister say something about how the Government see this power working in practice?
I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, raised a particularly interesting question about what the sanction might be if a public servant fails to comply with an order to disclose information. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti also spoke of the rare disputes between professionals and how these may be resolved by direction from the Secretary of State, rather than through the courts. She gave a historical context, if you like, to that status of professionals making their own judgments.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we expect that the duty will provide the right legal basis for improved multiagency working and draw in the correct set of partners to prevent and reduce serious violence effectively. We think it is right, however, to ensure that there are means of securing compliance should a specified authority refuse to play their part—in other words, in adherence of the duty. So we have included provision within Clause 17 for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to secure compliance, should a specific authority, educational institution, prison or youth custody authority fail to meet the requirements of the duty. For publicly managed probation service providers, prisons, young offender institutions, secure training centres or secure colleges, existing mechanisms can be utilised through the relevant Secretary of State to ensure compliance with the duty.
As a result of the amendment to this clause just agreed by the Committee, the Secretary of State must now obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers before issuing a direction to a devolved Welsh authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said.
I now take the opportunity to address concerns that were raised previously by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick —it was only on Monday night, but it seems quite a long time ago. Let me be clear: a direction can be issued only to certain specified or relevant authorities and not to individual front-line professionals or practitioners. In addition, directions can be issued only in respect of certain duties, as listed in Clause 17(1). On information sharing, no directions can be issued in relation to the exercise of the powers in Clause 15 or any regulations made under Clause 9, which enable but do not mandate information sharing. I hope that answers the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Directions can be made by the Secretary of State in relation to a failure to discharge the mandatory duty in Clause 16 to share information with a local policing body. As I have said previously, the purpose of Clause 16 is to enable the local policing body—that is, the PCC and their equivalents—to request information in order to assist the specified authorities and monitor the effectiveness of local strategies. To reiterate—this may assist the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—this power would not enable the Secretary of State to directly compel an individual doctor, teacher or social worker to disclose personal information. Additionally, any direction given to an authority cannot require a disclosure which would be in breach of the data protection legislation. If an authority refused to comply with the direction due to concerns that doing so would breach the data protection legislation, the Secretary of State could apply for a mandatory order and the court would then determine the question. I hope that this clarification is helpful.
I assure the Committee that, in any case, we expect these powers to be seldom used and utilised only where all other means of securing compliance have been exhausted. I am sure noble Lords would agree that, in order for this duty to be effective, a system needs to be in place to ensure that authorities comply with the legal regulations we are proposing to help prevent and reduce serious violence.
A direction by the Secretary of State may require the authority in question to undertake specific actions in order to comply under the duty, and directions may be enforced by a mandatory order granted on application to the Administrative Court in England and Wales. Further detail on this process will be set out in statutory guidance, which will be subject to a public consultation following Royal Assent. I commend Clause 17 to the Committee.
Lord Beith (LD)
Can the Minister explain subsection (5), which sets out that
“the governor of a prison, young offender institution or secure training centre”
is not covered by these provisions?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the direction power is not available in relation to probation services provided by the Secretary of State or publicly run prisons, youth offender institutions, secure training centres or secure colleges. As I said earlier, existing mechanisms will be available to ensure that they are meeting the requirements of the duty. In addition, as I have already outlined, the Secretary of State must also obtain consent from Welsh Ministers before exercising the direction power in relation to a devolved Welsh authority.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, I have one further question about the protection on data protection. My understanding is that, essentially, it works by limiting the control and transfer of data to the purposes for which the data is held. However, if this legislation changes those purposes to include, for example, the serious violence duty, data protection will not help any more because there will be a purpose that overrides the existing primary purpose. Perhaps during the next few hours—or years—of this Committee, we could get some advice from our friends in the Box.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about data protection but there are exemptions. One is the detection, prevention and reduction of crime.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister. I think I need to read what she said and compare it with what is in other clauses in the Bill because, although it is difficult to hold everything in one’s head, I am not sure that everything she said is consistent with what is in the Bill.
However, there are two specific questions that the Minister did not answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked what the sanction would be for failure to comply. Is it right that a mandatory order is an order of the Administrative Court to comply with a legal duty, and therefore failure to comply with a mandatory order would be in contempt of court? The second question, which I asked, was: can the Minister give examples of where public authorities involved in preventing and tackling serious violence have obstructed the efforts to achieve those objectives? If not, why is the clause necessary? I do not expect the Minister to have examples at her fingertips but perhaps she could write.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I thank the Minister for her response on Clause 17. However, I wish to express a bit of concern. Although she assured the Committee that an individual doctor or youth worker would not be required to provide information, nevertheless an authority might well provide information, without consulting the individual doctor or youth worker, that would identify individuals who were receiving services in that authority. After the Minister’s response, I am not at all clear that we can be completely sure that this will not happen; I believe that there should be some wording in these clauses to specify that information from authorities about individuals would not be accepted if they provided it. This is an incredibly dangerous situation if individuals find that their authority has been divulging information to the police; it could destroy the efficacy of our public services—it is that serious.
I am not trying to be awkward; I just feel that we need some assurances in these clauses that individuals will not need to be concerned about the disclosure of information about them. Various subsections in Clauses 15 and 16 and so on indicate that, in looking at data protection, you must take account of the regulations in this Act. It is quite complex but it is not reassuring, if I may say so.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am keen for this not to be left hanging in uncertainty. Perhaps a bit of further explanation will be helpful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
This is a backstop power that will be used rarely. However, if needed, it could be utilised; for example, where one of the specified authorities fails to participate in the preparation of the local strategy. If a direction was issued and the authority still refused to comply—that was the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—on the basis that it believed that doing so would breach data protection legislation, the Secretary of State would need to apply for a mandatory order and the court would ultimately decide, but I do not think that there is any question of breaching data protection legislation.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness withdraws her objection to the clause standing part, I remind noble Lords that we are in Committee and can speak as many times as we like.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, it might be helpful to the Committee if I clarify what may be a slight confusion. The group was led by Amendment 72 but noble Lords will recall that Amendment 72 was agreed to in its place. The question that the Committee now has before is that Clause 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
The aim of this amendment is to ensure that the guidance under this Clause is able to be scrutinised by Parliament
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 73, I will speak also to Amendment 74 in my name.
Clause 18 states that those authorities that are, under this chapter of the Bill, under a duty to prevent and tackle serious violence
“must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State”.
However, in the Bill, the only people the Secretary of State must consult are Welsh Ministers. As we will see in a later group, when it comes to similar guidance in relation to offensive weapons homicide reviews, Clause 31 requires the Secretary of State to consult
“persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent review partners”
and
“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
That is in addition to Welsh Ministers.
We on these Benches believe that the Secretary of State should also consult representatives of the authorities that will be subject to the guidance, and such other persons as may be appropriate to consult. That is the intention of Amendment 74. We also believe that such guidance should be statutory—that is, contained in regulations—to enable Parliament to scrutinise the guidance before those involved become subject to it, as set out in Amendment 73. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. On Amendment 74, we believe it is vital that the Government should consult front-line organisations on the content of the guidance. They are the ones who know how this will, or will not, work in practice and their expertise is the driving force behind the duty. The Government have of course published draft guidance on this, and I ask the Minister whether this guidance is being consulted on.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, that was quick for a Committee debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for setting out the case for these amendments, which relate to the power to issue guidance in relation to the serious violence duty. I am sure we all agree that legislation works far better, in practice, when it is implemented alongside clear guidance. In the case of the serious violence duty, we want to ensure that the guidance is clear on the expectations of all specified authorities, that it provides sufficient advice in meeting them and that it highlights best practice from across England and Wales. It is also crucial that such guidance is developed in collaboration with and with input from those who will be subject to the legislation and those who represent them to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
That is why, prior to the implementation of Chapter 1 of Part 2, we will publicly consult on the guidance to support the duty. As a first step, we have published the guidance in draft to assist the scrutiny of these provisions. I have a copy of it here. We welcome feedback on the draft and will take that into account when preparing an updated draft for consultation following Royal Assent to the Bill.
Clause 18 already expressly requires consultation with Welsh Ministers, as the noble Lord said, in so far as the guidance relates to the exercise of functions under this chapter by a devolved Welsh authority. But we are committed to going further and, as part of the public consultation on the statutory guidance, we intend to invite views from key representative bodies and other relevant persons, such as the Children’s Commissioner and the domestic abuse commissioner. Given this commitment, I do not think it would be appropriate, at this point, to include a broader duty to consult in the Bill.
The stated aim of Amendment 73 is to enable the guidance to be scrutinised by Parliament. In principle, I have no difficulty with that at all; it is open to Parliament to scrutinise guidance at any time. However, the effect of this amendment, when read with the provisions in Clause 21, would be to make the guidance subject to the affirmative procedure. I am not persuaded that this level of scrutiny is necessary—and nor, for that matter, was the DPRRC, which recommended that the negative procedure should apply in this case. We are carefully considering that committee’s report and will respond ahead of the next stage. In light of the commitments I have given, would the noble Lord be happy to withdraw his amendment?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but it was actually me who proposed these amendments.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My ventriloquism skills are not so good that the Minister would think I was the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. But I am glad that the Minister is going to consider the regulations again. I am not sure that the intention of my amendment was to ensure that guidance would be approved through the affirmative procedure. Any procedure would be better than no procedure at all, and it does not look like there is any provision in the Bill for parliamentary scrutiny of guidance, so I am grateful for that undertaking. I will go back and look again at a later part of the Bill, which includes the need to consult on guidance. I may need to come back on Report and again challenge why, in that part of the Bill, guidance has to be consulted on, but not in this part. Having said that, I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Paddick
“(c) no other mechanism is available to review or hold an investigation or inquiry into the death”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the reviews conducted under Clause 23 do not duplicate any other review taking place into the same death, for example a Coroner's inquest.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 75 I will speak also to Amendments 76 and 77 in this group, all in my name. We now come to offensive weapons homicide reviews and there are two points I will make initially. The first is to point to the evidence that the provisions on this in the Bill were probably, quite rightly and properly, about knife crime. Chapter 2 is about offensive weapons homicide reviews and, predominantly if not almost exclusively, homicides involving offensive weapons are knife crime offences.
Secondly, as with Chapter 1, the primary motive of the Government is to produce the illusion of doing something when the changes in the Bill have little practical beneficial effect. As we argued in Chapter 1, the Government’s approach potentially does more harm than good. Amendment 75 is a probing amendment to ask the Government why, just as Chapter 1 should have strengthened existing crime and disorder partnerships, this chapter should not strengthen the already considerable and comprehensive powers of coroners, if this were necessary, rather than creating a new and separate legal duty to conduct offensive weapons reviews—other than the obvious explanation that the Government could point to it and say they had done something about knife crime.
For every death where the cause of death is still unknown, where the person might have died a violent or unnatural death or might have died in prison or police custody, a coroner must hold an inquest. Clearly every qualifying homicide, as identified by Clause 23, and every potential qualifying homicide, even if the Secretary of State changed the definition by regulations, as subsection (7) allows, would be subject to a coroner’s inquest. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides coroners with a duty to make reports to a person, organisation, local authority, or government department or agency, where the coroner believes that action should be taken to prevent future deaths. All reports, formerly known as rule 43 reports, and responses must be sent to the Chief Coroner. In most cases, the Chief Coroner will publish the reports and responses on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website. Coroners are very powerful members of the judiciary. Attendance at a coroner’s court takes precedence over an appearance at any other court, if a witness is required to attend more than one court at one time, for example.
Can the Minister tell the Committee what consultation took place with coroners before this chapter was drafted? What was their response? What additional benefit would an offensive weapons homicide review have over a coroner’s report? If benefits were identified, what consideration was given to the coroner, rather than a review partner, being given the power to order a homicide review? Can the Minister also explain what happens if one of the review partners considers that none of the conditions in Clause 23(1) is satisfied, but another review partner considers that the conditions are met? Does the review take place despite the review partner’s objection, and, if it does, does the review partner that objected have to participate if it does not believe the conditions are met? Is there a hierarchy of review partners? So, if the police believe the conditions are met, must the review go ahead? And if a clinical commissioning group believes that a review should go ahead, but the police do not believe the conditions are met, does the review take place and do the police have to participate?
The Government may say that all this will be set out in regulations, but the existing provisions in the Bill are a shell of an idea, where this Committee is left to guess what actually happens in practice; what a qualifying homicide is, because that can be changed by regulation; who the review partners will be, because that will be set out in regulations; and what happens if there is disagreement among review partners about whether the conditions are met.
We already have child death reviews, domestic homicide reviews—on which more in a subsequent group—safeguarding adult reviews, and, now, offensive weapons homicide reviews. With the Bill as drafted, how many of the sadly too many knife crime deaths a year will be subject to a review? According to the Bill, factors that decide whether a review is necessary may include, for example, the circumstances surrounding the death, the circumstances or the history of the person who died, or the circumstances or history of other persons with a connection with the death, or any other condition the Secretary of State sets out in regulations. How many reviews do the Government believe will have to be conducted each year by our overstretched police, local authority and health services? I ask the Minister to not give the answer: “It depends what conditions are contained in the regulations”.
Amendment 76 is intended to ensure, as with the serious violence duty, that professionals, including doctors and counsellors, are not forced to disclose sensitive personal information that is subject to a duty of confidentiality, unless, in exceptional circumstances, it is in the public interest to do so, and in accordance with existing policies and practices, although I accept that these may be less stringent in the case of information regarding the deceased.
As before, Clause 31 says that review partners must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State, but there is no mention of parliamentary scrutiny of such guidance. My Amendment 77 requires the guidance to be laid before Parliament to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move Amendment 75.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to support my noble friend in questioning whether the processes outlined in this clause should be altered so that they protect the procedures that we already have and have had for a thousand years, to use the system of coroners to investigate unexplained deaths of a wide variety of types. Instead, we have the offensive weapons homicide review added to the system. It is unclear how this will relate to the coroner’s duties in a situation where such a death has occurred, because the coroner’s duties do not disappear because we have legislated this system into existence. I hope the Minister will clarify this point.
There was a time when the Government might have felt that the system of coroners was not quite up to the job in some areas. We had problems over the years with inconsistencies in standards of coroner, but considerable attention has been given to that in recent years and I think the system now has much more consistency about it. We are not subject to some of the problems of particular localities which existed in the past. The creation of a Chief Coroner, although in a more limited way than originally envisaged, I think has helped in that process.
It seems to me that the Government are not saying that the coroner system cannot handle this, they are simply legislating for an additional mechanism, because that seems to be a good, visible response to a problem that we all acknowledge is a serious one. But serious problems are not solved by creating more structures and processes, particularly in the circumstance where what is a qualified homicide appears to be so uncertain that the Government have to keep to themselves powers to change the meaning of qualified homicide while the legislation remains in force.
I am very unpersuaded about this system and certainly would like to know what coroners are supposed to do when they find themselves presented with the likelihood of such an inquiry taking place and may have their own duties in respect of the death that has taken place.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has made it clear that these are probing amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, has just expressed scepticism about the number of initiatives which the Government have put forward in this section of the Bill.
Having said that, we support this part of the Bill on offensive weapons homicide reviews. Amendment 75 raises the question of what happens if a death is already covered by an existing review mechanism, and not duplicating reviews. When this question was raised in the other place, the Minister said:
“To avoid duplication of work, the Bill provides that these new offensive weapons homicide reviews will be required only where there is not an existing statutory requirement to review the homicide”.—[Official Report, Commons Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 27/5/21; col. 268.]
Clause 23(5) provides that a review is not required under this chapter if a review of the death is already taking place under different arrangements. If I understand it correctly, I think this meets one of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in his amendment.
Amendment 76 deals with data protection. It would prevent data being shared for these reviews if it breaches an obligation of confidence or any other restriction other than the Data Protection Act. These issues were debated in detail on Monday in relation to the serious violence reduction duty. Obviously, data sharing is absolutely key to a homicide review to allow us to identify and learn lessons from the death, and to decide on actions to take in response. However, as raised in the earlier debate, we must know how this is to be balanced with safeguards.
Clause 29 provides that a person may not be required to disclose information under this chapter that they could not be compelled to disclose in High Court proceedings. It would be helpful if the Minister could talk us through the specific provision of potential High Court proceedings.
Amendment 77 is based on a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The DPRRC has said that guidance on this chapter of the Bill provided by Clause 31 should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and done through a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. We support the committee’s suggestion and call on the Government to look carefully at all the committee’s recommendations.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for explaining his amendments to the provisions in the Bill which establish offensive weapons homicide reviews. Before I turn to the specifics of the amendments, it may assist the Committee if I first set out the context and rationale for the introduction of these reviews. Noble Lords asked a lot of questions and I will do my best to get to all of them. If I have missed any, I will write to noble Lords.
Every homicide is a tragedy and the Government are committed to doing all they can to prevent the senseless loss of life and tackle serious violence. We are naturally disturbed by data showing that homicide has risen by about a third in England and Wales between 2014-15 and 2018-19. We have also seen that homicides involving offensive weapons now make up a large and growing proportion of all homicides—approximately 354 out of 732 in 2019. Homicide is now the fourth leading cause of death for men aged 20 to 34, behind suicide, drug overdoses and car accidents. Yet there is currently no legal requirement to formally review the circumstances around the majority of homicides involving an offensive weapon.
This provision will require local agencies to consider the circumstances of both the victims and perpetrators during an offensive weapons homicide review, and identify lessons that could help prevent future deaths. By deepening our local and national understanding of homicide and serious violence, together we can improve our response and ultimately save lives.
The amendment would change the definition of a “qualifying homicide” whereby, alongside the other requirements already set out in Clause 23, an offensive weapons homicide review would be applicable only if no other mechanism is available to review or hold an investigation or inquiry into the death. We agree with the sentiment of the amendment that it would not be necessary or proportionate to require the review partners to conduct an offensive weapons homicide review where the homicide already meets the conditions for an existing review—for example, a domestic homicide review—as this would involve duplication of work and create an unnecessary burden on the review partners, yet produce the same outcomes. However, we do not consider the amendment necessary as Clause 25 already provides for the relationship between offensive weapons homicide reviews and other review requirements to avoid duplication of effort, including disapplying the duty to conduct an offensive weapons review in certain cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, cited coroners’ inquests as an example of existing reviews that would preclude a homicide from qualifying for a review under Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Bill. We should remember that inquests are designed for a different purpose. They are legal inquiries into the cause and circumstances of a death, and are limited to the four statutory questions of who, where, when and how or by what means a person came about their death. Further to this, in many homicides where an offensive weapon is used, there will not be an inquest because the criminal trial will answer the statutory questions and an inquest will not need to take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also asked if consultation with coroners had taken place at an official level. It has and that will continue during the design phase.
Lord Beith (LD)
It is important that we get this matter clear. If the coroner has begun an inquest, does that inquest fall within the limitation that the Minister has described, which would preclude a homicide review being started while that inquest is going on?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. As I understand it, yes it does. I expect I will be corrected by my officials later.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It cannot possibly be right that a coroner’s inquest is not held if a criminal trial answers the statutory questions. Why is a coroner’s inquest into the Manchester Arena bombing currently taking place after two people have been convicted in criminal trials? I cannot believe that what the Minister just said is true.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am not in a position to answer that question, I am afraid. I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
I can now confirm that coroners’ inquests will not preclude an offensive weapons homicide review.
In homicide cases where there is an inquest, its purpose would not be to provide the same in-depth review as an offensive weapons homicide review, which will identify points of failure, lessons learned and opportunities to intervene, which will help partners tackle homicide locally and nationally. Due to this, we do not consider that the amendment is necessary. I may have already said that, in which case I apologise. In fact, I have said that; I shall move on to Amendment 76.
Amendment 76 relates to information sharing in relation to confidentiality obligations and data protection in Clause 29. To review the circumstances leading up to a homicide involving an offensive weapon, to identify lessons and produce recommendations that will have a meaningful impact and save lives, the review will undeniably need to be able to access and consider information and material relevant to the homicide. Such information may include information about the victim or the alleged perpetrators or perpetrator. It may relate to their interactions with police forces, social services, health practitioners, educational institutions, employers or third-sector organisations. It may relate to information about their known associates.
It is not for the Government to determine what information is relevant. That will be for the review partners. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the High Court proceedings. That issue is dealt with in Clause 29, which sets the terms on which disclosures of information required or authorised by Clauses 26 to 28 may be made. I do not have precise details on the High Court proceedings but I will come back to the noble Lord, if that is all right. Clause 28 includes a power enabling review partners to provide information to another review partner for the purpose of enabling or assisting the review partners to arrange and carry out an offensive weapons homicide review.
I have mentioned review partners a number of times and it is worth digressing briefly to attempt to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the backstop, effectively—what happens if there is no review partner? That is not possible because in cases where there is no relevant review partner, the regulations also allow for the Secretary of State to be given the power to direct which partners are the relevant ones. I hope that answers his specific question.
Clause 28 also includes a power for review partners to require information from other persons. However, review partners may request information under this power only for the purposes of enabling or assisting review partners to arrange and carry out an offensive weapons homicide review, and the request may be made only to a person whom the review partner considers likely to have such information. The scope of the information that might be requested, and who it might be requested from, is therefore limited.
This power does not, however, affect the availability of any other duties or powers to share information such as existing lawful routes for information to be shared for safeguarding purposes or for the purposes of the detection and prevention of crime. As currently drafted, the provisions in the Bill ensure that relevant information may be disclosed, and such disclosure would not breach existing obligations of confidence, but any disclosure must still abide by the data protection legislation—that is, the Data Protection Act 2018 and regulations made under that Act, the UK General Data Protection Regulation, regulations implementing the GDPR and the law enforcement directive—and must not be prohibited by specified provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act. For example, where personal data is subject to the UK General Data Protection Regulation, that regulation sets out the principles, rights and obligations that apply to the processing of personal data, including exemptions from particular provisions that can apply in certain circumstances, as set out in Schedules 2 to 4 to the Data Protection Act 2018—for example, in the prevention and detection of crime.
Additionally, Clause 29 provides that a person cannot be required by Clause 28 to disclose information that they could not be compelled to disclose in proceedings before the High Court, meaning that information that is subject to legal professional privilege cannot be required to be disclosed. Due to those safeguards, we do not feel that Amendment 76 is necessary.
I should also like to confirm that we have consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office throughout the development of these provisions and will continue to engage with it as we develop guidance and prepare to pilot these reviews. We consider the information-sharing provisions in Chapter 2 of Part 2 necessary to facilitate an effective multiagency approach to preventing and reducing homicide and serious violence.
Amendment 77 would ensure that guidance under Clause 31 is laid before Parliament. The statutory guidance provided for in Clause 31 will assist the review partners in understanding the statutory responsibilities placed on them, as well as providing best practice on how to fulfil those responsibilities. Among other things, the guidance will provide further information on the notification requirements, the conduct of reviews, the content of the final report and information sharing. We intend to publish an outline draft of the guidance document to allow time for further development before consulting on the guidance, as required by Clause 31. The guidance document will be finalised and published ahead of the pilot commencing.
Lord Beith (LD)
Before my noble friend does that, can the Minister clear up a mystery? I remain mystified. A person has been stabbed, but no charge has been laid against anyone because the police have not yet identified who might have carried out the stabbing. The coroner opens and adjourns an inquest in those circumstances. What happens then? Is the coroner told that he must close down this inquest? Does the coroner continue to co-operate with the police in the normal way, as they bring to him the information that they have gradually obtained about how this death might have taken place? In passing, I should say that it would be wrong to give the impression that coroners do not, as a matter of course, draw lessons from public bodies and others which arise from any death that they report on.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I thought that I had made it clear, and I apologise for obviously not having done so, but no, OWHRs are not precluded by a coroner’s inquest.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for attempting to answer my questions. I am very grateful for his undertaking to write to me on any questions that were not answered. I just add one question to that.
One of my big regrets in life is not taking shorthand, so I must paraphrase what the Minister said. It was something along the lines of there being no existing legal duty to review the circumstances surrounding an offensive weapon homicide to prevent future deaths. I appreciate that the Minister is behind the curve, as he relies on a brief that is given to him before the contents of what I say immediately beforehand are known. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides coroners with a duty to make reports where the coroner believes that action should be taken to prevent future deaths. How is that not a legal duty to review the circumstances surrounding an offensive weapon homicide to prevent future deaths? If the Minister can add that to the unanswered questions, then, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 75.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“Domestic homicide reviews
(1) Section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (2) substitute—“(2) The Secretary of State must in all cases which meet the circumstances set out in subsection (1) direct a specified person or body within subsection (4) to establish, or to participate in, a domestic homicide review.”(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3ZA) The Secretary of State must by regulations set out—(a) the type of data relating to domestic homicide reviews which must be recorded, including—(i) the number of domestic homicide reviews taking place across England and Wales annually; and(ii) the time taken to complete each individual domestic homicide review;(b) that the data must be recorded centrally in a Home Office database; and(c) that the data must be published annually.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to modify the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to force the Secretary of State to automatically direct a domestic homicide review in circumstances as outlined in Section 9 of the Act. The new Clause also aims to improve data collection methodologies around domestic homicide reviews.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
This amendment deals with domestic homicide reviews, which are provided for in Section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Domestic homicide reviews are concerned with where a domestic murder or manslaughter occurs, meaning where somebody over 16, living in the same household as somebody else, is murdered or is the victim of manslaughter, or some other crime, leading to death. The purpose of the domestic homicide review pursuant to Section 9(1) of the 2004 Act is to identify the lessons to be learned from the death. It is envisaged that it will be a multiagency review.
These domestic homicide reviews have proved to be of real value because they have identified the sorts of things which, if they were remedied, could help to prevent subsequent occurrence. The two big issues to emerge, time and again, in domestic homicide reviews are the proper recording of domestic violence complaints and whether the risk that the recording revealed has been properly dealt with, particularly by the police but also by other agencies. The Home Office published what lessons have been learned from a whole range of domestic homicide reviews in a 2016 document. I cannot find any subsequent document that brings together lessons learned.
We seek to do two things by this amendment, and there is a connected issue that I raised with the Minister before coming to this debate today. First, according to Section 9(2) of the 2004 Act, the Secretary of State has a discretion as to whether he orders a domestic homicide review in any case. On this side of the House, we consider that there should be a domestic homicide review in every case. Documents emanating from the Home Office suggest that it believes that there is such a position. Looking at Section 9 of the 2004 Act, it is quite difficult to ascertain whether or not there is an obligation in every case for there to be such a domestic homicide review. We think that there should be, and our proposed amendment to subsection (2) seeks to achieve that. I would very much welcome the Minister telling us what the position is in relation to it and what legal duty exists to ensure that there is a domestic homicide review. If there is any doubt about it, can he confirm that the Government’s position is that there should be a domestic homicide review in every case and that he would consider making the necessary legal changes to ensure that?
Secondly, we take the view that there should be proper recording of all that is learned from domestic homicide reviews, and, in particular, that the information is readily available in a centralised place to determine the sorts of things that lead to domestic homicides, so that it is available to everybody, in particular every police force that is dealing with it.
Thirdly, and separately—this is not specifically covered by the amendment, but I raised it with the Minister beforehand—a domestic homicide sentencing review was commissioned by, I think, the previous Lord Chancellor, on 9 September 2021. This has involved the instruction of Clare Wade of Her Majesty’s Counsel to look into the sentencing of people convicted of a domestic homicide. Will the Minister please say what the terms of reference of Clare Wade’s review are? When is it expected to report, and what will be done with its recommendations?
We start, on this side, from the premise that this Bill does not sufficiently address violence against women and girls in particular. In two-thirds of domestic homicides, of which there are about 150 a year, a woman is the victim. The pattern of sentencing by courts has evolved in such a way that in the case of victims of stabbing outside of a domestic context the courts are guided to give very heavy sentences, while for victims of stabbings in a domestic context the courts are not given such stringent guidance. We think that that needs to be looked at: a domestic killing should not be treated as less serious than one committed outside the home. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s explanation of the position in relation to the review. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed this amendment but is, unfortunately, unable to be in the House tonight and I speak in her place.
Essentially, I agree with everything the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said. I will add just a couple of points. It is worth noting that the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing produced a report on domestic homicide in August, which described it as
“an entrenched and enduring problem.”
The report makes very disturbing reading. It records that just over half of suspects were previously known to police from domestic abuse cases, and another 10% were known for other offences, while 44% of households not covered by those categories were known to some other agency in some way. There is clearly an issue, therefore, with lessons learned.
It is good to have a report such as this: it is very useful and informative. But what is being proposed here is a register—something ongoing that can be a continual source of information and learning. We should make a couple of comparisons here. One is with air safety, where there is an assumption that whenever anything goes wrong every possible lesson will be learned and every piece of information will be extracted from it. We should be looking at domestic homicides in the same way.
Another parallel is with the Vision Zero approach to road crashes which many nations are increasingly adopting. We should be among them, and we should be looking to have zero serious injuries or deaths on the road. We know from the report that in nearly all cases of domestic homicide there has been an opportunity for someone to intervene. We should be looking towards a Vision Zero for domestic homicides.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble and learned lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but I am not sure that there needs to be a domestic homicide review in every case—or whether that is not already the situation.
In my experience, some cases of domestic homicide are very straightforward, and I remind the Committee of my remarks on the previous group: that coroners—rather than, for example, the Secretary of State—should perhaps have the power to order such a review if they believe it is in the public interest.
We support the need to ensure that lessons are learned from domestic homicide reviews, that they are regularly published, and that these offences are treated with utmost seriousness. Being attacked and killed in your own home, a place where everyone should feel safe, is far more serious than being attacked and killed on the street. That is why it is so important that any lesson that can be learned from any domestic homicide should be learned, and why the courts need to take these offences far more seriously than a random attack or a gang-related attack on the street.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for his conversation this afternoon, which was very gracious of him.
As the noble and learned Lord has set out, this amendment seeks to amend the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to require the Secretary of State to direct a domestic homicide review to be carried out in circumstances outlined in Section 9 of that Act. The amendment also aims to improve data collection methodologies around domestic homicide reviews. I shall go into that now and, I hope, answer noble Lords’ questions in the course of my remarks.
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, noted, domestic homicides are an abhorrent crime. Every death is a tragedy. I will explain some of the measures we are taking to tackle the perpetrators of these crimes, because it is germane to this amendment. In 2020-21 £7 million was awarded to police and crime commissioners to fund 28 perpetrator programmes, including the Drive project, which works with high-harm and high-risk perpetrators. This year we have also allocated £11.3 million to further expand the geographic scale of perpetrator programmes.
I return to the amendment. Domestic homicide reviews are a valuable mechanism for understanding what lessons can be learned from these deaths to prevent further tragedies. We recognise that there is room for improvement in the way these reviews are conducted and the lessons applied.
Domestic homicide reviews should be considered where the death of a person appears to have been caused by someone to whom they are related or had an intimate relationship with, or by a member of their household, with a view to identifying lessons from the death. The statutory guidance dictates that these decisions are to be made by community safety partnerships at local level. The Home Office should be notified of these decisions by the CSP. CSPs comprise representatives from responsible authorities: police, local authorities, probation and health services.
The chair of the CSP holds responsibility for establishing whether a homicide is to be the subject of a DHR by giving consideration to the definition set out in Section 9(1) of the 2004 Act, as noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and whether the statutory criteria in that section are satisfied. There will be occasions where a CSP may consider it inappropriate to conduct a DHR based on the information before it, either because the statutory criteria are not met, in its view, or for other reasons.
The Home Office expert quality assurance panel reviews all decisions not to proceed with a review. The decision is then ultimately escalated to the Secretary of State, who can exercise her reserve power in Section 9(2) of the 2004 Act to direct a community safety partnership to conduct a review. This was first utilised in the very tragic case of Ruth Williams. Since March 2021, the Home Secretary has made four such directions.
In a very small number of cases, it is possible that the criteria for a domestic homicide review are met, but it is agreed that a review is not the best way to ensure that lessons are learned from the tragic death, for example when there is inadequate information to proceed or when a different safeguarding review would be more appropriate. I reassure the noble and learned Lord that these decisions are taken very carefully by the quality assurance panel and the Home Secretary.
In short, domestic homicide reviews already take place in the great majority of cases where the criteria in the 2004 Act are met. Given this, and the existence of the Home Secretary’s reserve power to direct a review, we are not persuaded that the framework for triggering these reviews is wanting and in need of change.
Turning to the second aspect of the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, I accept that there are concerns about the collection of data relating to domestic homicide reviews. This is why the Home Office has undertaken to create a central repository to hold all domestic homicide reviews. Funding has been secured for this and it is expected to go live next year. Once introduced, all historical reports will be collected to ensure that there is a central database on domestic homicides.
Furthermore, I should add that Section 17 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which comes into force on 1 November, will amend Section 9 of the 2004 Act to make it a requirement for CSPs to send all completed DHRs to the domestic abuse commissioner as soon as reasonably practicable after completion. This will be a useful source of information from which the commissioner can drive forward change.
To go on to the noble and learned Lord’s final question about the sentencing review, the Government recognise the legitimacy of the concerns around the sentencing of domestic homicide cases raised by the families of Poppy Devey Waterhouse and Ellie Gould and those highlighted by the Victims’ Commissioner and domestic abuse commissioner. That is why we are conducting a review into such cases. It will be a targeted review of how domestic homicide cases—specifically those involving fatal attacks on intimate partners or ex-partners—are dealt with by our justice system, and will take account of sentencing outcomes and available data. The first stage of this review, an analysis of data and relevant sentencing for cases of domestic homicide tried between 2018 and 2020, is now complete.
As the noble and learned Lord noted, Clare Wade QC has since been appointed as the independent expert to conduct the second and final stage of the review. This will involve the consideration of both internal findings and existing external analysis carried out by academics and campaigning organisations, followed by the identification of potential options for reform. The expectation is that Ms Wade will report back to the Secretary of State before the end of the year.
In conclusion, I hope that the ongoing work in the Home Office on domestic homicide reviews and the domestic homicide review repository that I have described reassure the noble and learned Lord that the objectives he seeks through this amendment are already in place or under way. On that basis, I hope that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for speaking in the debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his very comprehensive answer, though I find the answers that he gave quite concerning for three reasons.
First, he did not give a coherent basis for why there are domestic homicide reviews in some cases but not others. I completely accept that there might be cases where it was not appropriate, but the set-up of the statute gives no real indication in relation to that. He indicated that the Secretary of State had intervened on a few occasions, but did not give the basis. It would be helpful to know how many domestic homicides had a review and how many did not in the last two years and what was the basis for the selection. If he feels able to write, that would help me in considering what to do with this next.
Secondly, on the centralisation of information, he did not really come forward with a proposal for how one would improve the information in relation to that. I need to consider what he said on that. Thirdly, I may have missed it—I will need to read Hansard—but he did not say what the terms of reference are for Clare Wade’s review. Are they written down somewhere? Could somebody let us see them?
At this stage, of course, I withdraw my amendment.
Overseas Development Aid: Budget
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure the Overseas Development Aid budget is retained at 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income in (1) this financial year, and (2) future financial years.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, from the Labour Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and other noble Lords who are here this evening for this very important debate. I, for one, having voted on the legislation in the other place back in 2014 and 2015, believe that the international development or overseas aid budget should be retained at 0.7% of GNI. I do note that today, the Chancellor committed to UK aid getting back to 0.7% of national income in 2024. However, I believe that that is simply kicking the can down the road, because there is absolutely no commitment with that given undertaking, and it is what matters now. What is the UK going to do today for the people and communities who have been worst affected by the Covid pandemic and climate change?
On the impact of the cuts on people and the planet, the FCDO’s annual report highlights the costs of dropping the commitment to 0.7% of GNI. Between the 2020-21 financial year and 2021-22, aid to Africa fell by 51%, and funding to the Middle East was cut by 74%, including 80%-plus cuts to Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. There were also cuts to Asia. The lowest-income countries were hit hardest, experiencing £1 billion in cuts, compared with £209 million in cuts to middle and upper-middle-income countries. The scale of the cuts was so deep that even funding for strategic priorities such as education, humanitarian responses and the FCDO’s climate funding were not immune.
We have to consider the impact of the cuts on the UK’s reputation. Aid is widely acknowledged as a central facet of how a country is perceived, and its influence around the world. Our international partners and allies are rightly concerned about this Government’s continued commitment to international development, but also to internationalism more generally. That point was made by the previous Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, when there was a Department for International Development. It is worth noting that ICAI’s latest review of the UK’s pandemic response illustrates the damage done by the cuts to the UK’s response and therefore to the international response.
I remind your Lordships’ House that the 0.7% commitment is enshrined in law. I can well recall, when I was a Member in the other place back in 2014-15, that we implemented that Act. It came to this House, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, brought forward that piece of legislation in this House at that time. That Act placed a statutory legal duty to ensure that the United Kingdom hit the target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance every year. If the 0.7% target were missed in any year, the Foreign Secretary was required retrospectively to explain why in a Statement to Parliament.
Until Parliament changes that law on the statutory duty to meet the 0.7% target, the Government must aim to hit it. They cannot deliberately aim to spend 0.5% and miss the target. The announcement in today’s Budget definitely does not explain it at all: it simply kicks the can down the road. The Government think that, by doing that, they will get off the hook. I am absolutely sure that those countries that rely on aid from the UK Government will not be letting them off the hook, and those many charitable organisations and aid agencies that do enormous work on our behalf in all the developing countries will not be letting us forget it. In fact, they have recently written to the Chancellor and the new Foreign Secretary to ask that the following are in addition to the 0.5% ODA budget.
The list includes rechannelled special drawing rights, excess vaccine donations and Sudan relief aid, because earlier this year, the International Monetary Fund agreed to a special issue of $650 billion in special drawing rights to help lower and middle-income countries respond to the coronavirus pandemic. The UK’s allocation of this is more than that of all low-income countries combined. Many rich countries, including the UK, are working out how to rechannel their SDR allocation to LMICs where they can do the most good. This is done at no cost to the donor, who simply lends their reserves. When the 0.5% budget was first announced one year ago, it was not known that the UK would receive this additional finance. Channelling SDRs carries minimal costs to the UK and supports the objective of promoting global economic recovery. Therefore, I believe it is critical that SDRs be channelled to support the poorest countries, and that that is additional to the 0.5% ODA budget. I would like the Minister to address that particular issue this evening.
It is welcome to see that the UK has committed to donate 100 million vaccine doses to the rest of the world, and that the Government promised that they would be additional to the financial year 2021-22 £10 billion aid budget. This recognises that vaccinating the world supports the UK’s ability to build back better from the pandemic and be protected from future variants. However, it is worth remembering that the UK and other wealthy countries have contributed to the global vaccine shortage by overordering and hoarding supplies. The UK has blocked a proposed TRIPS waiver at the World Trade Organization that would increase global vaccine production and address vaccine inequality faster. It is therefore critical that these vaccine doses are shared as quickly as possible to maximise their impact, and that any donated Covid-19 vaccine doses are additional to the 0.5% ODA budget in 2021-22 and in all future financial years.
Thirdly, Sudan has reached decision point under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative and received significant debt cancellation. While debt relief can be counted as ODA, it does not represent meaningful net benefit to Sudan and does not impose additional costs or effort on the UK. So it should have been written off years ago; its forgiveness comes at no real cost to the UK, so it is critical that debt relief for Sudan and other eligible countries be additional to the 0.5% ODA budget.
Finally, in the week before COP 26, it is important that the UK delivers on its wider international responsibilities by providing greater financial support to poorer countries already on the front line of climate breakdown. I urge the Minister to address these various aspects, whether climate change mitigation, debt relief for Sudan, excess vaccine donations or rechannelled special drawing rights. In this regard, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Collins on the Front Bench, who has led on this issue for the Opposition for several years. He has done a magnificent job in highlighting the plight of those who live in developing countries and pinpointing the need for the Government to do more and reinstate that budget to 0.7% of GNI.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for initiating this short debate. Cuts to overseas aid continue to be of great concern to the Churches, which set the target of 0.7% at a meeting of the World Council of Churches in 1958. The target was then taken up by the United Nations in 1970.
The Government have now walked away from their own manifesto commitment to the 0.7% target and there are considerable concerns, as we have heard, that it may never be regained, despite the Chancellor’s announcement in today’s Budget. Meanwhile, as we have also heard, there are increasing needs for aid, not least because of Covid and climate change. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said in response to recent cuts:
“Reducing our overseas aid commitment at this critical time is morally wrong, politically foolish and an act of national self-harm.”
In my own diocese, there is considerable concern about the implication of cuts for our partner dioceses in Uganda, where Covid and climate change are threatening lives, livelihoods and lands. In recent months, the diocese raised £40,000, much of which came from the poorest communities in the diocese, knowing that, because of Covid, our friends were without food and aid-funded projects were at risk. It was a tiny commitment compared to lost aid funding, but it was received as a sign of hope.
I want to focus my remarks today, in the run-up to COP 26, on a recent initiative by the IMF to enable member countries to have finance available in a crisis. As the noble Baroness said, special drawing rights enable nations to boost global efforts in vaccinating their populations, tackling climate change and supporting global recovery by creating additional reserve assets. The vast majority of the rights issued, worth about $400 billion, has gone to richer countries. Poorer countries have gained just $21 billion.
The UK and other G7 countries have said they are exploring how they could use their SDRs to further support health needs, including vaccinations, and to enable greener and more robust recoveries in the most affected countries. However, at present, no G7 country has begun to redistribute its SDRs. It is likely that the US, France and the UK will lend some of their SDRs to the IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust to support low or zero-interest loans and/or to the future IMF resilience and sustainability trust.
Some 250 civil society organisations from around the world have called for such SDRs to follow the principles of zero or close to zero interest rates, to avoid additional indebtedness; limited economic conditionality—for example, limiting austerity measures; and transparency. The need is great, particularly for COVAX, as we have heard, with its £12 billion estimated shortfall in funding for vaccinations, and for the Green Climate Fund, crucial to COP 26 implementation.
I have concerns about both the apparent lack of progress in the use of SDRs to boost vaccines and climate finance and it appearing that the Government are seeking to count any use of SDRs to reduce even further the aid budget—already shamefully reduced. As a professed global leader in overseas aid, the UK Government have this opportunity to use the £20 billion in special drawing rights that they have just received from the IMF, which really are windfall funds, to offer additional aid for the world’s poorest communities and regain at least some of the moral ground they have lost.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for bringing this important debate to the House. This is the first time I have risen to speak since I made my maiden-cum-valedictory speech back in 1999, just days ahead of the Lords reforms that saw all but 90 hereditary Peers excluded.
I am told that this interlude may be some sort of record, so I must thank noble Lords across the House who voted for me in the whole House by-election in June, thereby limiting my enforced silence to just 22 years. So, while this is not my maiden speech, I would like to briefly thank all noble Lords, and indeed all the staff in this House, for welcoming me back so warmly.
My perspective on overseas aid has been shaped by founding and running for 30 years an information company that reported on the economies of the developing world, where the vast majority of our aid is destined. I strongly urge the Government to restore the 0.7% of GNI contribution at the earliest opportunity and to abandon the onerous fiscal conditions, notably that underlying government debt as a percentage of GDP is falling. This may result in overseas aid being cut by more than 30% in real terms for the next four or even five years. I note that the OBR forecasts that net debt may not fall in the UK until fiscal 2026 and some regard even that as optimistic.
We are contemplating a potential £20 billion total reduction in overseas aid over five years at a time when need is greatest, as the poorest nations struggle to face off the pandemic without the defences—notably vaccines—that we all benefit from here. This strikes me as grossly disproportionate when set against the Bank of England’s view that the long-term scarring of the UK economy may be no more than 1% of GDP. This leads me to ask the Minister: what level of real-world impact assessment has been undertaken to measure the consequences of these cuts? Beyond the financial numbers and percentages, I refer specifically to the number of livelihoods that will be impacted if the UK cuts aid by £4 billion to £5 billion each year. I appreciate the challenge in producing such estimates, but these numbers matter.
According to the recent Bond report, Britain’s aid efforts reach well over 100 million people across the world, through humanitarian aid, immunisation, nutrition, education, clean water and basic sanitation. It follows, therefore, that for every year we apply such cuts, we may damage the livelihoods of tens of millions of men, women and children. As the noble Baroness said, we should also consider the damage to the UK’s reputation, our “generous donor” status and, indeed, the Government’s much vaunted, post-Brexit ambition to become “global Britain”. I conclude by calling on the Government to swiftly restore the 0.7% mechanism and, above all, scrap the contentious fiscal conditions that threaten to so drastically depress our contribution for years to come.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on securing this important debate. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and congratulate him on his return to the House. As usual, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests.
The issues around the decrease in overseas development aid from 0.7% to 0.5% have already been eloquently raised. While there was always going to be a natural decrease in ODA, as the economy shrinks due to the pandemic, the decision to cut to 0.5% at a time of global emergency is a double blow to the poorest in the world. At this time of worldwide humanitarian stress from the pandemic, development aid needs to reach the grass roots, which is usually much more effectively delivered by smaller organisations, rather than through large multilateral programmes. So can my noble friend please tell us what assessments Her Majesty’s Government have made in this regard and reassure me that the cuts have been made to the larger programmes, where others contribute, rather than to the small independent organisations?
Time and time again, it has been demonstrated that if we get it right for women and girls, we get it right for all. Tragically, women are disproportionately affected by this pandemic. Plan International and other NGOs have highlighted that analysis estimates that women and girls will suffer disproportionately from reductions in funding to critical sectors, resulting in a cut to programming for an estimated 20 million women and girls.
I have long welcomed the Prime Minister’s personal support for girls’ education. Education programmes are vital because investing in girls has profound effects on their future well-being, delaying marriage, improving health and increasing women’s participation in society. However, it is hard to square how this commitment is being met when the overall budget for girls’ education is estimated to have been cut by at least 40%, with 700,000 fewer girls being supported between 2019 and 2022 compared to 2015 to 2018. It should be recognised that education cannot succeed without development input on women’s health, contraception, security, access to justice and women’s empowerment. Does the Minister agree that gender must remain central to our international development policy?
War zones create poverty. The UK has led the world with its work around women, peace and security and the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative. They were always going to be a marathon, not a sprint, and I hope that the Minister can reassure me that these areas will remain front and centre of security and conflict work and that resources for them will not be cut.
The situation in Afghanistan is catastrophic. The humanitarian crisis there is now spiralling out of control. While I welcome the announcement of extra funding, how will we get that to people starving on the ground and not into the pockets of the Taliban? If we give it to be delivered through the UN, can the Minister reassure me that it will not take a huge percentage for doing so? I very much hope that the UK, holding the pen for women, peace and security at the UN Security Council, will ensure that the Taliban will never get a seat at the UN without changing its stance on women because there can be no peace and security there with half the population denied their rights. Please can we ensure that in future there is always at least one woman present at any UK talks with the Taliban?
To conclude, this is the worst time to cut the percentage of aid, when the aid budget has already shrunk and when developing and conflict countries are feeling the strain of the pandemic. The pandemic has also rolled back women’s and girls’ rights. Surely, by supporting gender-focused programmes, instead of cutting them, we will enable women to help to contribute to their economies. So I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will restore overseas development aid budgets to 0.7% as soon as possible.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for introducing this important topic. The drop in the money available for ODA, together with the IMF special drawing rights windfall, raises questions again about a strategic approach to development programmes, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol has already pointed out. This is a useful moment to ask ourselves what are the most likely trends that will cause severe hardship to local communities and ourselves in the near future?
There are at least two major trends: first, the impact of climate change and its relation to food availability and, second, the massive outpouring of people from drought or flood-stricken regions to more temperate developed nations, including the UK. The emigration is already apparent, but it is likely to become unmanageable within the next few years. Surely this calls for a combined effort to use the moneys available to shore up programmes to deal with these two related crises. The temptation—already a rumour, as has been pointed out—is to use some of the 20 billion of these SDRs as additional ODA, thereby silencing, or hopefully silencing, critics of the reduction to 0.5% of GNI and juggling the continuation of many existing programmes.
However, there is much more at stake. The world is facing almost unimaginable catastrophes. I cite just one, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson. How is the international community going to feed most of Afghanistan this winter, which begins next month—less than a week away? How is Europe going to cope humanely with the potential onslaught of environmental refugees? Are our current ODA theories and practice fit for purpose, or do we need radically to rethink what kind of assistance, for what, to whom and how will help to alleviate the disasters that we inevitably face?
If we accept that climate change and population movements are the key life-threatening events that we face, what kind of plans do we have to work with other donor nations in the leverage of significant sums of money for synergistic effect in order to make a real difference: massive, well thought-through and coherent programmes of strategic impact to limit the effects of climate change and limit the movement of people? Instead, we are still tinkering with funding fossil-fuel developments, such as the Mozambique liquid natural gas project, funded by the UK Government to the tune of £1.15 billion. Incidentally, this will increase Mozambique’s emissions by some 10%. Why are we not withdrawing from expensive projects such as these in favour of renewable energy sources? We urgently need much smarter ODA.
The time-honoured traditions of development and humanitarian aid, carried out bilaterally, multilaterally and by thousands of NGOs and INGOs, have to be rethought in a spirit of international co-operation to save our planet and millions of lives. There is no longer a choice, and I challenge the Government to set a pathway and take courageous decisions on how best to use SDRs for the international good.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for initiating this debate. The fact of the matter is that over the past half-century the state of the world has become successively better. More people are living longer and in better circumstances today than they were 50 years ago. Remembering that is a good starting point because, sometimes, if you listen to people, you imagine that things are going in the opposite direction.
Mention has been made of impact assessment, which I would like to see because in my travels around the world looking at aid projects, I have often come across them and walked away wondering, “Are they doing any good at all, other than to the people in the Land Rovers who are driving people like me to see what they are doing?” We need an impact assessment on quite a lot of the work that is being done.
We also need to rethink the word “aid”. It has become a rather grubby word, because people associate it with charity. Our overseas efforts should be to promote a better world and a better standard of society in it.
It is no achievement if we just move people from living in abject poverty to living in poverty. We have to help build up the countries. I remember talking to David Cameron about this and he said, “The big argument for the aid budget is to make the world worth living in so that all of its citizens don’t want to come and live in the West. We need to make their countries and their societies worth living in.” I totally support that.
We therefore need to look at our aid budget and consider whether an approach not the same as but not dissimilar to the Chinese belt and road initiative would not be a sensible way forward; in other words, we want to use the money that we disburse abroad in such a way that we build up the infrastructure of countries. Too much money disappears. We need to be in a situation where, like the Chinese, we say, “We will provide this”, and we provide it; we do not hand over large dollops of money which often disappear—or some of them disappear. Many years ago, I was the rapporteur in the European Parliament on aid to Bangladesh, which had been a particular difficulty for us. I remember being in an interview with the Minister in Bangladesh who was responsible for the aid budget. When I put it to him that money disappeared, he said to me, “But commission is paid on everything, isn’t it?” I said, “Well, that’s not exactly the idea. You don’t just skim off the money.” He said, “Well, this is the way we do it here.”
I say to the Minister in closing that we need to look at the structure of the aid budget, we need to help with money and expertise, but now is also a very good time to rethink the strategy of what we are spending the money on and how we could spend it to the betterment of both its recipients and the British taxpayer.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I too commend the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for bringing this debate to us and introducing it so powerfully. She gave a perfect testament to the consensus that existed in Parliament during the passage of that Bill, a consensus which unfortunately has been dashed. This is not the only debate in which the only Member who speaks in favour of the unlawful ODA cut will be the Minister, so a degree of consensus remains, and we will still campaign for its restoration.
Bringing the target down to 0.5%, which has no basis in law, will see a further £15 billion of cuts before its potential or possible restoration in 2025. Can the Minister confirm whether what the Chancellor said today or whether the Written Ministerial Statement from the previous Minister is the basis on which 0.7% will be restored? That Statement said that the OBR forecast in the immediate previous year would be the trigger for restoration in the following year. The impression that we got from the Chancellor today is that he is using the long-term forecast. So which is it?
If it is the long-term forecast, are we able to start planning now for what could well be an extra £5 billion in one year towards the end of this Parliament? There is no reference, of course, to the weasel word in the Written Ministerial Statement—“sustainable”—because that means that there is a get-out clause for the Government when it comes to this.
The cuts of partnership and assistance from one of the richest countries in the world to the poorest is a scarring and shaming stain on this Government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, the disproportionate impact on women and girls is perhaps the most scarring. The figure of 20 million women and girls affected by this struck me. Nine million of those are girls who will not have access to clean water and sanitation. In 2018, the UNICEF and World Health Organization report said that 620 million children lacked adequate or any toilet facilities at all. I think any parent who sends their children to school will see the relevance of the impact of this when they imagine the UK cutting 9 million opportunities for children to have proper sanitation in their school life.
In the debate we had on 24 June, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, I and others called for a public impact assessment on this. The Deputy Leader, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said of the gender impact assessment:
“The Foreign Secretary is considering carefully whether to put the central overarching assessment into the public domain.”—[Official Report, 24/6/21; col. GC 156.]
That was a long time ago, so can the Minister clarify whether that assessment is being made public for us to see?
We have also debated the impact of Covid on the developing world. In that debate, a number of noble Lords asked the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay—about the Government’s intentions on the draw-down rights they have from COVAX. The UK Government have draw-down rights of 27 million doses which would then not be available for developing countries. I asked whether the Government intended to use this draw-down, which would be shameful in the current situation when so many developing countries are struggling to vaccinate their populations. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said to me in the debate in September that
“I will certainly take his questions and those from other noble Lords back to the Vaccine Taskforce and will ensure that all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate get the answer to that.”—[Official Report, 9/9/21; cols. 1049-50.]
We have not had the answer to that, so will the Minister provide the answer or, if not today, ensure that we do get a response? It is not just the case that we ask questions in these debates, which is their purpose; it is that we should get answers and, at the very least, receive the courtesy of ensuring that we get the relevant answers when those questions relate to the most deprived and poorest people in the world.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend for initiating this very timely debate, certainly as the Chancellor has spoken today. I also reflect on the consensus that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to, because there has been consensus across this Chamber on this issue. I would also like to praise David Cameron because he set the framework for our development support—the SDGs and the 2030 agenda—which this Prime Minister has completely ignored. We should reflect on that.
Days before COP 26 and when aid is needed most to recover from the pandemic, the announcements today reveal that the world’s poorest and most vulnerable face at least three years of vast and deadly cuts to life-saving aid. As the right reverend Prelate said, today is also confirmation that the Government are knowingly and willingly continuing to break a Conservative manifesto promise and continue to ignore the UK’s legal aid spending obligation of 0.7% of GNI. As noble Lords have pointed out, maintaining 0.7% would have resulted in substantial cuts, but to impose 0.5% without any plan, impact assessment or clear objectives is reckless.
As my noble friend Lady Ritchie highlighted, even funding for the strategic priorities was not immune: education was cut by 58%, humanitarian responses by 49% and the FCDO’s climate funding by 35%.
In March, Rishi Sunak praised the new IMF special drawing rights allocation for giving additional financing to low-income countries to help their pandemic response and recovery. Many rich countries, including the UK, have been working out how to rechannel their SDR allocations to low to middle-income countries, where they can do the most good. As my noble friend Lady Ritchie said, this can be done at no cost to the donor, who simply lends their reserves. However, the Treasury has confirmed that it will score some of this to the ODA budget. We are the only major donor to do so. Such a move will not leave low-income countries better off, as it will be matched by cuts to other parts of the aid budget. The only impact of UK commitments to recycle SDRs will be to reduce spending on other priority areas, such as health, education, water and nutrition—areas that have already been heavily cut as a result of the shift from 0.7% to 0.5%. I ask the Minister what assessment has been made of the impact of such further cuts.
On climate change, we heard today that the Government have committed £6.6 billion for the next three financial years. Given that this comes out of the ODA and makes up about a sixth of the budget for each year, what other priorities will suffer? Whatever priorities Liz Truss espouses, she will be held back if she must cut her department’s activity every time a Treasury accounting exercise reduces the real ODA budget. It is in this context that we have to see today’s announcement that the ODA fiscal tests are forecast to be met in 2024-25, which will see potentially a return to 0.7%.
Today, what we have heard from the Chancellor is that he gives with one hand and takes with the other.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank, first of all, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for introducing this important debate. We have heard many passionate and eloquently made arguments today on this subject, and I will do my best to address the many questions raised. However, we are united, I believe, on one fundamental point: the belief that the UK should dedicate 0.7% of our GNI to official development assistance. As the Prime Minister himself said in July:
“This is not an argument about principle. The only question is when we return to 0.7%.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/21; col 173.]
I start by welcoming back the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. As the House will know, he replaces the redoubtable noble Countess, Lady Mar, who has retired. How extraordinary it is that it has been 22 years since the noble Lord addressed this House last; even more so perhaps that, as he mentioned to me before this debate, he spent a mere 10 days here in this House before the exit of so many hereditary Peers in 1999—well before my time. I applaud his remarks in his—how shall I put it?—non-maiden speech, and we look forward to hearing from him a lot in the future, I am sure. I will address the question he has raised later in the debate.
Temporarily reducing the aid budget was not an easy path to take. But, as a Government, we do not have the luxury of avoiding difficult choices. In fact, the reverse is true; we face them head-on. Given the hugely difficult economic and fiscal situation, this was a decision that we were quite right to take. Coronavirus is an unprecedented crisis, and in turn it has required an unprecedented response. That is why decisions taken by this Government have provided around £400 billion of direct support to the economy this year and last year—considered one of the largest and most comprehensive packages globally. I am sure the House will acknowledge that.
Our strong recovery, combined with necessary tax rises, has strengthened our public finances. However, let me remind your Lordships that our national debt this year is set to pass £2.3 trillion or, to put it another way, 98.2% of gross domestic product—the highest level as a percentage of GDP since the early 1960s. Indeed, a sustained increase in interest rates and inflation of one percentage point would cost £22.8 billion by 2026-27.
High debt leaves us vulnerable to shocks and we need to rebuild a cushion, if you will, to safeguard the economy against future challenges. In just over a decade, the UK has faced two major economic shocks: the 2008 financial crisis and the 2020-21 pandemic. Developing fiscal buffers ensures that Governments will be able effectively to support the economy in future crises, and provides space to allow the Government to address long-term challenges.
It is fiscally responsible for us to bring debt under control and rebuild so-called fiscal space. We have already made the tough decisions needed to get debt under control through a small number of focused and progressive tax rises. As I mentioned earlier, this has meant some difficult but necessary decisions, including temporarily reducing ODA spending from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI.
Let me address a question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about our legal commitments—an area also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I reiterate that we are acting in line with the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, which explicitly envisages that there may be circumstances where the 0.7% target is not met. The decisions we are taking and our approach to the spending review and annual reviews, based on clear fiscal tests, are all in line with that Act.
Section 2 of the 2015 Act envisages circumstances in which the 0.7% target is not met due to
“economic circumstances and, in particular, any substantial change in gross national income”
and
“fiscal circumstances and, in particular, the likely impact of meeting the target on taxation, public spending and public borrowing”.
The Act provides for accountability to Parliament in the form of a Statement in the event that the Government do not meet the 0.7% target.
I turn to the specific circumstances for the return to 0.7%; I would like to be more positive. We have always been clear in our commitment to international development, and that the UK would return, as I said earlier, to spending 0.7% of GNI when the fiscal circumstances allowed. As your Lordships will recall, earlier this year we said that this would happen when the independent Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that, on a sustainable basis, we are not borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling. I remind noble Lords that the House of Commons voted in support of these fiscal tests for returning to 0.7%.
I hope to provide some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on the return to 0.7%. Given the Government’s careful stewardship of the public finances and the strength of the recovery, as the Chancellor outlined today, the ODA fiscal tests are now forecast to be met in 2024-25, which is earlier than the OBR forecast in March. As such, the 2021 spending review provisionally sets aside additional unallocated ODA funding for 2024-25, on top of departmental ODA settlements, to the value of the difference between 0.5% and 0.7% of GNI. This delivers on the Government’s commitment, made to Parliament, to return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when it can be on a sustainable basis.
Of course, the Government will continue to monitor future forecasts closely and, each year over this period, will review and confirm, in accordance with the 2015 Act, whether a return to spending 0.7% of GNI is possible against the latest fiscal forecast. Should future forecasts deteriorate, however, decisions on the provisional ODA funding for 2024-25 will be made through the annual review of the ODA budget.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. No matter how many times Ministers assert, from the Dispatch Box, that they are acting in accordance with the legislation that I took through this House, it does not mean it is the case. Can the Minister refer to the other element of the Act which says that if, in the preceding year, the target had not been met, the statement has to indicate what measures will be taken to meet the target in the following year? That is still the law. That the Chancellor is now putting unallocated funds four years down the line is an absolute breach of the legislation.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord interprets it as he does, but I have been clear that we are acting within the law. I will write to the noble Lord with chapter and verse on why we are stating the position that we are.
As time is short, I will move on to the implications of the temporary reduction, because this was raised in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I stress that we remain an open nation that is globally engaged. As the Chancellor outlined earlier today, departments have been provided with an ODA budget that rises to £12.3 billion in 2024-25, which is a 23% increase compared to the £10 billion allocated at the spending review last year.
I will address the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Collins, and my noble friend Lord Balfe about impact assessments. Officials considered any impacts on women and girls, the most marginalised and vulnerable, people with disabilities and people from other protected groups when developing advice to Ministers. We carried out an equalities impact assessment, which looked at our bilateral country spending. This central assessment showed no evidence that programmes targeting those with protected characteristics are more likely to be reduced or discontinued. I reassure the House that, as we move through this spending cycle, we will review the impact of projects and our spend to inform future spending decisions and policymakers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about the world’s poorest, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol indicated that we might be turning our backs on the poorest. We have a difficult balance to make, but I do not believe that that is what we are doing, because, by spending 0.5% of GNI, we will be spending over £10 billion this year, making us one of the largest ODA donors in the world and the second highest in the G7. We are committed to leading the global fight against poverty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the right reverend Prelate also talked about vaccines, on which I have some brief comments. The spending review provides continued support for Covid and global health, in line with the UK’s ground-breaking role, providing equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics. It funds the donation of the remaining 70 million doses of Covid-19 vaccines to meet the Prime Minister’s commitment to donate 100 million doses by June 2022. These vaccines are being rolled out to countries beyond our borders on a non-profit basis.
I will answer the brief point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about Sudan. The departmental ODA budget is already increasing significantly, from the £10 billion that was allocated to over £12 billion in 2024-25, but I acknowledge the point that she made about Sudan.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, we are increasing funding for women and girls to help achieve the global target to get 40 million girls into school and have 20 million more girls reading by the age of 10. I will write to the noble Baroness, as there is more that I can say about this.
Time is running out and I know that I have a long letter to write, because I have not managed to address a number of questions. In winding up, I thank noble Lords for their important contributions to what is, I acknowledge, and as the noble Baroness said at the beginning of the debate, an important subject. I reiterate that the Government remain committed to international development and the return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA, but when the fiscal situation allows us to.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Wednesday 27th October 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40-III(b) Amendments for Committee (supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (27 Oct 2021)
Lord Rosser
“(c) the user who has given agreement under paragraph (b) was offered free independent legal advice on issues relating to their human rights before that agreement was given.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require free independent legal advice to be offered to a person before they agree to extraction of data from a device.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I am associated with six amendments in this group: Amendments 79, 89, 92, 102, 106A and 107. Chapter 3 of the Bill deals with the extraction of information from electronic devices, which has increasingly become a routine part of criminal investigations.
In this group we are dealing with when victims are asked to hand over their phones as evidence and, more specifically, the issue of what have become known as “digital strip searches”. Rape victims, in particular, are normally asked to hand over digital devices and are subjected to having their privacy indiscriminately trawled through after they report a crime. Before I go any further, I pay tribute to the Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, for her leadership on this issue.
These matters were pursued in the Commons, and I shall just quote an extract from what my colleague, Sarah Jones MP, said during the Committee stage debates:
“Analysis of a rape crisis administrative dataset conducted by the office of the Victims’ Commissioner showed that one in five victims withdrew complaints at least in part because of disclosure and privacy concerns. Victims in 21% of cases had concerns about digital downloads, about disclosing GP, hospital, school and employment records, and about a combination of negative press coverage. Home Office data also shows an increase in pre-charge withdrawal of rape complaints. In the year ending December 2020, 42.8% of rape offences were closed as part of what is called the “evidential difficulties” category—where the victim did not support further police action against a suspect—compared with 25.6% in 2015. As we know, the charge rate for sexual offences is just 3.6%, and for rape it is 1.6%.”—[Official Report, Commons, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 27/5/21; col. 277.]
This issue of disclosure and privacy is a factor, too, in victims deciding whether even to report a rape or a crime in the first place. As I mentioned, these issues we are now debating were raised at every stage in the Commons by the Opposition, but we welcome the fact that the Government have listened to us and to the Victims’ Commissioner and have brought forward changes as reflected in government amendments to the Bill. I thank the Minister and the Bill team for their engagement on this part of the Bill.
The government amendments, to which the Minister will obviously refer, make much needed and welcome improvements to the Bill. There is more, though, that needs to be achieved, which various speakers in the debate this evening will no doubt cover, but we welcome the progress so far.
Government Amendment 81 deals with the key issue raised by the Victims’ Commissioner and our amendments: the power to extract information should not be used indiscriminately or to trawl through a victim’s life but should be used only where information is relevant to
“a reasonable line of enquiry”.
I particularly welcome that government Amendment 93 puts into the Bill that a victim can refuse to hand over a personal device and that they must be told that the investigation will not be ended just because they refused to consent to a download. Complainants being told that their cases will not continue unless they hand over the contents of their phone is exactly what independent sexual victims’ advisers and complainants have said has happened or happens on a daily basis. It is vital that the change not only legally limits what can be asked for but drives a culture change in how victims are treated. One hopes that this change to the Bill will provide a clear path forward.
However, I have a number of questions. The Government’s new clause says that a victim must not have “undue pressure” put on them to agree to data extraction. Surely being under any pressure in the context that we are talking about is undue. Do the Government not agree with that?
The new clause dictates that victims be provided with details in writing of what information is being sought and why and how it will be dealt with, explicitly stating that a victim can refuse to hand anything over, but what will be done to ensure that victims understand clearly and with confidence what is being asked for? A victim will often be in an extremely vulnerable state while they try to navigate and follow the system and what they are being asked for. Will the Victims’ Commissioner be involved in designing that written document, and will we have advance sight of it?
My Amendment 79, which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—for which I thank her—would answer the question of protecting victims as they go through this process. It would provide that a victim should be offered free, independent legal advice before they are asked to give consent to their device being accessed. There is precedent for this: the Home Office funded a pilot of independent legal advice dealing with digital download for rape complainants in Northumbria. The sexual violence complainants’ advocate scheme pilot engaged local solicitors to provide legal advice and support to rape complainants related to the complainant’s Article 8 rights to privacy. The pilot demonstrated what was happening in practice and found that about 50% of requests were not strictly necessary or proportionate. Some police officers who participated in the scheme expressed concern about this culture. The Home Office’s own pilot clearly demonstrated the need for and benefit of independent legal advice for victims in this area. I look forward to the Minister’s response on behalf of the Government.
There is a particular omission from the government amendments which we want to raise. Amendments in my name would require that the request for data be “strictly necessary and proportionate” to its purpose as part of a reasonable line of inquiry into a crime. Such a test, but which I think is worded as “reasonably necessary and proportionate”, is already a requirement of the data protection legislation for any such request for private material of this kind, but police practice has not always followed the Data Protection Act in this regard. We therefore seek this specific safeguard against too wide a search and too easy a rejection of other means of obtaining the information by including the “strict necessity” test in these clauses. I believe, although I will stand corrected if I am wrong, that the Victims’ Commissioner is of a similar view. I hope that the Minister will address this issue in the Government’s response.
I welcome Amendment 99, again tabled in response to issues that we have raised, which adds the Victims’ Commissioner, the domestic abuse commissioner and the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland to the list of people who must be consulted in preparing the code of practice. I also welcome the absolutely necessary amendments to the definition of adult to no longer include 16 and 17 year-olds.
Amendment 106A, a key amendment, would require the Government to extend the safeguards that we fought for in this section to third-party material. I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for their support through adding their names to this amendment. Here we are talking about private material about a complainant that is held by a third party: medical records, school reports, social service records, or records of counselling or therapy that a person may have had, including pre-trial therapy.
It currently seems to be routine for excessive personal information to be requested from third parties. The results have a chilling effect on a victim’s confidence and are an immense invasion of privacy in contravention of the victim’s Article 8 rights to privacy. In one example case, a letter to school in which a rape complainant had, as a child, forged her mother’s signature to get out of a lesson she did not like was disclosed to the defence and used in cross-examination.
The Victims’ Commissioner reports on cases where a victim assaulted in their 30s is asked to consent to their child social services records being trawled. In cases of stranger rape, in which there has been no prior contact at all between the complainant and the accused, similar demands are made for a lifetime’s worth of information on the victim to be handed over. Independent sexual violence advisers report that these searches are demanded as standard and, of course, victims are regularly told that their cases will be dropped if they do not consent. The Victims’ Commissioner has said:
“It is my assertion that the only way to bring about a much-needed change in practice is to ensure that the framework in place to protect victims’ Article 8 rights is embedded in the legislation itself”.
Crucially, these protections, as I understand it, have the support of the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for disclosure.
The police have offered their support, both on the grounds of reducing unnecessary infringements into a victim’s right to privacy and to reduce delays to investigations caused by the excessive and time-intensive pursuit of victims’ material that is not required by a reasonable line of inquiry. This, it is felt by the police, would reduce the likelihood of victim disengagement, which is one of the main challenges to overcome in order to improve performance in rape investigations. This is also an issue for organisations such as schools, NHS trusts and others that are approached for information and perhaps do not have the expertise on what is required of them. This issue has been raised with police and crime commissioners and investigated by the Information Commissioner.
A 2018 serious case review concerning sexual exploitation of children and adults with needs for care recommended a review of those practices. Referring to the spectacle he witnessed of vulnerable victims being cross-examined about their social services, school and medical records, senior barrister David Spicer stated:
“There is a strong argument that this is inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by the European Convention on Human Rights and does not lead to fair administration of justice.”
The Victims’ Commissioner has also raised the recent issue that CPS guidance has been updated, apparently this month, to lower the threshold for disclosure of information. The update removes an existing narrow test for seeking to obtain third-party material based on previous case law, and instead lowers protections. This is a concerning development when, at the same time, the Government are agreeing to increased protections in other parts of the Bill.
The amendment on third-party material would require victims to be provided with details on what information is being sought and why, how it will be used, and for that information to pass a strict necessity test whereby requests would be permissible only as part of a reasonable line of inquiry. This amendment provides that victims must not be pressured or coerced into giving consent, and that other, less intrusive, options must be used where possible. Crucially, it provides that victims must be given access to free independent legal advice on their rights.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 106A, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just introduced thoroughly and persuasively. Although I have sat as a part-time judge in crime for many years now, I freely admit that I do not have the depth of background in this field of other noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who I see in his place. Nevertheless, I am inclined to support this amendment for three reasons, on which I hope the Minister might comment.
First, as I understand it, the amendment simply seeks to extend to third-party material the safeguards that have already been agreed by the Government in relation to data in the possession of the victim. Do the Government share that understanding? If they do not accept that the same protections are appropriate in those two situations, could the Minister explain why?
Secondly, the Victims’ Commissioner asserts in her detailed briefing that it has become “routine” for rape complainants to be asked to hand over excessive personal information, including third-party material. She cites, among other things, a CPS internal report reported in the Guardian in March 2020 to the effect that 65% of rape cases referred by police to the CPS for early investigation advice involved disproportionate and unnecessary requests for information. She quotes officers from Northumbria Police as saying that third-party material is a “real bone of contention” and:
“The CPS routinely ask us to obtain peoples 3rd party, medical, counselling and phone records regardless of whether a legitimate line of enquiry exists or not.”
Is that a picture the Government consider to be accurate?
Thirdly, it is said that this amendment has the full support of the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for disclosure and of the Information Commissioner. That prompts me to wonder about the position of the Crown Prosecution Service, which seems equally relevant. Does the CPS take a different view from the policing lead and the Information Commissioner and, if so, how does it defend that view? I am sure that other noble Lords, like me, appreciate the difficulty of the task of the CPS and would give it a fair hearing. In summary, the Government seem to have a case to answer on Amendment 106A and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what that answer might be.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on my own behalf and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is unable to be with us this evening. My noble friend attached her name to Amendments 79, 89 and 107. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has given us a very clear and complete explanation, so I just want to reflect on the average age of noble Lords, as we sometimes do. We really have to work quite hard to understand the way in which people’s lives are entirely contained in their phones, particularly younger people, and what an invasion it is to have that taken away.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred in particular to Amendment 107 and the situation of immigration officers. I have heard a number of accounts of what has been happening to people arriving, particularly from Calais and surrounding areas, on boats in the most difficult and fearful situations. For people who wish to contact family and friends to say they are safe or wish to make some kind of plan for the future, to lose their phone in those situations or have it taken away is very difficult.
We have not had an introduction to Amendment 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, to which I have attached my name. We have had expressions of concern from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and we really would like to hear from the Minister the justification for that. By oversight, I failed to attach my name to Amendment 104. As a former newspaper editor, I think we really need to get a very clear explanation of how confidential journalistic material could be covered under these circumstances. We have grave concerns about freedom and the rule of law in our society, and this is a particularly disturbing clause.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, this is an important part of the Bill and an important and large group of amendments. I want simply to concentrate on the two amendments to which the noble Baroness has just referred: Amendments 103 and 104, which are in my name.
Amendment 103 follows concern from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its recommendation to deal with what it describes as an inappropriate delegation of power. The Bill leaves to regulation all provision about the exercise of the powers in Clauses 36(1) and 39(1) to extract confidential information. Regulations are to implement a code of practice, which will itself be consulted on. The committee believes these powers should instead be in the Bill, and I agree. However, I part company with the committee in its view that these powers, once put in the Bill, should be amendable by affirmative instrument. That is the creation of a Henry VIII power to modify primary legislation by means of secondary legislation, so I do not think it is the best way to handle the matter. Of course, one of the problems is that, whereas the process of creating the original material, if it is in the Bill, is an amendable process, that does not apply to any subsequent regulations which would definitely alter the material on the face of the Bill.
The Government’s argument for their approach—leaving it all to regulations—is that this is an area of fairly rapid technological change. It might become possible, for example, to extract a relevant subset of information rather than having to extract everything. However, that could be covered in the drafting of the Bill. A major change in the future would justify parliamentary legislation. If the technology really does change the situation dramatically, both Houses could deal with the matter by primary legislation.
I am sure there is a potential compromise under which the Bill could state more extensively and clearly the general principles governing the extraction of confidential information. It already does so to some extent, but if it did so further, it would narrow the range covered by regulations, if they are necessary at all.
It would also be helpful if the Minister could explain why the process to revise the code of practice from time to time would be subject to the negative procedure only. If the regulations which embody the code of practice are going to be changed significantly, why should that be only by the limitations of negative procedure?
Amendment 104 is quite different. It probes the provision in Clause 41(2)(a) covering confidential journalistic material with the meaning given in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The regulations are intended to cover the extraction and use of such material. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out the Government’s position and intention on confidential journalistic material and to what extent it is to be treated differently from protected material, such as legal privilege. We need that to be spelled out more clearly. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the broad thrust of all these amendments and in particular to support the most important one of all, which is Amendment 80 from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to which I have added my name.
To begin by way of balance—both political and gender balance—I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who could not be here this evening but who has been incredibly supportive of women’s groups and has been alive to this issue for some considerable time. She was sorry not to be able to be here.
A few years ago, when I was sitting where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, sits now, I had the privilege of questioning a former Justice Minister about the legal basis for the practice that women’s groups and victims of sex crime had called digital strip searching. Many in your Lordships’ House groaned as if I was using an inappropriate phrase. To be honest, I did not get a lot of support from many noble Lords on any side of the House, but it is better to be late to the party than not come at all.
I say that to the Minister because there is no competition for sainthood here. All sides of this House are a little late to this issue, but we now have this precious opportunity to grapple with it. I do not think any of these formulations are perfect yet. I am so grateful to the Minister for discussing this with me recently, among other issues, as even the progress that the Government have made so far in these amendments can be improved.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in his very simple Amendment 80, has done something incredibly important. I questioned the previous Justice Minister about the legal basis for taking these phones at all. Imagine that you have been raped or assaulted and have been through this horrific experience, but you do what a lot of people find very difficult to do—we know about the attrition rates—and go with a friend to the police station, to be told that you now have to hand over your device. The Minister will forgive me, but we discussed this together recently. If I were to hand my phone over, I am not just handing over an old-fashioned telephone; I have so many dear friends and family members whose numbers I do not know, because I click their names to call them. I have just been raped, but I am now giving away my contact with these people, my diary, my shopping lists and my browser, which shows all the mental health and other websites I have visited. Let us be clear: this is probably more intrusive than searching my home. The Minister will forgive me, but we discussed this together.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, some common themes are emerging. I rise in support of Amendment 107, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and to which I have added my name, alongside that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
The inclusion in this Bill of immigration officers among those authorised to undertake digital extractions strikes me as extremely troubling, particularly in the absence of significantly more detail on the safeguards, including the meaning of “agreement” and the specificity of the data sought, and the relevant training and expertise of these officers. Voluntary provision and agreement to extract data must surely rely on a level of informed consent. If it is not, then “voluntary” and “agreement” are just empty words.
For vulnerable asylum seekers and other migrants who come to the attention of immigration officers, it is not remotely clear how such informed consent is to be assured under what is currently proposed. Asylum seekers have, by their nature, often experienced negative reactions with agents of the state. In 2020, the top five most common countries from which people were seeking asylum in the UK were Iran, Iraq, Albania, Eritrea and Sudan. These are, to state the obvious, not countries where citizens, never mind those who flee as asylum seekers, tend to develop trusting or positive relationships with state officials, particularly those in uniform. To this experience in their countries of origin we have to add the fear and unfamiliarity of their situation on arrival in the UK. The hostile environment and its successor policies have been immensely successful in at least one regard: many migrants have come greatly to fear our immigration officers and the powers that they possess.
In outlining what I have said so far, I am trying to explain the extraordinary power imbalance, to say nothing of the language barriers, in place between an immigration officer and asylum seeker. It is hard to imagine how, under such a scenario, informed consent for voluntary provision and agreement could legitimately be established. It is particularly hard to imagine when we see no safeguards provided for assuring what is meant by such agreement or on what specific data it is deemed legitimate to extract. It is crucial to get this right. The data-extraction provisions of the Bill look to place current and future practice on a statutory footing. This is important, because the present practice of immigration officers is extremely concerning.
When the Bill was in Committee in the other place, as we have heard, the Member for Rotherham raised an all too common example of an asylum hostel containing some 50 to 100 men, all of whom had had their mobile devices seized as they entered the country. This was done without clear explanation or debate, and certainly without informed agreement or consent. The men in question did not know what, if anything, had been taken from their phones or accessed. This is proving to be a common story expressed by those working in the refugee and asylum sectors. It has simply become part of the process that mobile devices will be confiscated, without clear explanation or consent.
As we have heard, data extraction is a particularly serious privacy interference. It ought to require a high bar of necessity to be reached to justify any such intrusion, and strict parameters on what data is being secured and for what purpose. By contrast, the Home Office has proven consistently reluctant to explain current processes, and I hope we might engage with it on how to take this forward.
As the lead Bishop on modern slavery and one of the Lords spiritual who works on migration issues, I am all too aware of the insidious evil presented by human trafficking and people smuggling. I therefore sympathise hugely with the Home Office, as it tries to counter organised crime in these areas. I do not doubt that there are cases in which data extraction could prove useful in that ongoing battle. However, I suggest in concluding that we can achieve the benefits of such activities without such widely drawn and unchecked powers for immigration officers. I hope the Government will engage in a full process of exploring how any relevant data can be obtained in a way that is consensual, limited, targeted and carried out by professionals with sensitivity training and expertise. In particular, I hope to hear more about how the extreme power imbalance produced by an immigration officer doing this extraction can be better addressed than the Bill does at present.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Wyld did earlier, I apologise for not being present at Second Reading. Like my noble friend, I had been diagnosed as a Covid sufferer only a few days beforehand and was unable to participate in the debate. Therefore, if I go slightly wider than one or two amendments, I hope the Committee recognises why.
In making my comments, first, I emphasise that what I say in no way minimises the impact that the failure to tackle rape and sexual assault is having on society, particularly women and young females. There is no doubt that there is a major problem. I think that all Members of this House, including me, are only too closely aware of cases of rape and sexual assault that have had a dramatic effect on the individuals concerned.
I take this opportunity to emphasise that this is not solely a women’s issue. This issue affects men in society as well, particularly gay men. I noticed that as I started that sentence the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was nodding; we are particularly conscious of the impact that sexual violence and rape have in the gay community as well as among females. To everybody, not just those in this House, I say this: the regularity with which I hear this issue being discussed as if it is a female-only issue causes me enormous concern and, I think, causes a lot of people hurt.
Reference has been made to rape cases and non-reporting and people being deterred from reporting. I know of one particular case, very close to me, in which somebody was subjected to an attempted rape. They chose not to report it, not because they would have had to disclose their mobile phone but because they took the view that the police’s response would be, “Well, you put yourself in that position in the first place”. We have all heard that phrase in relation to women, but in this case, it applied to a man. It had no less effect, but that man took that decision under those circumstances.
On comments in relation to the police, in these debates, we always tend to refer to their failures. There are failures—there is no question about that—but we should also pay credit to the thousands of police across the country who handle this difficult subject incredibly well. Many of them are family men; they know what is going on. It is an incredibly difficult set of circumstances for them as well as for the individual concerned.
More specifically on mobile communications, I made my maiden speech in the other place several decades ago on telecommunications. You can download everything off a phone, as long as it has not been specially hidden in some way or other, in a matter of minutes, certainly a matter of hours. You need to hold a phone for a long period of time only if you have serious criminals who know how to hide the contents of the entries on it. I implore people not to exaggerate the delays that one is talking about. We all use our phones as our livelihood, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, but downloading can be undertaken incredibly quickly.
In conclusion, I now want to take a different route in the conversation. In doing so, as I say, I do not underestimate the problems of society regarding sexual assault and rape victims. However, can the Minister clarify how this legislation or other legislation will deal with individuals who are falsely accused? There has been much discussion this evening about victims, but there are all too many such cases—not a substantial number, but there are many cases. For example, noble Lords can think of the number of people in this Palace who have been found not guilty when cases have gone to trial. What rights do those people who are falsely accused have in terms of seeking access to their accuser’s phone—or, rather, what rights do the police have in gaining access? It is all too easy for somebody to make a false accusation and then say they have lost their phone or delay handing it over. If you delay by 12 months, the records have disappeared in the vast majority of circumstances because the phone companies do not store them for more than that. There are a series of questions that need answering, and in the same way as we deal with genuine victims, we need to give consideration to those who are falsely accused and face many problems.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendments 80, 90A, 94, 96, and 97 in this group. I was hoping that this group might be an example of this House at its best, where reasonable and reasoned amendments have been tabled, the Government have seen and responded positively to them and the Bill could be improved as a result. We clearly do not all agree on everything yet, but what all sides of the House—including the Government —appear to agree on is that the Bill as drafted and passed by the other place in respect of Chapter 3 on the extraction of information from electronic devices is not fit for purpose.
I shall take my amendments first. The House of Lords Constitution Committee raised concerns about victims of crime not coming forward or withdrawing from the criminal justice process because they may have to hand over personal and sensitive data, particularly victims and survivors of violence against women and girls, including rape. Although the draft code of practice published by the Government includes guidance that suggests refusal to provide a device or to agree to the extraction of information from it should not automatically result in the closure of any inquiry or complaint—particularly in light of the dramatic reduction in charges and prosecutions for rape over the past five years—the committee recommended that safeguards that protect victims’ rights to privacy and guard against digital extraction as a condition for continuing an investigation or prosecution should appear in the Bill rather than in a non-binding code of practice. Amendment 80 addresses the issue raised by the Constitution Committee. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in her powerful and compelling contribution.
This issue is partially addressed by government Amendment 93, which states that a person must not have been placed under undue pressure to provide the device or agree to the extraction of information from it and that a written notice must be provided which states that the person may refuse and that the investigation or inquiry will not be brought to an end merely because of that refusal. As well as being given the information in writing, the person should be told this orally and be reassured by the investigating officer. The government amendment does not go far enough.
I would go further and say that what people store on their electronic devices and share with each other has changed dramatically over the years. In particular, those from older generations may not be aware of the degree of openness with which explicit images, for example, are routinely shared using electronic devices, potentially leading prosecutors and jurors to draw unjustified conclusions about the behaviour of victims of rape or sexual assault in particular, whether they be male or female. Thankfully, most right-minded people no longer think a woman wearing a short skirt is “asking for it”, but there may be a way to go before the sharing of intimate photographs, for example, is dismissed in a similar way. That is why it is essential that victims are reassured in the way these amendments are intended to provide.
Amendment 90A makes a slightly different point and covers a similar area to that provided by Amendment 92 from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in relation to the extraction of information from devices used by children and adults without capacity. In relation to both groups of users, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, suggests that a “registered social worker” give authority for the extraction of information, in the absence of a parent or guardian, whereas, in Clause 37(3)(b), the Government suggest that
“any responsible person who is aged 18 or over other than a relevant authorised person”
can give authority. Although police constables and members of staff appointed as authorised persons by chief constables would be excluded, police members of staff not authorised would not be excluded.
From my own professional experience, I know that it is often difficult to get hold of parents or guardians or to get them to co-operate, for example by attending a police station when their child is in custody. Equally, it is difficult to get hold of a social worker, particularly outside office hours, where there may be only one or a few social workers on call, dealing with the whole range of social work responsibilities—hence the “appropriate adults” scheme was established to look after the interests of children and vulnerable adults in custody. Appropriate adults are volunteers, recruited through local schemes, who are selected for their ability to act with independence from the police. Schemes take into account volunteers’ attitudes and motivations and any other roles that they may hold. They undergo training in the appropriate adults role and undergo a criminal record—DBS—check, although a criminal record will not necessarily act as an automatic bar.
Amendment 90A seeks to find a compromise between allowing any responsible person aged 18 or over, including potentially those employed by the police, to give authority for the handing over and extraction of data from a child’s or vulnerable adult’s electronic device and the registered social worker who is not always readily available, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in his Amendment 89.
I apologise—this is a long group. Amendment 96 seeks to increase the authority level for the extraction of information to a senior officer—at a rank where someone of that rank is normally on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and readily available—who is independent of the investigation and can objectively assess whether the conditions that allow for the extraction of information have been met. There are precedents across policing: for example, custody officers or those authorising the deployment of covert surveillance, where someone independent of the investigation makes these kinds of decisions.
Amendment 97 is again intended to provide parliamentary scrutiny of guidance, as is Amendment 102, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to which I have added my name. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Beith’s Amendment 103 that the restrictions on the exercise of power to extract information in relation to confidential information must be in the Bill and not simply contained in regulations. I understand the reasons for wanting to exclude immigration officers from the list of authorised persons who can extract information from electronic devices, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in his Amendment 107.
On immigration officers, we share the belief that there should be a firewall between criminal investigations and immigration enforcement, to the extent that details about the immigration status of victims should not be passed to the immigration authorities but should be dealt with elsewhere. I can envisage circumstances where immigration officers may need to download information from electronic devices—for example, to tackle people smuggling—although I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, which was that that should perhaps be a matter for the police rather than immigration officers.
I also accept the very important point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol about the particular vulnerability of asylum seekers and their lack of knowledge of what the law allows and does not allow immigration officers to do, and how we need many more safeguards for asylum seekers in this provision. We also wholeheartedly agree with Amendment 106A regarding requests for third-party material. If I had not been overwhelmed by the volume of amendments added to the Bill every day, I would have added my name to that amendment.
We all in different ways have attempted to provide a more robust but workable regime around the extraction of information from mobile devices. The best way forward would be for all noble Lords, including the Minister, to withdraw their amendments, for the Minister and officials to meet with us before Report, and for officials to take the best from each of these amendments and those discussions, to produce a single set of amendments to which hopefully we can agree, rather than having to put down amendments on Report to the government amendments agreed in Committee. Taking the debate offline will save time on the Floor of the House on Report, when the agreed amendments could simply be nodded through. However, it appears that the Labour Opposition are content to allow the government amendments to be agreed at this stage, despite the clear differences between what they are proposing and the government amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made the important point, as we did on these Benches when this House debated the Domestic Abuse Bill, that these issues also affect men. The noble Lord also praised the police, who are in a very difficult position, which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, alluded to, where they find themselves under pressure from the Crown Prosecution Service to go further than maybe even police officers may be comfortable going in terms of accessing personal information from victims’ phones. I repeat the question asked by the noble Lord: who speaks for the Crown Prosecution Service in this debate?
I studied politics at university, I was a very senior police officer for years, I ran for Mayor of London twice and I have been a member of your Lordships’ House for over eight years, but I still do not understand politics. Suffice it to say that, without Labour support, there is no point in dividing the Committee if the Government move their amendments formally at this stage.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, in apologising to the House for the length of my comments. It might assist the Committee if I begin with a brief overview of the provisions in Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Bill. These provisions will establish, for the first time, a clear statutory basis for the extraction of information from digital devices with the agreement of the device user, and introduce safeguards to protect the privacy of victims, witnesses and others. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that it is a vast intrusion. People’s lives are on their digital devices and I understand the sensitivity of that.
The current approach to the extraction of information from digital devices has been criticised as inconsistent and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, says, as being tantamount to a digital strip search, where devices were taken as a matter of course and where, in many cases, all the sensitive personal data belonging to a device user was extracted and processed, even when it was not relevant to the offence under investigation. Clearly, that is unacceptable. This resulted in privacy and victims’ groups opposing this practice, particularly in cases where the device belongs to a victim or witness.
A consistent approach is clearly needed to ensure that requests for information are made with the victim’s right to privacy in mind and to ensure that all those agreeing to provide their sensitive personal data have all the information that they need to make that decision, including details on why their information is needed, how it will be used and their right to refuse to share that information without any negative consequences. This lack of consistency is of particular concern where the offences under investigation are those such as rape and serious sexual assault, where the victim is likely to be extremely distressed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, and where rates of reporting and conviction are far too low.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that answer, but I ask her to clarify her use of the words “where there is evidence”. In these circumstances, somebody who is accused will be making a counteraccusation, or a counterobservation, and therefore there may not be evidence. The evidence is likely to be on the phone in modern-day communications.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
To back that up, I point out that Oliver Mears, Samson Makele and Liam Allan were three young men who were nearly the victims of miscarriages of justice in those circumstances. If we say that a victim’s phone will be looked at, we are assuming that they are the victim, but it is an ambivalent point while somebody is innocent until proven guilty. We just have to be a little cautious about the language we use, because in one instance the police suppressed information—they had the phone details but did not put it forward—but in the others, it was on the phone that the proof was found. We just need balance. I do not want digital strip searches, but I do not want miscarriages of justice. People are squeamish about looking for evidence on people’s phones because they are presented as victims.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Perhaps I should have said “alleged victim”; that goes to my noble friend’s point. Each case is different, but usually the remedy is through the court process and it is established where the perversion of justice might be taking place. But I thank my noble friend for his point about the alleged victim.
Lord Beith (LD)
I hope I am right, but surely there is nothing in the provisions being carried through now that would in any way relieve the prosecution of the obligation to disclose to the defence any material that came from this process and was potentially of assistance to the defence.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right, but I think my noble friend is making a point about where the tables are turned and the alleged victim is not the victim at all.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
In the sort of scenario being described, the suspect—not yet a defendant—will be able to say, “This was consensual and there is a text message that will demonstrate that.” Once that is asserted, that can be sought. It is not a justification for the kind of wholesale retention of mobile phones and trawling of data that people fear. I know that the hour is late and that the Minister wants to make progress, but I just want to put two questions before I sit down and let her finish her response.
First, I noticed while the Minister was speaking that the formulation used in my noble friend Lord Rosser’s Amendment 89 is “strict necessity”, whereas in the government amendments the test is of necessity—
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
If the noble Baroness would bear with me, I am going to get on to that point about the read-across to other things. I hope that I have made it clear that I totally empathise with and get the point that my noble friend is making and that the remedy should be established through the court process.
Amendments 99 to 101 address a further point raised by the Victims’ Commissioner; namely, that she and other like commissioners have a statutory right to be consulted on the code of practice. This will give victims and witnesses further confidence that their concerns and priorities are represented in this code of practice.
Amendment 105 will ensure that the Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Justice are consulted before regulations are made to add, remove or amend an authority with devolved competence under Schedule 3.
Government Amendments 108 and 109 add to the list of authorised persons in Schedule 3. Amendment 108 will ensure that authorised persons in the Insolvency Service can exercise the Clause 36 power for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime in pursuit of their functions, which include tackling financial wrongdoing. This was initially a mystery to me, but the Insolvency Service is an executive agency of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, hence the language used in the amendment, but it is important to note that the reference to an officer of BEIS is qualified because any individual falling within that description may exercise the powers only for the prevention, detection or investigation of crime. Schedule 3 already enables the Independent Office for Police Conduct to exercise the Clause 36 powers. Amendment 109 adds the equivalent bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
As I have said, we believe that the government amendments address many of the points raised in amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, but I will now turn to some of the other amendments in this group. Amendment 79 seeks to provide free independent legal advice to device users before they agree to the extraction of information from their device. Government Amendment 93 will ensure that device users are fully informed of the reasons that the information has been sought and how the information will be used. We do not think that provisions in this chapter are the right place to address what is a broader issue about the provision of legal advice to victims and witnesses given the wider impacts across the criminal justice system as a whole.
As regards Amendment 89, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, highlighted the alternative drafting in respect of the test for the exercise of the Clause 36 powers. As the Bill is drafted, the authorised person must be satisfied that the exercise of the power is necessary and proportionate to achieve the relevant purpose. Under Amendment 89, this necessity test would become one of “strictly necessary”. The matter was also raised by the Victims’ Commissioner in briefings to noble Lords.
We understand that the reason for the concern is the strict necessity requirement in the Data Protection Act 2018. The powers in Clauses 36 and 39 must be read alongside existing obligations under the 2018 Act or the UK GDPR. In every case where authorised persons are extracting sensitive personal information from a device under these powers for a law enforcement purpose, such as preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime, they must continue to meet the strict necessity threshold in the Data Protection Act. It is therefore not necessary to duplicate that existing legal requirement in the Bill; it is there.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I apologise for intervening. The Minister has been very helpful with this comprehensive response, but she said that the Government were not going to respond to the Delegated Powers Committee’s report until “the next stage”. It would be wholly unsatisfactory if they did not respond to that detailed report, which was issued weeks ago, until just before Report, because we have submitted a range of amendments. The House trusts the Minister, so could she do a bit better than “the next stage” and respond before Committee is over?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I will do my damnedest. I will take back the noble and learned Lord’s comments and see what is in the art of the possible. I can do no more than promise that, if he is happy with that—or rather, if he will accept it.
I will move on swiftly to Amendment 107, which seeks to remove immigration officers from Schedule 3, so that they can no longer exercise the powers in this Bill. Immigration officers play a vital role in protecting vulnerable people, in particular those who may be victims of trafficking, and it is important that they are able to obtain information that may be vital to these and other investigations. I therefore do not accept that immigration officers should not have access to these powers, subject to the same safeguards that apply to other authorised persons.
Finally, Amendment 106A relates to third-party material, an issue highlighted not just by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Anderson, this evening, but by the Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird. The amendment highlights a very important issue around the proportionality of requests for third-party material relevant to a victim. This material can be highly sensitive—for example, medical records. We agree that such material should only ever be sought where there is a reasonable line of inquiry, but we are aware that this is not always the case. There are examples where such requests cannot be justified, and this has a detrimental impact on the confidence of victims.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also talked about written information given to victims. The police forces will use the digital processing notices developed by the NPCC for this purpose. The DPN, in layman’s terms, explains how the police extract the information, which information might be extracted, for how long it might be retained—that question was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and answered in part by my noble friend Lord Hayward—and what happens to irrelevant material found on the device. The DPN makes clear that investigators must respect individual rights to privacy and must not go beyond reasonable lines of inquiry.
The Government wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be a consistent approach to ensure that requests for third-party material are made with the victim’s right to privacy in mind and to ensure that the victim is fully informed. This principle is key to a number of actions in the Government’s end-to-end rape review, which we published in June.
Moving on to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on Amendment 106A, our understanding is that the NPCC agrees in principle to the need for legislation but has not taken a view on a particular legislative solution. As I have indicated, this issue requires further examination, so I thank the noble Lord. I understand that the CPS similarly accepts the need for appropriate controls on access to third-party material.
The police and the CPS are working on new guidance for the investigators and victims which can be finalised after the Information Commissioner’s Office publishes its report on data in rape cases, which is due imminently. We will also consider whether a change is required to the Attorney-General’s guidelines. This will give us an opportunity to consider the broader landscape with regards to proportionality in requests for evidence from victims and whether further steps should then be taken. In terms of DPNs and involvement of the Victims’ Commissioner: yes, she has been involved with the development of the digital processing notices.
I apologise again for the length of my remarks to the Committee. The Committee has raised important issues in respect of the privacy of victims and witnesses, and it is very important we get the framework in the Bill right. I hope noble Lords will agree that we have listened to the concerns that additional safeguards should be set out in the Bill and will be content to agree the government amendments in lieu of their own. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Beith, that we will consider further their Amendments 97 and 103, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that we are very alive to the issues around third-party material. For now, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to withdraw Amendment 79.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, very briefly: I really am grateful to the Minister. It is a very big group, and it is difficult to take in everything she said. But we have to be very careful. People will be reading the record of this debate. I think I heard the Minister say that the authorised person must explain that the investigation or inquiry will not be brought to an end if they refuse to hand over their device. That is not what it says on the face of the Bill. It says the person must be given a written notice.
These might have been many decades ago, but I know of situations where police officers shoved a piece of paper in front of somebody who was either a victim or a suspect—even somebody who could not read—and said something different from what was on the piece of paper. So I think we have to make it absolutely clear in the Bill, not just in the guidance or the codes of practice, that this must be explained, which was the meaning of one of my amendments.
The other thing I think I heard the Minister say—it is late—is that the authorised person must explain to the victim that refusal would have no negative consequences. That cannot possibly be right. For example, in a rape case where consent is an issue—where, perhaps, the defence argued that there were exchanges of messages or some such things that go to the heart of whether consent is an issue—and the victim refuses to hand over their device, there could be negative consequences when it comes to trial. Again, I understand that the Minister wants to be helpful and reassuring to victims, but we have to be absolutely clear what we are promising here, if it is being said on the record in this Committee.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The hour is late. Because these things are so important, I will reiterate them in a letter to the noble Lord.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
First, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I also thank the Minister for her detailed response. I do not think she need apologise in any way for the length of it, since I am sure noble Lords would rather have a full response to the points that have been made than a shortened response. Like other noble Lords, I will read carefully in Hansard everything she had to say in reply to my amendments, as I am sure other noble Lords will in relation to their amendments. This part of the Bill has certainly been improved by the government amendments, which we welcome. But, equally, it can and should be further strengthened and improved.
There are a number of outstanding issues of concern, which I and other noble Lords have raised this evening and which I know Minister is aware of. I hope that she will agree to further discussions between now and Report on those issues of concern that have been raised in this debate. I know that the Minister is usually very open to holding such discussions—I see she is nodding—and will agree to that, as I say, between now and Report.
“(za) in a case where the authorised person proposes to exercise the power for a purpose within subsection (2)(a), the authorised person reasonably believes that information stored on the electronic device is relevant to a reasonable line of enquiry which is being, or is to be, pursued by an authorised person,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect that, to exercise the power in Clause 36(1) for the purposes of preventing etc crime, an authorised person must reasonably believe that information stored on an electronic device is relevant to a reasonable line of enquiry.
“(a) in a case where the authorised person proposes to exercise the power for a purpose within subsection (2)(b) or (c), the authorised person reasonably believes that information stored on the electronic device is relevant to that purpose,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 29, line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 29, line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 29, line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the definition of “adult” for the purposes of Chapter 3 of Part 2 so that it covers a person aged 18 or over.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the definition of “child” for the purposes of Chapter 3 of Part 2 so that it covers a person aged under 18 rather than a person aged under 16.
““criminal offence” includes—(a) a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006, and(b) an SDA offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Transitional Provisions etc) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/ 1059);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the references in Clause 36(3) to a criminal offence include a service offence under the Armed Forces Act 2006 or under any of the Acts that it replaces.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford which inserts a new Clause after Clause 37.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 30, line 8.
“(12) This section is subject to section (Requirements for voluntary provision and agreement)(requirements for voluntary provision and agreement).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford to insert a new Clause after Clause 37.
“Requirements for voluntary provision and agreement
(1) A person (“P”) is to be treated for the purposes of section 36 or 37 as having—(a) voluntarily provided an electronic device to an authorised person, and(b) agreed to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person,only if the requirements of this section have been met.(2) An authorised person must not have placed undue pressure on P to provide the device or agree to the extraction of information from it.(3) An authorised person must have given P notice in writing—(a) specifying or describing the information that is sought,(b) specifying the reason why the information is sought,(c) specifying how the information will be dealt with once it has been extracted,(d) stating that P may refuse to provide the device or agree to the extraction of information from it, and(e) stating that the investigation or enquiry for the purposes of which the information is sought will not be brought to an end merely because P refuses to provide the device or agree to the extraction of information from it.(4) Subject to subsection (5), P must have confirmed in writing that P has—(a) voluntarily provided the device to an authorised person, and(b) agreed to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person.(5) If P was unable to provide that confirmation in writing as a result of P’s physical impairment or lack of literacy skills—(a) P must have given that confirmation orally, and(b) an authorised person must have recorded P’s confirmation in writing.(6) If P’s confirmation was given in writing and in hard copy form, the authorised person must have given P a copy of that confirmation (in hard copy or electronic form).(7) If P’s confirmation was given orally, the authorised person must have given P a copy of the record of that confirmation (in hard copy or electronic form).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the requirements which must be met before a person is treated as having voluntarily provided an electronic device, and having agreed to the extraction of information from the device, for the purposes of Clauses 36 or 37.
“(1A) The code may make different provision for different purposes or areas.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables a code of practice under Clause 40 to make different provision for different purposes or areas.
“(ca) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses,(cb) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,(cc) the Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the persons and bodies mentioned to the list of persons who must be consulted in the preparation of a code of practice under Clause 40.
“(2A) Subsection (2)(cc) does not apply on or after the day appointed under Article 4(4) of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/2953 (N.I. 17)) (power to revoke Article 4).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the duty to consult the Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland to cease to apply if an order is made revoking the provision which creates that body.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 34, line 19.
“(5A) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under subsection (4) if and so far as the regulations make provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament. (5B) The Secretary of State must consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland before making regulations under subsection (4) if and so far as the regulations make provision that, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—(a) would be within the legislative competence of that Assembly, and(b) would not require the consent of the Secretary of State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Ministers or the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland before making regulations under Clause 42(4) which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.