House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
We value excellent provision in all subjects, including the arts. We recently rationalised the strategic priorities grant to better meet the funding needs of high-cost, strategically important subjects, including in science, technology, engineering and maths.
Chi Onwurah
I know that the Secretary of State studied engineering, and as a chartered engineer myself, I believe it is essential to invest in STEM skills. However, doing so at the expense of arts subjects shows that the Government really are not serious about our future economy. How will he ensure that our £111 billion creative industries have the skills and people they need when he is cutting in half the subsidy for arts subjects? Is he aware that only a fifth of our artists, performers and so on are from working-class backgrounds as it is?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning my engineering background. As part of the same reform programme, we have asked the Office for Students to invest an additional £10 million in our world-leading specialist providers, many of which specialise in arts provision. On providers losing funding in the reallocation as we send a clear message on STEM, I remind her that that income loss amounts to about 0.05% of those providers’ estimated total income.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that arts subjects do not necessarily lead to arts careers? Does he know, for example, an honourable gentleman who, after doing a philosophy, politics and economics degree at Oxford, became a shopkeeper and now happens to be the Mayor of the West Midlands?
Nadhim Zahawi
Indeed I do, and he is a great Mayor who is transforming the city of Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that subjects such as PPE are incredibly important and that many leaders in industry do not necessarily have STEM degrees.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. As a neighbour, and possibly a friend, it is good to see him here.
This nation has long produced some of the best creatives in the world—in fact, the arts are a powerhouse for the country’s economy—yet the Government have a myopic view on the value of everything. Their present focus is that ballerinas should be coders, but for decades people from low-income households in particular have not just benefited from their discovery and study of the arts but gone on to enrich this country of ours and, at the same time, generated soft power. I think of people such as Danny Boyle, Tracey Emin, Annie Lennox, David Bowie and Alison Lapper—the list is endless. People’s lives are infused with the arts as they listen to music on their iPods, read fiction, attend museums and watch TV dramas, dance and so on. Given that the UK creative industries are truly global-leading and make such a significant contribution to our economy, why are the Government so determined to limit people’s social mobility and our wider economic success?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I think he is—for his question, although I completely disagree with him. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the arts play an incredible role in enriching minds, especially young minds, and in inward investment to the United Kingdom and exports from the UK. We continue to value high-quality provision in a range of subjects critical to our workforce, including the arts. That is why I mentioned the work of the Office for Students in reinvesting an additional £10 million in our world-leading specialist providers, many of which specialise in arts provision.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
Teachers and school leaders have made a huge contribution to the nation’s efforts, and we are grateful for their hard work. Schools continue to receive core funding throughout the pandemic, regardless of any periods of reduced attendance. The 2021 spending review has confirmed significant funding increases, with a cash increase for schools averaging £1,500 per pupil by 2024-25.
Dr Evans
I welcome the Secretary of State’s answer. I have met heads at Bosworth Academy in Desford and Hastings High School in Burbage, who welcome the funding they have had throughout covid but are concerned about what could happen to staffing budgets in particular because of absenteeism through covid. Does the Secretary of State have a plan to deal with that, and will he meet me to hear their concerns so that we can work out a solution?
Nadhim Zahawi
Of course I will meet my hon. Friend. We recognise that some schools are concerned about pressures and have made available a range of school resources and management tools to help them get best value from their resources. I just remind the House that the increase of £1,500 per pupil by 2024-25 is compared with 2019-20.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
England’s near 400 maintained nursery schools were not eligible for exceptional costs funding, and they therefore had to bear the burden of covid themselves. The Government’s announcement last week of the continuation of supplementary funding for three years is a welcome step in the right direction, but will the Secretary of State confirm that it will cover inflationary pressures and the national living wage increase? Will he meet the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly), me and the other officers of the all-party parliamentary group on nursery schools, nursery and reception classes to ensure that those outstanding centres of excellence in some of the most deprived communities in the country get the funding that they deserve?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Member will recall that when I was Minister for Children and Families, I met the all-party parliamentary group, an incredibly important group, which I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), the current Children and Families Minister, will continue to engage with. We have confirmed that continuation of supplementary funding for maintained nurseries through the spending review period, which provides the sector with long-term clarity. I am happy to meet the hon. Member and the APPG to go through the details.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and thank him for the big Budget increases in education, particularly the 42% increase in cash terms for skills.
Will my right hon. Friend continue to make the case for a longer school day? We know from the Education Policy Institute that it increases educational attainment by two to three months, especially among disadvantaged pupils. According to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, a longer school day increases numeracy by 29%. Will my right hon. Friend at least consider some pilot schemes in disadvantaged areas around the country whereby we can have a longer school day?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the Chair of the Education Committee for his question. The priority has to be those children and students who have the least time available to recover. That is why the £800 million for 16 to 19-year-olds for an additional 40 hours of education is so important, plus the £1 billion going into secondary and primary, making a total of £5 billion of recovery money. There are excellent examples in some multi-academy trusts of a longer school day, which I will look at. The average school day is now six and a half hours, and I would like to see everybody moving towards that.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
The NHS covid recovery fund is an important measure to help address the backlog of operations and patient care. Will the Secretary of State set out, following any conversations between the Department, the Treasury and the Department of Health of Social Care, how much of that budget has been earmarked for additional capacity for children with disability and care needs, children and adolescent mental health services, and special educational needs and disability provision, which is quickly becoming a crisis in our schools?
Nadhim Zahawi
The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, has been championing the additional £2.6 billion investment in SEND that we have received from the Treasury. That includes money going into mainstream schools to increase that provision. It is important, as we await the review of SEND, that we make the investment now to create places so that parents do not feel that they need to go to court with their local authority to get an education, health and care plan.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
May I press my right hon. Friend on the issue of maintained nursery schools? Of course, I welcome the three years of supplementary funding that has been confirmed, but those schools are in severe financial distress, they have found it harder than any other schools to cope with the cost of covid, and the schools in my constituency do not quality for supplementary funding. When are they going to get the help they need to survive?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who was a doughty champion of her maintained nurseries even in my time as Children and Families Minister. I am happy to meet her to go through the details that are specific to her schools, but the additional funding has been welcomed by the maintained nursery sector.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his post, and I welcome the other Ministers who are new in post. Despite our political differences, I hold them all in very high personal regard.
On 19 July, I put it to the Secretary of State, who was then Vaccines Minister, that the only way to have stability in schools come the autumn term and to protect the wellbeing of students would be to offer the vaccine over the summer months. He chose not to. As a result, just in recent days, I spoke to a principal who said that schools are no longer primarily places of learning; they are logistical centres, performing twice-weekly testing, facilitating the vaccine roll-out and dealing with local covid outbreaks. Instead of having a wall of protected adults, which the Secretary of State told me would be the case, students are faced with a wall of pinched and angry anti-vaxxers, who are preventing them from getting into school by bullying and harassing, and interrupting their school flow. Will he accept Labour’s proposal for exclusion zones around schools for the duration of any vaccine roll-out programme, and will he apologise to the 200,000 students and their families who are currently off school because he chose not to implement the measures that would have kept them there?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his question and his remarks about the team. I remind him that it was the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation that initially did not make the decision and then went further and asked the four chief medical officers to make that decision. Throughout the vaccination programme, we have operated by taking the advice of the JCVI and of the chief medical officers. We moved swiftly the moment the advice was made available to vaccinate 12 to 15-year-olds. Of course, through the holiday period, that was expanded to out-of-school vaccination, and now that they are returning to school, that continues at pace.
However, the shadow Minister is right to highlight the dangerous behaviour of some anti-vaxxers. There is no place for anti-vaxxers harassing or coming anywhere near school leaders, and I have the reassurance of the Home Secretary that she will make available any resources that the sector needs to ensure that those people in our schools are protected and able to get on with the job of teaching and protecting children.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
Local authorities must provide transport for children of compulsory school age to attend their nearest school if they cannot walk there because of distance, route safety or special needs. During the next spending review period, authorities will receive an extra £1.6 billion a year to maintain vital services such as that.
David Warburton
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s reply. As a former teacher, I very much understand the value of education, but in the past few months I have been concerned to hear of constituents having difficulties getting children to school because of limited public transport and school bus places. I know that my hon. Friend will agree that it is vital to ensure that children do not miss out on learning, so I would be grateful to hear what steps are being taken to ensure that children in rural areas, particularly with limited bus transport, are able to attend school, and whether he has discussed this matter with colleagues in the Department for Transport.
Mr Walker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he says, as a former teacher, he recognises the benefit of children being in schools. I can assure him that the Department regularly talks to the Department for Transport about school transport. Last year, we gave Somerset over £1.1 million of additional funding for school and college transport in response to the need for social distancing on public transport. I shall continue those conversations.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Of course, far too many children in rural areas end up getting driven to school, but does the Minister agree that when they finally arrive at their destination, they will be slightly surprised to find that this Government’s ambition for funding is just back at the level that they inherited from the last Labour Government in 2010?
Mr Walker
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that funding levels are considerably higher than they were in 2010. We were also delighted to deliver real growth in funding over that period, which many of us have long campaigned for.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
The Government are committed to cross-sector partnerships across England. We are aware of the partnership in Bassetlaw between Worksop College, an independent school, and 11 local state schools. We continue to work constructively with them to encourage more schools to engage with such partnership working.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I thank the Minister for his answer. He mentioned Worksop College, an independent school in my constituency, which offers chemistry roadshows for local state primary schools, hosts a weekly parkrun for local junior school pupils and does a lot of other community work. Does he agree that such independent/state school partnerships can be a key part of educational recovery? Does he welcome the forthcoming “Celebrating Partnerships” report from the Independent Schools Council, and will he therefore encourage all schools to get involved in cross-sector partnerships?
Mr Walker
The short answer is that I will, and I welcome another question from another former teacher on the Conservative Benches. Such partnerships can form a key part of economic recovery, and I welcome the forthcoming “Celebrating Partnerships” report. I am very pleased to note that my noble Friend Baroness Barran has written the foreword for that important publication.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
As set out in the spending review, we are investing £3.8 billion more in further education and skills over the Parliament as a whole. We are supporting adults to get the skills that they need through the adult education budget and delivering on the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee.
Peter Gibson
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and welcome him to his place. Following last week’s phenomenal investment in education catch-up, does he agree that the catch-up funds, along with the new T-levels being offered at Darlington College, part-funded through the towns fund, will be vital as we create new high-skilled, high-wage technical jobs up and down the country?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am delighted that Darlington College will offer T-levels in education and childcare and in engineering and manufacturing from next year. If we can make T-levels as famous as A-levels, Mr Speaker, you and I will have done something really great by the end of this Parliament. I am grateful for the efforts of Darlington College to help learners to catch up with their education following the pandemic by making good use of the 16 to 19 tuition fund, introduced in 2020.
Claire Coutinho
About a third of my constituents in East Surrey do not have a level 3 qualification, so I am hugely supportive of the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee. I am also tremendously lucky to have a brilliant further education college, East Surrey College, to deliver it. Does the Secretary of State agree that the success of that programme will rely on our ability to let people know that it is available, and will he set out some steps on how he is ensuring that the right people know so that we can get the maximum uptake?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. We know that now more than ever we need to invest in adult skills and training. The lifetime skills guarantee gives adults in colleges just like East Surrey College the opportunity to develop the skills to succeed in work throughout life. I was the apprenticeships tsar under the coalition Government, and if you had told me that a Prime Minister would introduce this, I would have bitten your arm off. We have to make this famous, and we can do that through the work of everybody in this House taking the message out to their constituents.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
But since 2010, funding for adult education has been slashed in two and funding for further education has been cut by a third. Of course, it was this Government who scrapped the union learning fund, which was transformative in moving people into skills for the future economy. Could the Secretary of State set out exactly how he will invest in skills and what the skills strategy priorities are, in the light of the fact that the Government seem to be making demands for skills that they simply do not have in the economy?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I can set out precisely how we are taking this forward: we are investing £2.5 billion—if we take the Barnett funding, it is £3 billion—in the national skills fund. The Budget confirmed that further investment through the national skills fund will reach just over half a billion pounds—£554 million—by 2024-25. That will include extending the eligibility for about 400 free level 3 courses to more adults and further expanding skills boot camps. We will announce more details in due course. On qualifications, the free courses for jobs offer is another intervention in the economy, and the boot camps are an incredibly successful intervention in the economy, producing skills through heavy goods vehicles boot camps and others. Strategically, it is about making T-levels, apprenticeships and apprenticeship degrees absolutely equal to A-levels and degrees from university.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Given that so many of the current labour shortages are in so-called unskilled jobs such as HGV driving, in which the Road Haulage Association tells me that there are more than 100,000 vacancies, why is so much funding for career retraining focused on levels 3 and above? For example, the advanced learner loan is available only for levels 3 and above, which means that a HGV driver who wants to retrain has to self-fund.
Nadhim Zahawi
As always, the hon. Lady makes an important contribution to the debate. It is important to remember that we are focusing on tactical interventions such as bootcamps and our current work on kickstart, which has £2 billion, and restart, which has £2.9 billion. The strategic aim is that by the end of this Parliament we ensure not only that T-levels are embedded and at scale, but that apprenticeships continue the journey of quality that we began when we introduced the new standards.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place; he has made a brilliant start as Secretary of State. The emphasis that he is placing on further education and skills is the very opposite of myopia, if I may offer that observation to the House.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the extraordinary institution that is the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering in my constituency—a transformative model of higher education and further education together, focused on skills, and an extraordinary lift and shift model for levelling up. Does he share my view that this is something that the Government should be really leaning into and supporting for the longer term?
Nadhim Zahawi
I certainly share my right hon. Friend’s priorities and ambition. More importantly, if we can make this work, it truly is scalable and can be a model for other parts of the country in our levelling-up agenda.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I, too, welcome the new Secretary of State to his role. The Protect Student Choice campaign warns that many students might struggle to enrol on so large an occupation-specific qualification as T-levels at the age of 16. By withdrawing funding from BTECs, how will the Secretary of State guarantee student choice?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I want to just squash that misrepresentation: we are not withdrawing funding from BTECs. BTECs that are of high quality and are valued will continue, but it is only right that we look at the landscape and see where quality lies and how we can increase the ladders of opportunity, not take them away from people.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
We already have robust regulation in place around food standards in schools, established by the Requirements for School Food Regulations 2014. The regulations apply to all food provided in schools, making compliance mandatory for all maintained schools, including academies and free schools.
Andrew Selous
Children’s health is so important to their life chances, so the research of the young people at Jamie Oliver’s Bite Back 2030 foundation is very concerning: it shows that school food standards are routinely not maintained. What can we do to ensure that they are upheld?
Will Quince
School governors have a responsibility to ensure compliance and should appropriately challenge the headteacher and the senior leadership team to ensure that the school is meeting its obligations. Should parents feel that standards are not being met at their child’s school, they can make a complaint using the school’s own complaints procedure. My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for healthy and nutritious school meals; I would be happy to meet him to discuss the issue further.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
We have allocated £11.3 billion since 2015 to improve the condition of schools, including £1.8 billion in this financial year. Our new school rebuilding programme will transform 500 schools over the next decade. We expect to start the selection process for the next round by early 2022.
Robbie Moore
Ilkley Grammar School in my constituency has a roof prone to leaking, has internal damage and is in desperate need of repair. Last year, the situation got worse, with the roof collapsing in a small part of the school. Unfortunately, Ilkley Grammar School has already had two bids to the condition improvement fund for a roof replacement rejected. Following last week’s news of more funding for schools, may I make an urgent plea to the Minister that he consider granting funding for any future proposal that we submit?
Mr Walker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the case of Ilkley Grammar School to my attention, which he has certainly done effectively. The condition improvement fund prioritises significant condition need, keeping buildings safe and in good working order. It has supported more than 1,400 projects at more than 1,200 schools and sixth forms during the current financial year. Applications for the 2022-23 round will be assessed according to the criteria that will be published shortly.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The lovely market town of Sleaford is growing—
Dr Johnson
I’ve only got three kids. [Laughter.]
Anyway, the lovely market town of Sleaford is growing, which is causing capacity issues for both the boys’ and the girls’ grammar school sites, which are fairly constrained in the town centre. Thanks to the bequest of a very generous lady, the school has identified a site for a joint grammar school building. May I ask my hon. Friend for his support and that of the Government as part of the school rebuilding programme?
Mr Walker
I know that my hon. Friend has championed this issue, and indeed has been visited by Ministers from the Department, including the former Minister for the School System, Baroness Berridge. The school rebuilding programme will be targeted at schools in the worst condition. While I understand that there are merits in the proposed relocation and merger, we must make hard decisions about how we prioritise use of the Department’s budget, but of course I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend and discuss this further.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The grounds of Tipton St John Primary School in East Devon have been flooded for the second time in a week. Previous flooding of the school led the Environment Agency and the Department for Education to warn of a risk to life. Earlier this year, plans to move the school to Ottery St Mary were rejected by local councillors. Will my hon. Friend please include flood risk in the criteria for the next phase of the school rebuilding programme?
Mr Walker
As one who represents a constituency where schools have been flooded, I am sympathetic to the issues my hon. Friend has raised. The Department is aware of the flood risk to the school, and is working with the relevant parties to find a solution. We have consulted on how to select schools for the next round of the school rebuilding programme, and we are currently considering the extent to which flood risk will be part of the selection criteria, alongside other condition and safety concerns.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
May I again call attention to a physical safety issue in schools in England? Sprinklers are already mandatory in Scotland and Wales. What recent assessment has the Secretary of State made of the benefit of mandatory sprinkler systems in English school buildings?
Mr Walker
This is certainly an issue which the Department keeps under review, and I should be happy to speak to the hon. Lady about it in more detail.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Further and Higher Education (Michelle Donelan)
The teaching staff at our universities have done a fantastic job in delivering high-quality teaching throughout the pandemic, but I am sure everyone will agree that there is no substitute for face-to-face teaching. Last week I wrote to all providers emphasising the importance of face-to-face provision, not just in teaching but in the rich extracurricular activities that should be provided for students to ensure that they are given a fair deal.
Paul Blomfield
I welcome the Minister back to her role, and I agree with her about the fantastic job that universities have done. However, the Office for National Statistics reported recently that nearly 40% of first-year students had shown symptoms of depression and anxiety this autumn, and similar numbers felt unprepared for university because of the loss of in-person learning during the pandemic. What support is the Government giving stretched universities to ensure that both new and continuing students succeed despite the difficulties that they have faced, and will the Minister take this opportunity to deny rumours that the Government are planning to add to their worries by making graduates on lower incomes pay more of their student debt, by reducing the repayment threshold?
Michelle Donelan
Throughout the pandemic we have prioritised the welfare and wellbeing of students, and we will continue to do so. We will respond to the Augar report shortly. As for the transition of students to university, we have worked with universities on that. We have held a session with more than 200 schools and higher education providers, and published a guide to assist with the transition. We have invested £15 million in mental health and welfare support, and with our help £3 million has been provided for Student Space by the Office for Students. It is this Government who continue to support students.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister is doing a first-rate job for students in promoting freedom of speech on campus. Does she agree, however, that it would not help students to recover from everything they have been going through and everything they have lost during the pandemic if they faced the prospect of having to pay back already excessive student loans at a lower threshold? Does she also agree that too many universities have become academically indiscriminate cash cows for overpaid university administrators?
Michelle Donelan
In response to Augar, we will be reporting shortly. We want to ensure that a more sustainable student finance system exists. We want to drive up the quality of higher education provision, ensure that courses meet the skills needs of this country, maintain our world-class reputation and promote social mobility.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I welcome the new Secretary of State and his team, who are also new, with the exception of the Minister for Further and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), although I of course welcome her as well as she returns to the Front Bench. I welcome the entire team. She has quite rightly commended university staff for the job that they have done over the past 20 months in supporting students as they shifted their entire courses online, but those same individuals are now facing severe cuts to their retirement benefits—essentially a 35% cut to their pensions and lump sums. Given the work that these staff have done over the pandemic, what action is the Minister taking to ensure that this brutal pension reduction will not go ahead?
Michelle Donelan
I am deeply concerned about this issue, and that is because of the threat of strikes. Our students are now in a position to have face-to-face teaching, and I would urge every lecturer to reconsider taking strike action. Strikes have not helped the situation before, but they have impacted students who deserve a fairer deal.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
The national tutoring programme reached 308,000 pupils in 2020-21 and this year it is expanding further to offer high quality tuition for up to 2 million pupils across the country.
Dame Diana Johnson
I know that the Secretary of State is as concerned as I am about children in my constituency reaching their full educational potential, but I am concerned that only 240,000 enrolled on the national tutoring programme in its first year, that it has only a third of the funding that his own Government adviser put forward for covid catch-up and that funding per pupil will not reach 2010 levels for another three years. Can we see some evidence that the Government’s proposals are working? For example, can we see granular information about how the national tutoring programme is reaching the most disadvantaged children in our communities?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question. She is always assiduous and follows the evidence. I am also grateful to her for coming to the Department on another matter to do with further education. The academic years independent evaluation is taking place and will assess the programme’s impact on pupils’ educational attainment in all regions, including the north, and we will of course publish that. I want to share with the House some of the latest reported figures on the national tutoring programme. It is going well in all parts of England, and provisional figures from our delivery partners show that so far this year 3,822 schools have engaged with the programme through the tuition partners and academic mentors. The latest reports show that 475 academic mentors have been placed in schools in the most disadvantaged areas of England. On top of this, all schools are sharing the £579 million to recruit their own local tutors.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I would like to thank the School Standards Minister for his recent visit to Burnopfield Primary School in my constituency to look specifically at the national tutoring programme. However, at a recent headteacher cluster meeting, some of the smaller primary school leaders were concerned at the amount of paperwork involved in accessing the scheme. Will the Secretary of State look at the amount of bureaucracy involved, to ensure that the national tutoring programme can reach as many children as possible in every school?
Nadhim Zahawi
I give a great shout-out to Katie Vickers, the academic mentor that my hon. Friend and the Minister for School Standards met at Burnopfield Primary School. My hon. Friend will recall that when I was vaccines Minister, I was able to cut through some of the bureaucracy and get more retired doctors and nurses to come back and vaccinate the nation. I will happily look again with the Minister for School Standards at any bureaucracy that gets in the way and we will get rid of it.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his post, and I congratulate him and his new team on their appointment. By the end of the national tutoring programme period, nearly 2 million young people will have left school without support, including, it is estimated, more than half a million in the north. Meanwhile, the new cut-price Randstad contract has left schools facing over-complicated bureaucracy and delayed tutoring—although Randstad did manage to award a contract to itself. Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the performance of Randstad’s management of the contract?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am never satisfied until we have delivered. Ultimately, we can have an arms race about how much we can spend, but it is all about outcomes. When the hon. Lady sees some of the independent evaluation of the programme delivered by my predecessor, she will see that we focus on outcomes, and that is what she should also focus on.
Kate Green
Yes, but tutoring is reaching just one in 16 pupils this year, and the attainment gap is 18 months at GCSE and widening. The Government failed to use the opportunity of the Budget to deliver the investment in education recovery that their own expert called for. Why will the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister not match Labour’s ambition for children’s futures?
Nadhim Zahawi
All I would remind the hon. Lady is that, if we look at the league tables, England is doing well under a Conservative Government and will continue to do well. If she will only shed the tribal politics and look at the evidence—as I will, and I will present it to this House—then we can get somewhere with delivering real outcomes for the most disadvantaged people in our country, which I hope she cares about as I do.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Minister for Further and Higher Education (Michelle Donelan)
I am proud to say that our plan for jobs is working, with unemployment falling to 4.5% last month. Our £3.8 billion skills revolution will ensure that young people have the skills they need to access those jobs, with T-levels, with the largest-ever expansion of traineeships and with an incentive of £3,000 for employers hiring apprentices, creating new pathways for high-quality employment.
Ian Levy
Blyth Valley is currently at the forefront of the green industrial revolution, with many fantastic businesses such as the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult in Blyth and Merit in Cramlington, which can provide a wealth of opportunities to our young people. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me so that we can discuss how to best meet the educational needs of our young people and employers, and bridge that skill gap to ensure we have the best facilities for all the pupils in Blyth Valley?
Michelle Donelan
We have embarked on a skills revolution that brings together our business and education communities to ensure that all courses are of a high quality and fit for purpose. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, who is an excellent champion for his community.
Craig Tracey
I chair the women and enterprise all-party parliamentary group, and we are about to deliver our latest report, which focuses on skills and education. The Government skills bootcamps have been a fantastic innovation, but can my right hon. Friend provide more detail on how successful they have been in encouraging and inspiring young women and girls into new careers, particularly in more male-dominated industries?
Michelle Donelan
Our programmes and reforms are designed to ensure that all students get the chance to undertake high-quality learning. Our digital bootcamps had 47.9% female attendance, and every student gets an interview, including in male-dominated industries, because we are the party and the Government of opportunity.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
According to Renaissance Learning, pupils were one to three months behind in their learning in summer 2021, with improvements since the spring. Pupil premium pupils were half a month further behind in primary and two months further behind in secondary. We have announced a new £1 billion recovery premium to support disadvantaged pupils, with extra support in secondary, to reflect the evidence. That is part of our £4.9 billion investment in education recovery.
Mrs Drummond
I thank the Minister for his comments. Research from education charities, such as Teach First, has found that during the pandemic children from disadvantaged backgrounds were twice as likely to have fallen behind as those from more affluent ones. I am particularly concerned about pupils with special educational needs in Hampshire, who are falling behind where they should be. Has he considered any further measures to help them?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is right to raise these concerns. We have consistently prioritised children with special educational needs, for example, by providing additional SEN uplifts in the catch-up and recovery premiums for 2020 to 2022. We also set an expectation that those with education, health and care plans would be able to attend schools throughout the pandemic and ensured that special schools remained open. We announced an additional £1 billion of recovery funding directly to schools to support catch-up over the two years from the academic year 2022-23.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
I can confirm, following what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that we are not planning to remove funding from all BTECs. We will continue to fund high-quality qualifications, including BTECs, that can be taken alongside, or as alternatives to, T-levels and A-levels where there is a clear need for skills and knowledge. We will be led by the evidence and the final decision on qualifications reform will be taken in due course.
Kim Johnson
I welcome the Minister’s response to the question, but the Department’s own equalities impact assessment concluded that those from SEND black and disadvantaged backgrounds, and males were
“disproportionately likely to be affected”
by the plan to scrap the majority of BTECs. The City of Liverpool College offers 21 BTEC and 51 level 3 qualifications, and 1,400 learners would be impacted by the proposed changes. Is it not time that he listened to the calls from the Protect Student Choice campaign to rethink this damaging proposal?
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is a powerful advocate for the people of Liverpool. I would, respectfully, draw her attention to page 13 of the “Government consultation response: impact assessment”, which states:
“Following the additional flexibility on the future academic landscape, and the accompanying updated mapping and data, students from Black ethnic groups are no longer anticipated to be disproportionately highly affected. “
She raises an important point, which we are mindful of; we want all students, at all levels, to have the best opportunities. That is why we are reviewing level 3 qualifications and level 2 qualifications, so that we can have a qualifications system that gives students the skills they need, to get the jobs they need, for the economy we want.
Paula Barker
Given that 4,500 young people in Liverpool alone studied BTECs in 2020—the figure is an underestimate, as it does not include older BTECs—the Government’s plan to scrap the majority of these qualifications will leave thousands of students in cities such as Liverpool without a viable pathway at the age of 16. Will the Secretary of State and his Ministers listen to the 24 education bodies in the Protect Student Choice campaign and the 118 parliamentarians who wrote to him about this issue, or perhaps to former Conservative Secretary of State Lord Baker, who has described the plan as an “act of educational vandalism”? Despite what the Secretary of State and the Minister have said, will they rethink the proposal to defund most BTECs?
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Lady for her question; it is nice to have two questions from Liverpool back to back. I must tell the House that we are undertaking an historic reform of technical education in this country. We want technical qualifications, at all levels, that are designed with employers, to give students the opportunities they need. At 16, that will mean that some students will get gold-standard level 3 qualifications that will lead to work, degree-level apprenticeships or higher education. For some, it will mean excellent level 2 qualifications, which will lead to apprenticeships or to work, or to our lifetime skills guarantee, announced by the Prime Minister in September 2020, allowing everybody to get a level 3 qualification.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Clearly, it would have been sensible for the Government to have finished their evidence and understood the outcome of the policy before starting to undermine BTECs by announcing that they would defund many of them. There is a widespread body of opinion that many of the 230,000 students studying level 3 BTEC qualifications might not be able to get on to that qualification in future. Will the new Minister—I should have welcomed him to his place; I do so late in my question—tell us in which year the Government are likely to meet their target of having 100,000 students studying T-levels? Will he guarantee that those changes will not lead to a reduction in the number of students studying level 3 qualifications in the future?
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his belated welcome.
We just had a historic spending review for skills in this country, with £2.8 billion of capital for skills, including money to deliver new T-levels across the spending-review period. Those T-levels will give more students the opportunity to progress into work at a higher level. Our level 2 review will enable more students to progress into work at the right level for them.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
The Chancellor’s announcement last week in respect of my Department’s spending plans was about skills, schools and families. For schools, that means a cash increase of £1,500 per pupil by 2024-25, compared with 2019, as well as almost £2 billion further to catch up on lost learning. For skills, it means £3.8 billion of investment over this Parliament to ensure that people can access high-quality training and education, thereby opening the door to good jobs and driving forward our plan for growth. For families, it means support for the most disadvantaged, boosting childcare and ensuring that no one is left behind.
Henry Smith
I warmly welcome the £1 billion-worth of recovery funding that was announced in the spending review to help children catch up after the disruption caused by covid. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about how that funding will be deployed to help disabled children access services that have been impacted by the pandemic?
Nadhim Zahawi
The new recovery funding will help schools deliver evidence-based approaches to support the most disadvantaged pupils, including eligible pupils with special educational needs and disabilities or education, health and care plans. That funding is on top of this year’s £8.9 billion of high-needs funding for children with more complex needs, and there is £42 million for projects that support children and young people with SEND.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Government’s own early years health adviser, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), has said that every family in England should have access to a local hub, with parent and child support services. That is exactly what Labour ensured while in government, by building 3,600 Sure Start centres; this Government have closed 1,000 of them and then provided piecemeal funding for what they call “family hubs” in only half of local authorities. If the Secretary of State will not match Labour’s ambition for families, will he at least match the ambition of his early years health adviser, who, I notice, is in the Chamber?
Nadhim Zahawi
Where we disagree, respectfully, is that there are now 3,000 family centres. All the evidence suggested that the Sure Start scheme invested in buildings rather than in the families we needed to reach. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) was absolutely on the right track in championing the first 1,001 critical days. I saw that at first hand at the family hub in Harlow—I was with the Chairman of the Education Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—which combined multi-agency services to bring in the families we really want to reach, not just the families who are capable of accessing Government services. That is the big difference. My hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families will lead on the launch of 75 such hubs, which will make a real difference to the families that we need to reach.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend to meet Amy and Ella to discuss their idea and the resources they have created through their Plastic Clever Schools campaign. Only last week, in a debate in the House, I discussed the importance of teaching about climate change and sustainability in schools. I am looking forward to visiting, this Friday, the Rivers multi-academy trust, to learn about how it incorporates sustainability into its curriculum.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Mr Walker
I point the hon. Gentleman to the Government’s £1.8 billion investment in the condition of schools this year. We continue to invest in schools. I was delighted to see in the spending review that £2.6 billion additional funding to drive up provision in high needs and special needs.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Nadhim Zahawi
I am pleased to hear that Orchards Academy is one of the first 100 schools to benefit from the schools rebuilding programme. I will certainly join my hon. Friend on a visit.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The presence of anti-vaxxers outside schools throughout the United Kingdom is something that should concern us all, particularly as we enter the winter months. What work is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that young people are safeguarded against dangerous misinformation, and what work is being done to counter the misinformation that they are being given?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her important question. A unit at the Cabinet Office has been working with social media platforms to highlight anti-vax misinformation and to take it down as quickly as possible. I continue my work with the Home Secretary to make sure that no one feels under threat in any of our educational establishments from anti-vaxxers.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am so grateful to my right hon. Friend and to our brilliant new children’s Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), for their commitment to giving every baby the best start in life. Does my right hon. Friend agree that absolutely key to the success of family hubs is that, unlike under the old Sure Start scheme, every family can have midwifery visits, health visits, advice for mental health and breast-feeding support and that that is what makes a real difference to every new family?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. The Budget announcement rightly demonstrates our commitment to family hubs and start for life. Family hubs bring together services for children of all ages with a great start for life offer at their very core. I very much look forward to working with her to ensure that they deliver for parents, carers and, importantly, babies.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I visited Coventry West Academy—I know that it is not in her constituency, but it is certainly a fantastic school that is being rebuilt with more than £30 million of investment. It will be operationally net zero and built in Coventry, not far from where the school is. Teachers have gone above and beyond in everything that they have done. I thank them as well as school leaders from the bottom of my heart for what they have done. Of course the increase of £1,500 per pupil in the core schools budget from 2019-20 is a big step forward as is the recovery funding of £5 billion.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
May I welcome the Secretary of State’s early focus on illiteracy and tackling illiteracy? As a proud dyslexic, I ask him whether he agrees with me that we cannot tackle illiteracy unless we ensure that all those with neuro-diversity, including dyslexics, get identified and the support that they need to learn properly.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. He has been a champion for some of the new technologies and new evidence emerging around the world about identifying and screening for dyslexia. I will happily meet him and have a look at what we can do to scale that up in the United Kingdom.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
When a child has a parent who goes to prison, too often the support services are all focused on the needs of the prisoner and are run by the Ministry of Justice. Is the Children’s Minister prepared to meet the charity Children Heard and Seen and me, so that they can hear the views and support needs of the children who are left behind, particularly where parental contact might not be appropriate?
Will Quince
We recognise the impact that having a parent in prison can have on a child’s wellbeing, behaviour, mental health and learning. That is why we have clear statutory guidance that support should be based on the needs of the child, not solely the characteristic of having a parent in prison. Of course I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this important issue further.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
I was very sad to see that Professor Kathleen Stock decided to step down from Sussex University following a sustained campaign of bullying and harassment. Will my right hon. Friend outline how the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will uphold freedom of speech in our higher education institutions?
The Minister for Further and Higher Education (Michelle Donelan)
I, too, was horrified by what has happened in regard to Professor Stock, who has had to resign due to sustained harassment and bullying. This cannot be tolerated on our campuses, which is why the Government are delivering a freedom of speech and academic freedom Bill that will ensure that universities not only protect, but promote free speech. I welcome at this opportunity—
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I was shocked to learn on a recent visit to St James’s Catholic Primary School in Twickenham that parents were being asked to donate to fund pupils’ recovery from the pandemic. Although last week’s announcement was welcome, it is still only a third of the amount that the Government’s own adviser recommends for education recovery. Will the Minister commit to the additional £10 billion?
Mr Walker
As the hon. Lady says, the additional £1 billion of investment in recovery is welcome. More importantly, it is also evidence led. We need to ensure that we follow the evidence to the interventions that make the most difference, and that is exactly what we are going to do.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend tell the House what work is under way to ensure that the key stage 3 and 4 curriculum is aligned with the jobs of the future, not just the jobs of today?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Four hundred and thirty-nine pupils were absent from school with covid-19. Of course, that is impacting on their education, but the real crime is the fact that they want their vaccines and are not getting them. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that pupils do get their vaccine and we stop this delay?
Nadhim Zahawi
The school-age vaccination system is working. This week, the Health Secretary again announced a big drive in schools to ensure that we continue to protect and vaccinate 12 to 15-year-olds as we did through the holiday period and, of course, before that when we began the programme. It is big push to ensure that we vaccinate and protect those 12 to 15-year-olds.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my admiration for our wonderful, world-leading universities sector, and that he is aware of my campaign for a new university in Milton Keynes. Does he agree that the best way to underline the reputation for the quality and integrity of our world-leading institutions is to ban so-called essay mills?
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The condition of the buildings at Witton-le-Wear Primary School is really good, but the conditions for learning are not, given that there are partition walls between the classrooms because the school was built for 50 children, rather than the 80 who are currently there. Will the Minister meet me to discuss Witton-le-Wear Primary School and what can be done for the future?
Tulip Siddiq
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Secretary of State to clarify what he meant by “3,000 family centres”, because we know that they are not 3,000 family hubs?
Mr Speaker
Does the Secretary of State want to answer? Does somebody want to clarify whether that is right or wrong? Secretary of State, go on.
Nadhim Zahawi
The family hubs are a new investment. There are local authorities that have reconfigured how they do things, but there are 3,000 centres that serve those families in different ways—that may be virtual or physical.
Mr Speaker
We are not going to prolong the debate further, so we will move on to the urgent question.
Smoking Cessation: Prescription of E-cigarettes
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make a statement to the House on the Government’s announcement that e-cigarettes will be available on prescription.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Covid has been a stark reminder that our underlying health and lifestyle determine how resilient we are to new risks and diseases. Covid did not strike evenly. People who smoked, were overweight, or struggled with chronic conditions fared worse. We are determined to level up health for a society that is not just healthier but fairer.
Smoking rates are down to 13.9%—the lowest on record—but tobacco continues to account for the biggest share of avoidable premature death in this country. It contributes half the difference in life expectancy between richest and poorest. Action against smoking is therefore at the heart of our mission to level up. Our goal is for England to be smoke free by 2030. To support this goal, we have an ambitious tobacco control plan, and will soon publish a new plan with an even sharper focus on tackling health disparities. Our new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will support this vital mission nationally and locally.
Ministers from my Department have long been clear, including in this place, that we support e-cigarettes as part of a gateway process for stopping smoking. Last week, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency updated its guidance on licensing as medicines e-cigarettes and other inhaled nicotine-containing products. The updated guidance sets out the steps needed to license an e-cigarette as a medicinal product, as well as quality, safety and efficacy standards.
Having e-cigarettes as a licensed product will enable them to be available on prescription, which I know will give health professionals greater confidence in their use. I am happy to update the House further when we are closer to having a licensed product. We will continue to consider e-cigarettes, and indeed any other innovative ways of improving the health of our nation, so that we can end disparities and level up to a healthier and fairer country.
Jonathan Ashworth
We welcome the announcement that e-cigarettes will be available on prescription. It should be a really significant step in helping 7 million smokers to quit. As the Minister says, smoking kills; it leads to 90,000 deaths and 500,000 hospital admissions every year across the UK. I think she will find broad support for what she has announced, but the House would have preferred to have heard this first, rather than via a press release issued by the Secretary of State on Thursday evening.
The Minister says that she will return to the House when she has more detail. What is the timeframe for that, and when does she expect the first prescriptions for e-cigarettes to be issued? She will know that to those who find it hardest to quit, the offer of e-cigarettes will be important, but it would be much better if it were backed up with access to specialist support services. However, smoking cessation services have been cut by over £22 million in the last five years. Indeed, areas with high levels of heart disease, cancer and stroke are among those hit hardest by the cuts. For example, Dudley has had a 17% cut. Derbyshire, which is where her constituency is, has had a 20% cut. Hartlepool and Wolverhampton have had cuts of 81% to their smoking cessation services.
To be frank, there will be no levelling up unless health inequalities are tackled, and unless we prevent cancer, heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes where we can, but that demands fully funded local public health services, whereas in recent years, the public health grant has been cut by £1 billion in real terms, and in the Budget last week, it was just maintained at present levels. As the Association of Directors of Public Health has warned, this will mean further
“significant… reductions in public health services and capacity across the country.”
Will the Minister guarantee no further cuts to smoking cessation services? She mentioned the tobacco control plan, which is supposed to be published this year. Can she tell us at what point in the next two months that will happen?
Maggie Throup
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support on the issue we are talking about and on our ambitions to make this country smoke free by 2030.
On the MHRA, the updated guidance provided further details on the steps required to license an e-cigarette as a medicinal product. To achieve a licence, a product would need to meet the standards of quality, safety and efficacy expected of a medicinal product. If successful, that would potentially allow safe and effective products to be made available for prescription for tobacco smokers who wish to quit. The update provides clarification and gives more guidance to potential providers on that issue.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about timescales. We anticipate that if a product was put to the MHRA today, for example, there could be an 18 to 24-month process for that product to be licensed. At this stage, we could not say anything further than that, so we are quite a long way from any e-cigarette being licensed and provided as a prescription medicine.
The public health grant increased by £135 million in 2020-21 and by £55 million in 2021-22. With regard specifically to the public health grant for smoking services, it is up to the local authority to decide how it spends its allocation of funding, but in addition, in our long-term plan, we have committed to helping to drive smoking cessation for a number of different groups. We want to provide help with cessation plans for in-patients and pregnant women, and to provide support for those with mental health and learning disabilities to tackle their smoking addictions. All in all, a lot of money is being spent both at the public health level and at the NHS level. We will continue to make sure that we do whatever we can in our power to make England smoke free by 2030.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Many people who wish to stop smoking are motivated by the wish to be healthier, but there is also a financial impact on the family from somebody smoking, not least because the Chancellor put 88p on the most expensive cigarettes and even the cheapest are almost a tenner now. However, many people buy cigarettes under the counter or from a mate down the pub. Will the Minister engage with her opposite number in the Home Office to ensure that combating tobacco smuggling remains a priority for Border Force?
Maggie Throup
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I promise I will engage with my opposite number in the Home Office to tackle the illicit import of cigarettes and other substances.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My mother smoked herself to death and died of lung cancer at the age of 62, so no one needs to tell me how important it is that we do all we can to support people to give up smoking. I also know people who have given up smoking through e-cigarettes but now find that they smoke quite a lot more than they did with traditional cigarettes. What analysis has been done of the impact on overall intake of switching from traditional tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes? Do the Government have longer-term concerns about moving people off e-cigarettes to not smoking altogether?
Maggie Throup
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that our goal is to help people to stop smoking completely. My heart goes out to him regarding the story about his mother. My father was a smoker and it damaged his health as well. We all have these personal stories. The evidence is clear that e-cigarettes are less harmful to health than smoking tobacco and are an effective way to help people to stop smoking, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is always more to be done.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
History has shown us that an absence of evidence of long-term harm is not the same as evidence of absence of long-term harm. Indeed, in the 1940s, conventional cigarettes were considered healthy. With that in mind, how will the Minister ensure that children are protected from breathing in the vapes of e-cigarettes, prescribed or otherwise, and that their prescription by a doctor is not seen as a green light that they are healthy, encouraging uptake among teenagers?
Maggie Throup
My hon. Friend is right that e-cigarettes are just a gateway to stopping smoking completely. That is the ultimate goal. We want to ensure that people go from smoking to e-cigarettes, and then to no smoking at all.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
COP9 is due to start next week and, as yet, the Government have not announced their delegation. Will the Minister therefore please tell us who the delegates might be and what their approach will be to COP9, given that the World Health Organisation is completely against vaping?
Maggie Throup
There will be officials at COP9. It is a very important meeting. The UK’s approach to e-cigarettes has been and always will be pragmatic and evidence-based. I am sure that will be the message they put forward at COP9.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. Clearly the best way of ceasing smoking is to stop altogether. I welcome the fact that this proposal was originally contained in the last tobacco control plan in 2017, so I congratulate my hon. Friend on her prompt action on assuming the job. We will get an opportunity to debate the tobacco control plan on 16 November in Westminster Hall, and I trust she will reply to that debate. Will this particular proposal be targeted at the extreme smokers—the people who are hardened smokers and smoke a lot—and pregnant women to encourage them to give up?
Maggie Throup
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am looking forward to our debate in a couple of weeks’ time. As I mentioned earlier, the NHS already has measures in place through the long-term plan to help those who are pregnant to stop smoking. That is important. Should e-cigarettes be licensed as a medicinal product, it will be a gateway for those smokers to stop smoking through that method and hopefully stop smoking completely.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
What investment will the Government put into research into the long-term use of e-cigarettes, so that we can understand the impact that will have? Will the Minister also commit to invest in health checks, so that we can screen people for public health issues, such as smoking and other forms of harm, and get the right interventions at the right time and address these issues?
Maggie Throup
This Government are determined to level up, and as part of that we are levelling up for health, as well as some of the issues that the hon. Lady mentioned. Our Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will play a big role in moving forward with this issue.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
We know that smoking is a key cause of major health inequalities across the country between different demographics and different areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we want to level up health outcomes in the country, we will need to target products to support people by providing effective alternatives to smoking? As a smoker who wants to quit, I have seen many of my friends using multiple different products recently, from snus to heat-not-burn. Will she consider other options, in addition to e-cigarettes, that can cause less harm and enable people like me to quit?
Maggie Throup
My hon. Friend tempts me to say that he is a great role model. Perhaps he should try e-cigarettes and then probably try stopping smoking completely. He can put that message out across the Chamber about why levelling up is so important.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I welcome not only the Minister’s emphatic support for the cessation of smoking by 2030 as a target, but the cross-party support. We have seen in this short discussion today unanimous support for the use of e-cigarettes as a route out of smoking. The UK is one of the most advanced countries in the world in the proper evidence-led approach to the use of e-cigarettes. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is perfectly placed to herald that evidence and make sure the approach is evidence-based. Can she assure me that we will speed up the processes as much as possible? We must follow the evidence, but we must follow it rapidly.
Maggie Throup
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work he has done on this important issue. He is right that the MHRA’s expertise is recognised worldwide, so it is only right that it looks at it, and it provided clarification last week. As health disparities are so important, it is fantastic that we have cross-party support on the issue.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Andrew Rosindell with the ten-minute rule Bill, may I say how wonderful it was that Vivienne, who belonged to Sir David Amess, has become Westminster dog of the year? It is a great tribute.
Public Houses (Electrical Safety) Bill
Monday 1st November 2021
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Houses (Electrical Safety) Bill 2021-22 View all Public Houses (Electrical Safety) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require public houses to have annual electrical safety tests; to make associated provision about licensing, insurance and enforcement; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is vital—it will save lives. Had it been on the statute book earlier, the life of Harvey Tyrrell, a young boy from Romford who died in tragic circumstances, would have been saved. The Bill is designed to ensure that the circumstances of Harvey’s death will never be repeated. Harvey must not have died in vain. I dedicate the Bill to his name.
Harvey was a wonderful young seven-year-old boy who brought joy to all those around him. He had a passion for singing, dancing and playing sport, and he had a particular love of football. While I never had the privilege of meeting him, I know from those who did that he was a kind and caring young boy who would always look out for others and be there to support his family and friends. Following Harvey’s death, I spent time speaking with his mother, Danielle, who recounted many stories of her and Harvey endlessly laughing at the many jokes he would tell. By all accounts he was a lovely young lad with a wonderful future ahead of him, but his life was cruelly and suddenly taken away.
On 11 September 2018, Harvey and his mother went out for a pub lunch, as is such a great and treasured tradition, particularly in our beloved county of Essex. Tragically, Harvey did not come home that day. I am ashamed to say that the King Harold—a pub in the Harold Hill area of Romford, just over the border in the Hornchurch and Upminster constituency—was a death trap. When Harvey innocently placed his hand on a metal railing, electricity surged through his body. The horrified patrons of the pub could only watch as Harvey collapsed, before running over to help him. Paramedics were called and Harvey was rushed to hospital, but, tragically, he was later pronounced dead.
It was a deeply sad day for the Harold Hill and Harold Wood community, for Romford and for the whole borough of Havering. I thank Councillor Brian Eagling, Councillor Darren Wise and Councillor Martin Goode—the local councillors for the area—for the enormous support and kindness they showed to Harvey’s family. They were instrumental in working with me to ensure that the Bill could be placed before the House. Harvey’s death was completely avoidable and we must act now to ensure that such a wicked loss of life in these circumstances never happens again.
In the months prior to that horrific event, it was reported that the landlord had been electrocuted while on the premises and that, instead of resolving the issue, he joked with the regulars in the pub about the faulty wiring. That was a completely unacceptable way to operate a business. The safety of customers should always be at the forefront of an owner’s mind. Had the owner of the King Harold been conscious of safety or followed existing legislation, young Harvey would still be with us today.
Inspections in the aftermath of Harvey’s death revealed the true extent of the danger that customers faced when entering the pub. It was found that there were 12 defects at the pub, which posed a risk of injury, including by electric shock, and 32 potentially dangerous defects. It was also found that the faulty lights that had caused the metal pole to become electrified were attached to an unmetered supply, from which the pub owner had been stealing electricity.
During the trial of the owner of the King Harold, an expert described the pub as
“the most dangerous thing he had seen in 40 years”
and said that he was
“horrified the owner was able to ignore health and safety regulations, dodge his duty to seek planning permission for building projects and didn’t care about the dangers in the pub.”
So I am glad that the owner of the King Harold and his brother-in-law, who was responsible for the electrics in the pub, were both jailed for their involvement in this awful incident.
However, those sentences could not bring Harvey back to his mother, his family and his friends and there is no safeguard in place to stop that kind of incident happening again. As it currently stands, regulation of electrical safety in pubs is not fit for purpose. It is covered by regulation 4 of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. This regulation requires businesses to ensure that electrical installations are constructed and maintained in a way that prevents danger. That includes having the installations regularly tested and keeping a record of this. However, at the moment, it is down to the duty holder within the business to provide the relevant checks. There are no organisations, whether Government or private, monitoring whether pubs have complied with that standard.
Customers must be able to enter a pub with the confidence that they are not at any risk of injury—surely a basic requirement that any business should adhere to. In the light of the catastrophic events surrounding Harvey’s death, I believe that we must urgently act to strengthen the enforcement of electrical safety standards throughout the United Kingdom. That is why, with Harvey Tyrrell’s law—the Public Houses (Electrical Safety) Bill—I am proposing comprehensive measures to ensure that customers can enter pubs with the confidence that they will be safe from injury.
My Bill would require pub owners to get the electrical systems in their pubs checked a minimum of every five years, to bring pubs in line with the regulations on electrical safety checks in rental properties. The Bill also requires safety tests to be conducted by a qualified person, such as a registered electrician, thus creating confidence for the pub owner and the customers that the checks have been followed correctly and that electrical systems are safe.
An electrical safety certification should also be linked to the pub’s alcohol licence and the local authority would have to do no more than check that the pub owner had submitted the documentation proving that their premises had been tested for electrical safety before approving an alcohol licence.
I know that many hard-working pub owners would welcome those proposals, which improve everyone’s safety, including their own. I am a huge supporter of the great English pub and want pubs to remain at the heart of our community, so I am not seeking to create unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy, but we must ensure that they are places where people can enjoy themselves in safety. I believe that the measures I have outlined in the Bill, Harvey Tyrrell’s law, will successfully achieve this and I call upon Her Majesty’s Government to act swiftly in this regard.
My Bill will create a firm framework to ensure that the shocking events that surrounded the death of young Harvey are never repeated. It will keep people safe and prevent needless loss of life. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Andrew Rosindell, Henry Smith, Alexander Stafford, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, Tom Hunt, Chris Grayling, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Jon Cruddas, Dame Margaret Hodge, Joy Morrissey, Ian Lavery and Robert Halfon present the Bill.
Andrew Rosindell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022 and to be printed (Bill 181).
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today marks the beginning of Islamophobia Awareness Month, a call to tackle this insidious hatred. This time last year, to mark this month, I wrote to the Prime Minister raising concern over Islamophobia and urging him to better safeguard British Muslims and to fulfil his promise to carry out an independent investigation into his party. A year on, the Prime Minister still has not responded. That is wholly unacceptable and an insult to British Muslims. Mr Speaker, is it in order for the Prime Minister to ignore Members’ correspondence? If it is not, what action can I now take? Perhaps the Prime Minister could come to this Chamber to make a statement on Islamophobia Awareness Month.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. I can confirm that I have had notice on this subject and a statement about it. I would of course expect the Prime Minister, and any Minister, to respond to Members from all parts of the House. That is what Ministers are there for; as I have said before, they are answerable to this House and to MPs. We need to support Members of Parliament to carry out their duties, so I would expect that all correspondence is answered in a timely way. I am sure that that message will have got through, via those on the Government Benches, and back to the Prime Minister. If the hon. Member does not receive a response quickly following his point of order, he is welcome to discuss with the Table Office in what way he might pursue that question, but I genuinely believe that people do get a lot, and I would not expect any Member not to be answered, so I can only presume—and hope—that there has been a genuine mistake.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) is quite right to raise, in Islamophobia Awareness Month, the importance of countering anti-Muslim hatred. I know that he has secured a Westminster Hall debate later this week, which the Minister for Equalities and Minister for Levelling Up Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), will be responding to. There is an anti-Muslim hatred working group in my Department and, indeed, an independent adviser on Islamophobia. There is direct governmental responsibility, which rests with my Department, to deal with the issues that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton quite rightly raises. On the related question of matters within the Conservative party, I will make sure that his correspondence is replied to in a timely way.
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered his Budget statement against the backdrop and in the shadow of the covid pandemic, but he also did so unveiling a new era of economic optimism, as we build back better after that pandemic and secure the investment required to make sure that every part of this United Kingdom flourishes economically and every citizen has the chance to achieve their fullest potential.
It was striking that the Office for Budget Responsibility, in its assessment of the Chancellor’s response to the covid pandemic, said that he was “remarkably successful” in the steps that he had put in place. It is important, against the backdrop of the Budget statement and the spending review that accompanies it, to reflect for a second on the Chancellor’s success. The plan for jobs, which he was responsible for, has ensured that, contrary to the grim expectations that we would face unemployment of perhaps 12%, it is now expected to be 5% at most. It is also striking that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that the scarring effect on the economy—the drop in GDP that we would inevitably suffer as a result of the covid pandemic—would no longer be 3%, but just 2%.
Those figures, which reflect the success of my right hon. Friend’s approach hitherto, should be in our mind as we consider the approach that he is taking, because it is only as a result of success in ensuring sound money, success in ensuring an approach towards a balanced budget that commands the confidence of the markets, and success in ensuring that more of our fellow citizens can remain in employment that we have the foundations today on which to build, unite and level up our country.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about success. In part of my constituency, child poverty is something of the order of 60%. That compares with a national average of just under 20%. Is that a success because, if not, what does levelling up mean for the children in my constituency?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. At the heart of levelling up is a recognition, as he rightly reminds the House, that while talent is spread equally across this country, opportunity is not. There is a series of measures in the Budget statement designed to specifically attack the problem of child poverty. The creation of new family hubs is specifically designed to address that, as is the additional investment in the supporting families programme, the successor to the troubled families programme.
I should add that the changes to the taper on universal credit will also ensure, allied to the changes in the national living wage, that someone who is on the minimum wage, who is therefore in work, and who is receiving universal credit will receive at least £250 extra a year as a direct result of the national living wage increase and an additional £1,000 a year as a result of the associated changes to the taper. I recognise that eradicating poverty is not the work of one Budget, but it is only fair that everyone across the House recognises that there are measures in this Budget statement—measures being taken by this Government—directly to address the problems that the hon. Gentleman raises, because they are a scar that needs to be healed.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the number of family hubs will match the number of Sure Starts that have been cut since 2010? Does he regret the loss of so many Sure Starts and recognise the serious damage that has been done to a generation?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Lady is right to point out that the Sure Start programme was always intended to help those who were most in need, but it was also intended to provide a universal offer. Inevitably, during the difficult period that we had after the 2008 financial crash, we had to make sure that we targeted resources accordingly, but after a period of retrenchment, we are now entering a period of renewal and reform. The family hubs are targeted not just at those who have children in the first 1,000 days of their life, which reflects superbly on the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom); they are there to ensure that we have a comprehensive nought-to-19 offer. They go further than Sure Start children’s centres originally did—that is no criticism of Sure Start children’s centres—providing services that they did not.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Michael Gove
I will make a bit of progress and then try to take more interventions, if that is okay.
It is also important to recognise that the Budget statement saw a significant increase in public spending overall. It is the case that no Government can be judged purely by how much they spend. How that money is spent is critical. Additional public spending without reform and without a focus on value for money is money wasted. But I do not think that anyone across the House can deny that, with reform and with a focus on value for money, additional public spending, appropriately targeted, can help to transform public services for the better. In this Budget statement, £150 billion more will be spent over the spending review period. That is a 3.8% growth, in real terms, and in the Department for which I am responsible there is a 4.7% increase. Alongside that, there are the biggest increases in capital investment from any Government for 50 years; the biggest block grants ever given, since the dawn of devolution, to the Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and an increase of 6.6% in the national living wage, which takes it to £9.50 an hour. All Governments can face criticism and all Chancellors can be attacked, but I do not think it credible for anyone in this House to say that the package that the Chancellor unveiled last week is any way not equal to the challenges that we face.
The question for Opposition Members, including those on the Front Bench, is what they would do differently. If they argue that we should spend even more, where would they spend it? Which budgets would they prioritise? If they were to spend more, which budgets would they deprioritise? What would they cut to fund the additional spending? If they would not cut, would they borrow more? If so, how much more? With what impact on our credibility in international markets, on interest rates and on our capacity to fund our debt and deficit? Let us bear in mind that debt is falling and the deficit is being reduced as a result of the Chancellor’s shrewd approach.
If the Opposition were to borrow more, would they tax more? If so, whom would they tax? What credibility can they have on tax when we introduced a specific one-off increase to fund the national health service and social care—and the Labour party voted against it?
Those are all questions that Opposition Front Benchers want to avoid. To what lengths have they gone to avoid it? Well, earlier today I spent a few seconds on Twitter, not tweeting, but studying that social platform. In particular, I studied the tweets of my opposite number, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), who has been tweeting promiscuously and vociferously over the weekend—but what has he been tweeting promiscuously and vociferously about? Has he been tweeting about the spending review? Has he been putting forward alternative plans for local government, alternative propositions on levelling up, a new plan for housing or perhaps a new proposition on communities?
No. The hon. Member has only one tweet about the spending review. In contrast, he has tweeted five times as often about Crystal Palace football club. We are all, I think, in awe of Patrick Vieira’s success in ensuring that Crystal Palace could beat Manchester City 2-0 at the weekend, but however historic and unprecedented that victory is, I think we all have a right to ask whether, if Labour is silent on the spending review—if it has nothing to say by way of criticism or alternative—that is perhaps an indication of the success of the Chancellor in framing a Budget and a spending review right for this country.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
To get back to some serious points for a moment, UN Secretary-General António Guterres told Glasgow’s COP26 today that the world’s
“addiction to fossil fuels is pushing humanity to the brink.”
Will the Secretary of State use his planning powers to protect the beautiful parts of his own county of Surrey and prevent it from being turned into a British Texas? Why are Conservative Ministers prepared to allow new oil drilling in the Surrey hills and the north of Scotland when we are in a climate crisis?
Michael Gove
I have huge respect and affection for the right hon. Member, but I remember when we sat in Cabinet together and he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. I remember when he spoke to the Liberal Democrat conference, when such a thing occurred —when there were enough Liberal Democrats to get together to fill a conference hall. I remember him telling that Liberal Democrat conference hall that it was time—please forgive my language, ladies and gentlemen—to get fracking. Now that he is no longer in government and is in opposition, he seems, curiously enough, to have reversed his position, an unprecedented thing for a Liberal Democrat to do.[Laughter.] Saying one thing to one constituency and another thing to another? Remarkable!
I should say that my own views on fracking in Surrey—and indeed elsewhere—are on the record, and the right hon. Member can be reassured that my opposition to fracking in Surrey, particularly in a case that came up in my constituency, is on the record; but because my views are on the record of the past, I should say no more about the future.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
May I return the Secretary of State to the 3% increase in spending power for local councils? Has he seen the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies? It states that the 3% includes the £5.4 billion that the Government have used from the levy, but as the way in which councils must spend it is specified, it amounts to only a 1.8% increase in money that they can choose, and the 1.8% is there only if they put their council tax up by 3% a year.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Additional funding is, quite rightly, being devoted to improving adult social care, and it is also the case that the overall rise in core spending power for local government is at 3%. If we look back, we see that that is a significant increase, and it is also part of the broader increase of 4.7% overall in the spending that we are providing. Local government is not just being given more money for discretionary spending and for adult social care; we are also seeing additional spending from the Department for Education on special educational needs, we are seeing additional spending for transport, particularly in our city regions, and we are seeing the levelling-up fund as well. It is important to look in the round at the amount of money available to local government and spent in local areas.
Maria Eagle
Knowsley, which is one of the boroughs that my constituency covers, has gone from being the fifth most deprived local authority in 2010 to being the second most deprived now. One would have expected a Budget such as this, about levelling up, to focus particularly on giving necessary resources to Knowsley, but despite being a priority 1 area it has been overlooked for the levelling-up fund, having previously been overlooked for the future high streets fund and the towns fund. What does Knowsley have to do, now that it is the second most deprived area, to get some money from the Government so it can try to level up? [Interruption.]
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady has made an important point. There are specific and long-standing issues in Knowsley and other parts of Merseyside that we need to address as part of levelling up. However, I think she does herself down slightly, because I understand that thanks to her advocacy in her constituency two levelling-up bids succeeded, and although they do not affect Knowsley, they do affect Liverpool. Some £20 million has gone towards helping Liverpool City Council with regeneration, and £37 million has gone towards recovery. Those sums are not insignificant.
Nevertheless, I take the hon. Lady’s point about Knowsley. I think it important to remind her, and indeed the House, that the £1.7 billion in the levelling-up fund which was allocated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is just one third of the total sum allocated over the course of the spending review, and I look forward to working with her and with other colleagues to make sure that the remaining funds can be allocated effectively.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I do not know whether the Secretary of State heard this, or indeed whether the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) heard it, but when the hon. Lady asked what her constituents had to do to get their fair share of levelling-up funding, the clear message from the Tory Back Benches was that they had to return a Tory MP. Tory MPs clearly think that it is all about putting money into Tory-held constituencies. Does the Secretary of State agree with his own MPs that levelling-up funding will be targeted at Conservative constituencies, or does he need to have a private word with them afterwards to stop them giving away party secrets?
Michael Gove
We do not need to look into the crystal ball; we can just read the book. There are a number of Scottish National party MPs whose advocacy has ensured that they receive levelling-up funds in their constituencies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) on securing £16 million for UK Government money for the Granton gasholder in her constituency. The hon. Members for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn)—and even the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—have managed to secure money from either the levelling-up fund or the community ownership fund in this Budget.
It is fantastic that we have Scottish National party MPs petitioning my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bypass the Scottish Government in order to spend UK Government money in their constituencies. [Hon. Members: “More! More!”] And indeed there will be more, because in the forthcoming community renewal fund allocations, more money will be going to constituencies represented by Scottish National party MPs. That is because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out in his Budget speech, we are stronger, better and wealthier together. It is great that Scottish National party MPs are putting the UK Government’s money where the Scottish Government’s mouth isn’t.
Levelling up is about making opportunity more equal across our whole United Kingdom. It is a recognition, as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have said, that while talent is spread equally across the United Kingdom, opportunity is not. If levelling up is to succeed, yes, we need funds such as the levelling up fund, but we also need a systemic approach to how the Government support local government, other institutions and the private sector in order to spread prosperity.
One of the challenges that we face when it comes to levelling up is that the difference between the more economically successful areas of the United Kingdom and those that are less successful involves a kind of “Anna Karenina” challenge. In the first line of that novel, Tolstoy points out that all happy families are happy in a similar way, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. We can apply that to communities that need more help. The challenges that Knowsley faces are different from the challenges that Grimsby faces. The challenges that Bury faces are different from those that Burnley faces. We need to recognise that while all the challenges faced in coastal towns, in satellite towns around our major cities and in rural areas have common features, they all deserve to be addressed in a unique way.
If we are going to improve economic productivity and wellbeing, we need to recognise—as the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), has pointed out—that for levelling up to succeed, we need to ensure that local leadership improves and that we build on the success of, for example, combined authority Mayors such as Andy Street and Ben Houchen. We also need to improve living standards where they are lower, and to improve public services, particularly where opportunity has fallen behind. We also need to play a part in helping to restore pride in place, so that communities feel in a genuine sense that they have taken back control.
The Budget succeeded in addressing many of these challenges by ensuring that the funding was there to focus on each of the ingredients that require to be in place if we are to have levelling up. One of the first and most important areas in which the Budget made provision for change was in education, particularly in further education and in skills. An additional £3.8 billion is being spent over the course of the spending review period. That is a real-terms increase for those 16 to 19-year-olds who are in full-time education, and there is additional money to ensure that our groundbreaking T-levels are more available. There will be additional hours for those in further and technical education to ensure that they get the very best tuition, and there will be skills boot camps to ensure that we can accelerate the move of people into the labour market.
There will also be eight new institutes of technology—prestige further education institutions concentrated in the areas that most need levelling up. On top of that, the multiplier programme will provide more than £500 million to improve adult numeracy across the United Kingdom. All of this comes together in a package to recognise that, as well as building on the success of our education reform programme in schools, we also ensure that adult, technical and vocational education at last receives the focus, attention and funds that it deserves.
As well as investing in skills, we are going to invest better in small and medium-sized enterprises, which are of course the engine room of our economy. That is why the Chancellor outlined plans for the British Business Bank to expand in order to ensure that SME finance is more readily available. Regional funds are being extended across the northern powerhouse. The existing success of the BBB’s Cornwall operation is being extended to cover the whole of the south-west, and there will be new branches of the bank opening in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in order to build relationships with small businesses and to ensure that they have access to the debt and equity finance that they need.
Alongside that, there will be increased investment in research and development. An additional £20 billion will be spent over the spending review period, going up to hit our £22 billion target, and this research and development money will move outside the greater south-east, where so much research and development expenditure has been concentrated in the past, in order to ensure that, whether it is in Manchester or Newcastle, areas of university excellence that require additional investment to ensure the smarter diffusion of innovation into the economy are supported in the way that they should be.
On top of that, we have the global Britain investment fund: £1.4 billion that will ensure those sectors that are strong and growing in our economy get the additional inward investment they need to drive up economic growth. We know inward investment is often the route to higher productivity, and that is why there will be £1.4 billion specifically targeted on the automotive sector, on renewables and on life sciences.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State just explain to the House why, if the global Britain fund is forecast to be so successful, the Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded our trade forecast?
Michael Gove
I will say two things. It is great to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place. When he left as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he famously left a note saying that “there is no money” left; now, as he can see, there is significant money available to be allocated in all these areas. I recognise that he was speaking in jest and that those words should not be taken out of context.
More broadly, we face, as indeed every country faces, a global race for talent and a global appetite for additional investment. It is because of the global Britain investment fund, because of what we are doing in research and development and because of the way we are reforming UK Research and Innovation that we will be in a position to ensure that our economy is equipped to take advantage of the opportunities that Brexit brings, and the opportunities that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has outlined. I am confident that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) will see our exporting ability and the inward investment routes into this country grow in years to come.
I should point out that at the beginning of my remarks, I said that the initially pessimistic view that was taken of our capacity to weather the covid storm has been gainsaid by the success of the Chancellor’s approach. Again, there is no need to look in the crystal ball; the right hon. Gentleman need only look at the book. The book and the record show the success of the Chancellor’s approach.
Michael Gove
I will try to make a little bit more progress.
It is also significant that, if we are to level up, we must ensure that we have appropriate investment not only in business itself, through the funds I have mentioned and the initiatives I have outlined, but in transport. We must ensure that the private sector is firing on all cylinders, and that means ensuring in particular that our great city regions have the transport networks required. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has devoted £5.7 billion over the course of the spending review period to supporting the ambitious plans put forward by metro Mayors and others to improve transport.
More than £1 billion has been allocated to the Mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority, and more than £1 billion also to the Mayor of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Andy Burnham. Mr Burnham said last week—a point he made on Twitter and on broadcast; he was happy to comment on the spending review, unlike the hon. Member for Croydon North—that this was a “very positive first step.” He said:
“This feels like a breakthrough today…this is a big down payment”
on the infrastructure we need.
Mr Burnham welcomed that investment, and of course alongside it we had £830 million for West Yorkshire, £570 million for South Yorkshire, £710 million to improve transport in the greater Liverpool region and £300 million for Teesside. All those investments will help the Mayor of Greater Manchester, as he rightly wants to, ensure a Transport for London-style approach to the delivery of transport in that great region.
On top of that, as the Chairman of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), pointed out, we have £4.8 billion going to local government over the spending review period. This is necessarily an injection of cash to help local government ensure it can play its part in levelling up, and to ensure that it is supported by thriving businesses. We have also reformed business rates and moved towards a three-year evaluation, relief on improvements, including improvements that will help to deal effectively with climate change, and a 50% reduction for small businesses in the most affected sectors.
All that comes alongside a commitment to additional spending from my Department to help those most in need. We also have £630 million a year allocated over the next three years—that is £1.9 billion in total revenue—to help to deal with homelessness and to eliminate rough sleeping. There is also additional capital investment specifically targeting those who have problems with drug use and those who have been in custody, to ensure that we can help them into the accommodation they need to deal with the challenges they face. Overall spending in this area is 75% higher than pre-pandemic levels.
Michael Gove
I am more than happy to give way to the Member of this House who has done more to deal with homelessness than any of us.
Mr Speaker
Just before you do, may I just say to the Front Benchers that I am getting bothered, as we have a lot of Members I want to get in? I am enjoying this very much and it is great entertainment, but I am getting bothered, as this is about Back Benchers as well and so I hope we are going to save some time for them. I think we are nearly 30 minutes in.
Bob Blackman
Clearly, the new money for combating rough sleeping is extremely welcome, as is the money given for new housing. Will my right hon. Friend commit to rolling out Housing First across the country, now that that pilots have been seen to be such a success?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: those pilots have been successful. One thing we want to do is make sure we can apply their success more broadly, and further announcements will be made in due course.
Mr Speaker, I am very conscious of the fact that there is so much to unpack in the Budget and so many more people wish to speak. However, it would only be appropriate for me also to point out, before I come to my conclusion, that when it comes to housing itself—to the provision of safe, decent and affordable housing—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has risen to the occasion, with £11.5 billion for our affordable housing programme and £1.8 billion for urban regeneration, and with a determination to ensure that we take a brownfield-first approach to the provision of new housing, recognising that what we need to do, which is right for the climate, levelling up and growth across this country, is concentrate on regenerating those communities that have suffered economically in the past and whom it is our duty to help now.
I hope the House can see that across the piece, in every area that matters when it comes to levelling up—supporting the private sector to invest and to export; making sure that local government has the tools it needs to play its part as a leader in regeneration; making sure that the money is there to help the most vulnerable, who should be our first concern; ensuring that both the funding and the reform package is in place to provide the schools of the future and the skills that we need; and, above all, making sure that there are decent, affordable homes available to all our citizens—the Chancellor’s package meets the need of the hour. That is why I commend this Budget statement to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Just to help Back Benchers, let me say that we will be starting with a five-minute limit, because of the amount of time left. I call the shadow Secretary of State, Steve Reed.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
First, I thank the Secretary of State for highlighting Crystal Palace’s glorious victory over Man City—I do so with apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who is sitting next to me. In their own way, Crystal Palace are attempting to level up the premiership.
Despite that happy news, I am afraid that the grim truth is that after a decade of Conservative rule, Britain is more divided and unequal than at any time in living memory. Many of the trends that led us here go back decades, but this Government have made the situation far worse. To address the problems that caused this, we need to repair the broken foundations of our politics and our society. We must re-establish the link between hard work and fair pay; support families as the essential bedrock of our society; rebuild the fabric of our communities; and remake Britain as a country that works for everyone.
This Government will not do that. Their Budget was supposed to be about levelling up, but it did not even convince their own MPs. The previous Secretary of State, who used to sit opposite me, laid into the Government over soaring taxes. The former Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), slammed the Government’s national insurance hikes. Conservative MPs past and present lined up to denounce the Budget in the media. Perhaps most surprisingly of all, the Chancellor himself seemed strangely unconvinced by what he read out to the House last Wednesday. He left the country facing the highest level of personal taxation for 70 years and then pleaded with us, rather unconvincingly, that deep down he is a tax cutter really. The Chancellor sounded for all the world like a hostage forced by the Prime Minister to read out a script on video.
So what does this tell us about the Government’s plans for levelling up? First, the Government are deeply divided between a Chancellor who does not believe his own Budget, and a Prime Minister and, I presume, the Secretary of State, who made him read it out. They are split down the middle between blue wall, low-tax, traditional Tories, including the Chancellor, and the red wall reformers, led by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, who are attempting a top-down coup against their own party.
Secondly, the Government are now distancing themselves from their own record, thereby disorientating their party. The Chancellor told us repeatedly that spending was reaching its highest point since his own party started cutting in 2010—as if getting back to where we were more than a decade ago was in any way good enough. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are trying to present this as a brand-new Government unconnected to the previous two Conservative Administrations, of which they were senior members. This is not levelling up the country; it is covering up their record.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State does not recognise the contradictions between an economic policy based on crony capitalism and his claims about national renewal. The Conservatives cannot build a fairer country while they are siphoning off billions to their wealthy mates through crony contracts. It is that simple.
Fourthly, the Secretary of State still cannot tell us clearly what he means by levelling up. I was hoping for a clue in his speech this afternoon but, sad to say, we did not hear one. At the Conservative party conference Ministers used at least eight different definitions, and they still cannot tell us how they would measure it. Let me help the Secretary of State: levelling up should mean opening up opportunity to people and communities in every part of the country. But that is not what the Conservative party is about. The Conservatives have broken Britain and they cannot bring it back together.
The pandemic exposed just how badly the Conservatives have broken the link between work and reward. It is the workers on the frontline who care for others, empty the bins or sweep the streets who are the lowest-paid and the most neglected. They kept this country going—they are the heroes we all applauded—yet their standard of living has been falling for a decade.
When the Chancellor announced an end to the public sector pay freeze, he did not provide the funding to put wages up. Pay in the north-east is now £10,000 a year less than in London. Average wages are down 4% in the west midlands, down 5% in Yorkshire and down 6% in the east of England.
Our held-back regions desperately need a radical plan to reindustrialise around the green economy and digital technology, and to bring good new jobs to every part of the country. The shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has announced bold plans for a green new deal to do precisely that, but the Chancellor did not mention the climate crisis even once in his speech, just days before COP26 was due to start in Glasgow.
This Tory decade has been the weakest for pay growth since the 1930s, yet now the Tories are cutting universal credit for the lowest earners, hiking up taxes on working people and eating up what is left of people’s incomes with rising levels of inflation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, workers are facing an assault on their living standards because of this Government’s economic mismanagement. The Conservatives are now the party of high taxes because for a decade they have been the party of low growth. In the words of the shadow Chancellor:
“Voters won’t be fooled by a smoke-and-mirrors budget that is presented as being on the side of working people but hands a tax cut to banks while hiking up council tax, national insurance and freezing personal allowances.”
Families are the fundamental building blocks of our society. Any Government who want to level up the country should support families to nurture the young and cherish the old, but under this Government half a million more children now live in poverty, with the most dramatic increase in the north-east of England. The Government have provided only a fraction of the funding that their own adviser told them kids need to catch up on the education they missed during the pandemic. We cannot level up the country by denying children the chance to learn. If kids do not have the foundation of a good education to build on, their life chances are stunted right from the start. No parent can accept that.
Older people are suffering, too. The Prime Minister ignored the social care crisis for two years, then introduced a punitive tax on jobs that will provide next to nothing for social care for at least three years. By relying on council tax rises to plug some of the gap, the Government create further divides, because council tax raises more money in richer areas than in poorer areas, creating a postcode lottery on care.
With all these new Tory taxes, the Resolution Foundation tells us that families will end up paying £3,000 more tax a year by the middle of this decade than when the Prime Minister took office. Families’ disposable incomes will be lower and the public services on which they rely will be cut harder, while a landlord with a portfolio of properties, a shareholder or a banker will pay nothing more. We cannot level up the country by clobbering hard-working families while letting the rich get away without paying their fair share.
Communities are a vital building block of our country. They give us a sense of belonging. They are a rich network of relationships, associations and shared values, but the Conservatives have spent 11 years undermining them. We have already lost 10,000 shops, 6,000 pubs, 1,200 libraries, 800 youth centres and a similar number of Sure Start centres under this Government, and they are now refusing to protect our high streets by levelling the playing field on tax between independent high street shops and the online giants, which pay far less. Because the costs of social care outstrip any increase in council funding, not least because of rising demand, communities now face yet more cuts to youth services, mental health services, street cleaning, bin collections, park maintenance, social housing and the voluntary sector. We cannot level up communities if we strip out the fabric that binds them together.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is brilliant then that the Conservative-run Lancashire County Council has reopened all of the libraries that the Labour Administration closed and is continuing to invest in our libraries?
Steve Reed
I hope the Conservative council will also be opening all the Sure Start centres that were closed because of the actions of the Government.
The truth is that if we look at what the Government are doing with the towns fund, for instance, which is something that Conservative Members like to talk about, we can see that it operates in the same way as a burglar, who first strips a house bare and then expects gratitude for returning the toaster. Blackpool, Darlington and Hartlepool are all getting back barely a quarter of the funding that the Conservatives took away in the first place, but Conservative MPs have nothing whatever to say about the way that their communities have been stripped bare by this Government.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for 10 minutes and I am yet to hear anything about what the Labour party would do if it were in Government and we were not. What would the hon. Gentleman cut that we are not cutting and what would he invest in that we are not investing in?
Steve Reed
I am looking forward to telling the hon. Gentleman that later on in my speech if he could just restrain his enthusiasm for one moment.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman refers to the towns fund. He will obviously celebrate the fact that Kidsgrove got £17.6 million. That means that £2.75 million can go towards refurbishing the sports centre for when it reopens in spring 2022. That sports centre had been closed by the then Labour-run borough council because it did not want to spend a single pound on it.
Steve Reed
I am delighted that areas are getting back some of the money that the Conservative Government took away from them in the first place, but perhaps if Conservative MPs had held the Government to account a little bit harder over the past 11 years, that money would not have been stripped away from these communities in the first place.
Let us look at other pots of money that the Government are so happy to keep announcing and re-announcing. Local groups have still not been told whether they will get funding through the community renewal fund. Mid-project reviews are supposed to start this month, but many of those projects have not even started yet. Government delays mean that the jobs and investment linked to those projects are now at risk of collapse. The Secretary of State had told us in his usual courteous manner that there would be an announcement last week, but, sadly, we are still waiting. If possible, we would like to know what on earth is going on.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I heard nothing whatever in the Budget about the increase in the use of food banks across this nation. In my own constituency, food bank use has trebled in recent years.
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the things that the Government have done over the last 11 years is dramatically increase levels of poverty across the country. They have not been levelling the country up at all, and now they are trying to cover up their track record since they came into Government back in 2010.
To make the situation worse, the Government’s plans to change the local government funding formula—what they call, in an Orwellian way, “the fair funding formula”—will divide communities even further. Analysis by the Local Government Association found that millions of pounds would be redirected away from poorer towns in the north of England to wealthier southern shires, and that 37 of the Conservative MPs newly elected in 2019 would see millions of pounds cut from their towns, including Workington, Sedgefield, Stoke-on-Trent, Redcar, West Bromwich, Bishop Auckland, Grimsby and Leigh. That is not levelling up Britain; it is pulling Britain apart.
Whether it is work, families or communities, this Conservative Government have made our country more unequal. They have ushered in an age of insecurity, where public services have been decimated, wages have fallen in real terms, jobs are more precarious than ever before, our high streets are struggling to survive, and British people are forced to pay the highest housing costs in Europe for some of the worst quality housing. These levels of inequality are not just morally wrong; they make our country weaker. We all pay the price of inequality, with higher levels of crime, family breakdown and mental ill health, and we pay the price a second time by denying people the opportunity to reach their full potential for themselves, their families and their communities. Levelling up must mean opening up opportunity, not closing it down in the way that this Government have done for the last 11 years.
The Secretary of State will find that he cannot fix regional inequalities because the biggest obstacle in his way is his own party’s marriage to an economic model that is based on crony contracts and waste, and that starves whole regions of capital investment. We need new institutions in our regions—such as regional banks to direct investment where it is needed most—if we want the economy to work in the interests of working people in every part of the country.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting debating points, but will he share with the House his view why, despite this bad news that he has shared with us, the Conservatives remain overwhelmingly the largest party in local government and made significant gains in the recent local elections, especially in areas that traditionally favoured the Labour party?
Steve Reed
Given the Government’s announcement of their intentions to level up the country, the interesting thing will be whether those people feel that they have been levelled up at the next general election and the next set of local elections. That is the only test of what this Government are announcing that will really matter.
The Conservatives have broken the link between work and reward with a decade of stagnant wages and a tax raid on working people; they have undermined families by pushing half a million more children into poverty and refusing to invest properly in kids’ catch-up; they have ripped the fabric out of our communities instead of harnessing the innovation, creativity and compassion that they have to offer; and they have weakened our country with an economic model that has deepened the divides between regions and within communities. That is the polar opposite of levelling up.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech and I am really interested in what he has to say, but I cannot determine from what he has said so far whether he thinks that the Government are spending too much or too little. Perhaps he could be clear with the House and let us know.
Steve Reed
What the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West, said—and I agree—was, wouldn’t it be nice if the Government asked everyone to bear their fair share of the tax burden, rather than, as this Government do, always going first and foremost to working families and clobbering them, but letting people who own assets, such as bankers and landlords, off the hook, absolutely scot-free? That is not fair. We want to see fair models of taxation.
What we need to do now is to remake our politics by tackling the power inequalities that allowed all this to happen in the first place. Labour would open up power across the country with a radical model of devolution that gets power out of Whitehall. We would give people a voice and the power to use it in the workplace, in their community and over the public services that they use. Instead of undermining work, we will respect the hard work and sacrifice that people make for their families, re-establish the link between hard work and fair pay, and invest fairly across the whole country. We will establish clear measures for levelling up to hold the Government to account for what they do or do not deliver.
This Budget is not about levelling up; it is about covering up the damage that the Government have done in the past 11 years. By deepening the divides across this country, the Government have closed down opportunity and made Britain weaker. Only Labour will bring Britain together, so that every British person, wherever they live, can reach their true potential—for themselves, their family, their community, and this country that we love.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
In all my time in the House of Commons, I do not think I have heard a Labour response to the Budget that has left me, as this one does, not knowing what Labour would do, in the nightmare scenario of its coming into office. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), I am not sure whether Labour Members think we are taxing and spending too much or too little. It is an utterly economically incompetent way to approach opposition.
Since the era of Gordon Brown, we have got used to wanting to go through the Red Book to find out what we were not told, particularly on the public finances, in the Budget speech. The increases in national insurance and corporation tax will take them to 36.5% of Britain’s GDP—the highest proportion in 70 years. That undermines the tax-cutting agenda that we Conservatives have had for such a long time when in office.
I am pleased that public spending as a proportion of GDP will fall from the 51.3% that it was as a result of the pandemic. We all accept that we had to spend money in that national emergency. Had the Chancellor not taken brave and decisive measures, the impact on unemployment, and therefore the public finances, could have been substantially worse. What really disturbs me about the Budget figures, however, is that from 2024-25, public spending will stabilise at 41.6% of GDP, and that is the highest sustained level since the 1970s, when we were carrying a substantial defence burden because of the cold war. We see a shift to a bigger state, and to a bigger proportion of our spending being taken up by welfare.
I do not normally learn very much from “Newsnight”, but I was interested to find out from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, when he was on it, that the Conservatives have changed our philosophy on economic management. I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that although some in the Government may take a more social democratic approach to economic management, I certainly did not come to Parliament, as a Conservative, to see the state grow at the expense of the private sector. We need to remember what gave Britain its substantial economic strength.
However, when it comes to the economy, it is not the Budget that will affect the political weather, but inflation. In all my years in the House of Commons, and before then, politicians have been too slow to recognise the threat that inflation poses to the economy. They always want to believe that the present high level is the peak, and that they will not have to apply too much unpleasant medicine. Inflation, as we all know, is like a genie: once it is out of the bottle, it is very hard to put it back in. Let us remember the economic and social cost of inflation. It hits the poorest hardest, because a higher proportion of their income goes on non-discretionary spending—on clothes and food, for example. That is why the left’s approach to economic management, which always ends up in higher inflation, always undermines the very people it claims to represent.
Inflation also hits those with no assets. If there is the sort of inflation that there was in the past, including house price inflation, it will put getting on the housing ladder even further beyond the reach of young people. When I bought my first flat in 1988, the interest rate was 10.38%. By October the next year, it had risen to 14.88%, and the payments took almost my entire income as a junior doctor. I do not want another generation to go through the horror of inflation. People have become used to low inflation and interest rates in this country, and I do not think that the public understand exactly what the cost would be—the effect on the living standard of ordinary families—if inflation was allowed to get going.
I understand that there is a difficult choice for the Chancellor. Is inflation a short-term impact of the pandemic and of the disruption to supply chains; a system problem, too much money having been pumped into the global economy through quantitative easing for too long; or a mixture of both, which of course would be the most difficult option to deal with? The Bank of England should set a small, quick increase in interest rates—a 0.25% rise—to show that we are neither panicking nor complacent about inflation. The longer we wait to take action, the further behind the curve we get, and the greater the measures that we have to take.
A final point: let us remember the impact of inflation on our public finances. A 1% base rate adds £20.1 billion to the Government’s debt repayment. That is real money that could be spent elsewhere. A 2% base rate makes for over £70 billion in Government debt repayment; that is more than twice our Defence budget. That is the reality of where inflation can lead if we do not do something about it quickly.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a privilege, as always, to lead on behalf of Scotland’s national party in this or any other debate.
Anyone watching today’s proceedings or any of the proceedings on the Budget who thinks this was a sensible way to take decisions about billions upon billions of pounds of public money really needs to get out and look at what happens in proper Parliaments in proper democracies where those Parliaments are given a chance to scrutinise budgets for weeks, if not months, and where Opposition parties are invited to put in their proposals and sometimes get them accepted by the Government of the day. Several Conservative Members have demanded to know what Labour would do if this was its Budget, knowing perfectly well that it would not matter how brilliant an idea came from the Labour Benches, or any other Opposition Benches, it would not have a cat in hell’s chance of getting into the Budget, because the single criterion that matters most for the way that a suggestion is taken in this place is not how good it is but what side of the House it has come from. It is no wonder that this place is in such a mess.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Can the hon. Gentleman explain how he believes the Scottish Budget will take place this year now that his party has gone into a coalition of chaos with the Scottish Greens? Will there be a similar adoption of ideas from the Opposition parties in Scotland?
Peter Grant
During the previous time that there was a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament, that majority Government did in fact open their door to discussions with the other parties, and the hon. Gentleman’s party was quite happy to take advantage of that. He may remember, in fact, that it was an initial suggestion from his party that led to the Scottish Government introducing and maintaining to this day a record of 1,000 additional police officers compared with the maximum number that ever existed in Scotland under the previous Lib Dem-Labour coalition.
This will be seen as the year the Tories finally ditched any pretext that Budget day has anything to do with the public finances, helping the economic recovery or sustainable growth. Budget day has become purely and simply a propaganda exercise for the Government, and particularly for the Chancellor. That is what the days and days of utterly inexcusable leaks were about—leaks that until 10 years ago would have meant automatic dismissal or resignation for the Chancellor. The Chancellor seems to measure its success not by how effectively it closes the gap between rich and poor, because it does not, or by whether it delivers on any of his party’s manifesto promises—that is on the off chance that anybody can find any that havenae been broken—but on how many favourable headlines he gets in the right-wing press. It is almost as if the Chancellor has worked out how important the right-wing press is going to be in choosing the next Tory leader in a year or two’s time when the present incumbent gets fed up with being Prime Minister and goes off to do something different.
This Government have a track record of spending millions of pounds on pushing soundbite slogans that are utterly meaningless. [Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) if he has got—[Interruption.] Okay, if he does not want to intervene he can keep his mouth shut. In 2015, George Osborne gave us a “long-term economic plan” that changed, on average, every three months until he resigned. In 2017, we had “strong and stable”, leaving Britain weaker and less stable than it has ever been in peacetime. In 2019, we had “get Brexit done”, which meant we all got done over by Brexit, and in 2019 also we had an “oven-ready deal” that left most of us feeling that we had been stuffed like Christmas turkeys. This month’s catchphrase is “levelling up”. Looking at the detail of this “levelling up” Budget, it is like claiming that you have levelled out the potholes on the road by digging a massive great hole somewhere else in the road to supply the rubble to fill in the original potholes. It is about filling in holes left behind elsewhere in our economy and in our public services by 11-and-a-half years of a failed Tory Government trying unsuccessfully to maintain a failed British state.
The Government want us to believe that they are making things better for some people without making them worse for anybody else. Some people will get a bigger piece of pie, but nobody will have to make do with a wee-er piece of pie. You cannae do that unless the pie is getting bigger, but the fact is that the pie is still much, much smaller than it was when the Tories came to power.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies said in response to the Budget:
“For most departments, the budget increases announced today will be welcome, but not enough to reverse the cuts of the 2010s.”
If the best the Tories can say about this Budget is that, with a following wind and a wee bit of luck, they might just be about be able to remediate most of the damaging cuts they have inflicted on us during their term of office, that does not strike me as a cause for celebration. That is why they will not see a great deal of positive responses to the Budget from those on this side of the House.
Andrew Bowie
I understand and respect that we have political differences on our respective sides of the House, but surely the hon. Gentleman can join us in welcoming the fact that this Budget delivers the largest ever block grant to the Scottish Government in history since the Scottish Parliament was created. Perhaps he can expand on how he will be pressing the Scottish Government to spend that extra funding that we have delivered from the UK Government to Edinburgh.
Peter Grant
The sad thing is that no matter how much anyone in this House presses the Scottish Government on their decisions, a record amount of that money coming back to Scotland has already been decided not by the elected Members of the Scottish Parliament, but by Members of the UK Parliament who could not get elected in Scotland. Record amounts of that money come with strings attached and conditions attached that tell the Scottish Government how they have to spend our money.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question about the amount, if he looks carefully, he will see that, yes, there are welcome increases for capital spend, but the day-to-day service provision budgets of the Scottish Government will continue to be under intense pressure. While we welcome the increase in capital spend, the Departments of the Scottish Government—just like the Departments of this Government and the departments of local authorities the length and breadth of England and Wales—will find that the resources to meet the ever-growing demand on their day-to-day services will be as tightly pressed as ever.
While the Government will try to pull the wool over our eyes and say, “It is all covid’s fault”, we cannot and will not let them forget that the British Government’s management of the economy during covid has been among the worst of the world’s major economies. The International Monetary Fund has predicted that the long-term economic damage from covid in the UK will be worse than in the other G7 economies. Even that does not tell the whole story, because while the Secretary of State rejoiced in the fact that we hope the long-term economic damage of covid will be restricted to 2%, he forgot to tell us that Brexit is twice as bad as that. I wonder why he forgot to mention that the long-term, self-inflicted damage of Brexit is likely to be twice as bad as the long-term damage of covid.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
In talking about the self-inflicted damage from this British Government, whom people in Scotland have not voted for by majority since 1955, does my hon. Friend accept that when Government Members talk about how kind the UK Government have been in giving money to the Scottish Parliament, more often than not the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are having to use their resources to mitigate bad decisions that come from this place, such as the cut to the universal credit, which renders the Scottish child payment, described by charities as a “game-changing” child payment, as utterly useless?
Peter Grant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Giving spending powers and in some cases tax-raising powers to the devolved Parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was never supposed to be a way of making up for the cuts to those same budgets coming through from Westminster, but all too often that has been happening.
To return to the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, his response to the Budget was:
“This is actually awful. Yet more years of real incomes barely growing. High inflation, rising taxes, poor growth.”
How can anyone think that is something to celebrate? The IFS also said that someone on median earnings might see their pre-tax pay just about keep ahead of inflation, but after paying the higher income tax that the Government are imposing, plus the higher national insurance tax, that median earner will be worse off in real terms. An analysis published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that many of the worst off—people on universal credit who do not have a job—will be poorer as a result of this Budget. Even the reduction in the universal credit taper, welcome as it is, does not make as much difference as the Tories are claiming. For 40% of universal credit claimants in Scotland it will make no difference at all, because they have not got a job. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North thinks it is funny that many people will not benefit from the Budget. I do not see what he finds funny at all. While 40% of universal credit claimants in Scotland will get no benefit at all from the changes to the taper, 100% of his constituents on universal credit will be £1,000 a year worse off. I look forward to him defending that to his constituents—I would not try to defend it to mine.
All of that prompts a question: if people on average earnings will be worse off, and if the worst off—the lowest earners in our society—will be worse off, who really benefits from the Budget? The Chancellor’s banker buddies will benefit, thank you very much. Many of them will be raising a glass to toast a 5% cut in the corporation tax they pay, while the customers who pay their wages—individuals and small businesses alike—will struggle to cope with increased taxes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) alluded to last week, the Manchester Uniteds of this world who think it clever to take a 10-minute flight to go to a football match will gain, and the champagne quaffers in the members’ enclosure at Ascot will have something to cheer, but very few of my constituents will have anything to cheer at all.
I welcome the news that alcohol excise duties are to be reviewed at last, but let us see the result of the review before we welcome it unconditionally. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, it cannot be right that the duty on a glass of whisky is 16% higher than the duty on a glass of wine that contains exactly the same amount of alcohol. I make no apology for reminding the House that, over the summer, all those people in the enclosures at Ascot, Henley or wherever almost certainly enjoyed the product of the skilled workforce of the Cameronbridge distillery in my constituency. It is the biggest grain distillery in the whole of Europe, and it swells the Treasury’s coffers to the tune of about £3.6 billion a year in excise duties alone. That is £3.6 billion a year from one manufacturing establishment in my constituency. The fact that for decades many people in the towns of Methil, Buckhaven, Methilhill and others have been living on or below the breadline close to a distillery that generates such massive wealth for the coffers down here in Westminster is testimony to the failure of successive British Governments to put the wellbeing of the people front and centre of their taxation and spending plans.
If the Chancellor is genuinely concerned about improving living standards for people on low incomes, he should start by reversing some of the savage cuts that he has made and reinstating the election manifesto promises that he has broken. He should reinstate the pensions triple lock, reverse the £20-a-week cut to universal credit, reverse the hike in national insurance that penalises small businesses for each and every new job they create, and scrap the two-child limit and vile rape clause. If he really believes in a guaranteed living wage for all, let us hear him—or, at least, the Minister in summing up—commit to increasing the legal minimum wage later this month and every November to match the real living wage, measured not by how much the Government are willing to ask employers to pay but by how much independent analysis shows human beings in these islands need to live on.
The Secretary of State asked what we might do as alternatives. If the Chancellor is looking for ways to save money, he could look at the gross inefficiency in the Government’s own Departments. Recent National Audit Office reports show that eye-watering sums of money have been wasted in delays and inefficiency. In the Ministry of Defence, nuclear infrastructure, Crossrail, High Speed 2 and the national criminal intelligence database, hundreds of millions of pounds—billions of pounds—are being thrown away through waste and inefficiency. He should get a grip on that; then we could improve services without necessarily having to increase taxes.
If we want to see where we could stop spending money, we could start by scrapping the programme of new nuclear power stations that are designed to rig the system in favour of nuclear energy that, when it finally comes on stream, will cost more than twice as much as offshore wind power. Sooner or later, our constituents will be forced to pay that price increase. We should scrap the monstrous white elephant that is the nuclear weapons programme: a programme whose only purpose is to commit the worst crime in the history of the planet. The Government should ditch plans to spend a quarter of a billion pounds on a new royal yacht Britannia, although, given whose ego it is clearly designed to satisfy, perhaps we should rename it the good ship Borisannia.
This is a Budget that has been imposed on Scotland by a Government we did not elect and who will never have the consent of our people to rule over us. It is partly the result of a covid pandemic, which could perhaps have been predicted, but was not. We all have to live with the consequences of that. It is largely the result of a Brexit that our people did not vote for.
The Budget seeks to level down Scotland’s status to something approaching that of a forgotten English county. I want Scotland to be levelled up. I want Scotland’s status to be levelled up to that of an equal partner of our friends in Europe and elsewhere.
The Chancellor claimed that his Budget would strengthen the Union, but what he has done is increase the pace of Scotland’s journey to a true levelling up, and bring forward the day when the sovereign people of Scotland reassert our inalienable right of self-determination, the day when our place in the world is levelled up to match that of the other prosperous, outward-looking, inclusive, democratic and independent nations. If Conservative Members think that it is not coming, why have the Government given a 20% budget increase to the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose only purpose is to peddle the myths—[Interruption.] Why do they need to spend 17.5% to 20% more on a Department, the only purpose of which is to campaign for a no vote in a referendum that they say is not coming, but that we say is coming very soon?
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I want to refer to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), my parliamentary neighbour, on the level of tax because, at the end of the Chancellor’s speech, there was an extremely welcome departure, in a genuine tax cut, from the fears that my right hon. Friend expressed. It came in the form of a reduction in the universal credit taper rate, but that is effectively a tax cut. It is particularly welcome because it is targeted, laser like, on the least well-off and the lowest paid. That is genuinely a levelling-up measure because it means that the lowest paid can retain more of their earnings. It is a cut of not just 1% or 2%; the rate has been cut right down by 8% to 55%. It is a huge levelling-up measure and extremely welcome to any red-blooded, tax-cutting Conservative.
Such a measure has an impact not just on tax cutting and levelling up, but on work incentives. One of the people I admire most in the Conservative party’s long and illustrious history is Nigel Lawson. When he cut top rates of tax from somewhere around 90%, as bequeathed to us by the Labour party, to 40% or 45%, he said that there was a point about work incentives, and that we could not expect people to work their socks off, only to have the Government swipe it all because the Government believe that they can spend the money better. He was right.
Of course, if that is right for the best paid, the high earners, the most well-off, it must also be right for the least well-off. Therefore, the tax cut that I am describing—the reduction in the taper rate for universal credit—is particularly welcome because of its effect on the work incentives of the least well-off in our country. That is often glossed over, but is essential for us all to remember.
That is also fairer. As a result of the Budget measures, our system is a great deal fairer than it was. The Government have effectively reduced taxation on the least well-off from 63% to 55%, but we can—I hope we will in future—go further. If we look at the effects of other taxes, which have been in place for many years, we see that taxes on earned income are roughly between 20% and 45%, but on dividends, they are between 7% and 38%—lower than the taxes on earned income. On capital gains, taxes run between 10% and 20%, again lower than on earned income. Taxes on property gains run between 18% and 28%, once again lower than on earned income. As a result, I believe that this is a vital step in what I hope will be the beginning of a long journey towards a Nigel Lawson-esque tax system that says, “It should not matter whether you are getting money from your earnings, from unearned income or from benefits; they should all be treated the same as income.” This is a proud Conservative idea, the principle first enunciated by Nigel Lawson. This is something that we own, and we should be fearless in putting it across.
Liam Byrne
I want to clarify that point, because it is potentially quite significant. The characteristic of a Lawson-esque tax system is, of course, that capital is taxed at the same rate as income. Is that what the hon. Gentleman is advocating?
John Penrose
I am indeed advocating that all income should be taxed equally. It is a Lawson-esque idea; the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The reason why it is so essential, and why Nigel Lawson had this right, is that the whole point of it is that it creates work incentives for everybody, because they know they are going to be treated fairly. It also means that we have a system that has legitimacy, because it does not matter who has the best lobbyists or the best campaigners; everybody knows we have a nice, simple, flat, straightforward tax system, and everybody knows where they stand. Nigel Lawson was right about this.
I hope that the Chancellor’s Budget speech last week was the first step in what I think will be a long and difficult but ultimately incredibly worthwhile journey in that respect. I hope that this is the beginning of something important, something exciting, and something that is ultimately fairer and more just but also economically far more literate, because it creates a situation where it always pays to work, it always pays to save and it always pays for people to try to get themselves out of benefits by taking extra hours if they possibly can. It creates a situation where those work incentives are always there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I just point out that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) was a shining example of keeping to the five minutes while taking an intervention. There is absolutely no problem with interventions as long as we keep to the five minutes, in which case we might be able to get everybody in.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
The Budget is the most anticipated fiscal event in our calendar. The Chancellor has limited opportunities to make his mark, so his Budget choices are not just pivotal for the economy and for living standards, but they inform our assessment of his strategy, our trust in his judgment and our verdict on his competence. Last week’s tragedy was that there was no strategy. The Chancellor squandered the opportunity to tackle the challenges Britain faces.
In all my years, I have never heard such an incoherent and botched statement. It was a Budget that ignored economics and focused on politics, proclaimed a moral mission for small government and delivered the biggest public spending programme since the 1980s, ignored the impact of Brexit, encouraged air travel rather than leading us to net zero, and prioritised cheap champagne over affordable childcare.
Our Alice-through-the-looking-glass Chancellor described his plan as heralding
“a new age of optimism,”—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 274.]
but the reality for exhausted working families emerging from lockdown is quite different, with prices rising and inflation spiralling, taxes climbing to their highest level since the 1950s, wage growth stagnating and at its weakest since the 1930s, and the Government’s record on economic growth just dire. Labour in government maintained annual growth rates of 2.3%. This Government are averaging 1.8%, with the OBR predicting a pitiful 1.3% in 2024, the supposed year of the next election.
A long-term vision for growth should be at the heart of the Chancellor’s plans, supporting businesses to invest, providing money for education and focusing on research, but he prioritised none of those. Instead, there was a mere 2% rise in the education budget, while the prison budget increases by 4%. There was a hefty £3 billion cut to drink duties but a miserable £300 million investment in the crucial early years in a child’s life. Labour spent £1.8 billion on Sure Start in 2009—that is £2.6 billion in today’s money—yet this Government commit a pathetic £300 million to the early years, with £82 million supporting an untested pet project of who? Another Tory donor. We know from evidence that Sure Start worked, but it has been systematically decimated since 2010.
The Chancellor has reneged further on his commitment to research and cut £2 billion from the promised increase. Instead, he talked up the discredited R&D tax credit scheme. I know from the Public Accounts Committee that, in the decade to 2015, Government expenditure on R&D tax credits increased tenfold, while company investment in R&D stayed about the same. Now the Chancellor will pour more money into those wasteful tax credits while tax-avoiding corporations such as Amazon are laughing all the way to the bank.
The political choices that the Chancellor made last week prove beyond question that he and the Prime Minister are the same old Tories. They are creating further inequality in our already unequal society, punishing the weakest and rewarding those with the broadest shoulders. Only a Conservative Government would slash universal credit for the poorest by £4 billion while, in the same breath, giving bankers a £4 billion tax cut. Only a Conservative Government would use hikes in regressive taxes, such as council tax and national insurance, to fund health and social care. Only a Conservative Government would leave capital gains and dividends taxed at a lower rate than income tax. While public expenditure has rocketed to an all-time high, public waste has gone stratospheric, with £37 billion squandered on a Test and Trace fiasco that was more about providing jobs for chums and cash for consultants than fighting the pandemic.
This Budget and spending review represent an appalling opportunity missed. The Chancellor has failed to take advantage of the stronger than expected bounce back and better than expected tax receipts. We should have seen serious investment in education, capital and research. Instead, the Chancellor peppered his statement with a series of crude political gimmicks, from a Beatles museum in Liverpool to more British-registered ships on the high seas. The shine has come off this Chancellor—a failed Budget by a failing politician. Britain deserves better.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
This is the first time that I have spoken from the Back Benches in a while and the first time that I have spoken at all in this place since the reshuffle, so I have a new perspective on the Dispatch Box: it is rhetorically the easiest place to speak from in this place, but intellectually and emotionally, it is so much the hardest. I hope that it is not too glib to recognise the responsibility that Ministers bear and to say thank you, and I hope that my gratitude makes up for now pestering them so frequently and shamelessly in the voting Lobby.
The second hardest place to speak from is the Government Back Benches, because we do not have the luxury of standing up and making empty speeches and claiming that everything would be better if a different party were in power. I hope that the three things that I have to say about the Budget are heard in the constructive spirit in which they are meant.
First, it is right, as the Chancellor said, that the Conservative plan is working: unemployment is down, employment is up, growth is up, wages are up, and we are tackling the tax on work that is the taper rate and addressing the cost of living by scrapping fuel duty rises. Those are all great things, but perhaps most importantly, the Chancellor has levelled with people. I believe, in both hope and expectation, that he and the Prime Minister are low-tax Conservatives. In an age when political rhetoric has too often been a way to veil talking about the hardest choices we have to make, the Chancellor has more than justified today’s tax rates while spelling out the path to lower ones in the future.
We say glibly sometimes that to govern is to choose, but these are life-and-death decisions, and I praise the Chancellor’s honesty in saying why taxes are where they are now and laying out a path for where he wants them to fall. If I could choose three values for my kind of Conservatism, they would be: honesty with voters on the impact of policies, a social desire to live and let live; and, of course, the low taxes that come with as small a state as possible. So I support that fiscal approach.
Secondly, I want to talk about levelling up. I would like to see even more money going into research and development, but I thoroughly welcome the huge investment that is already there, particularly in infrastructure. The most consequential impact from levelling up will come from digital infrastructure—from broadband, 4G and 5G. We have just hit the figure of half the country having access to gigabit-capable connections, up from just 9% when the Prime Minister took over.
Andrew Bowie
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and to everything that he did to improve the digital infrastructure across the United Kingdom. When does he expect more than half this country to have gigabit fast broadband?
Matt Warman
I had a little to do with it, but the truth is that it was the private sector that delivered that growth, and it is the private sector that will get us to about two thirds by the end of this year. Much of that growth is in Scotland; I know that my hon. Friend will take a particular interest in it.
Digital infrastructure, more than any one road or any one railway line, has a huge impact. I will never forget a teacher in Northern Ireland telling me that she had to teach at the pace of the slowest broadband in her class. If we cannot have equality of access to everything from YouTube to the rest of the internet, teachers cannot teach equally; that is what levelling up means.
My third point is about the speed of Government and public services. Ordinarily, tax changes take a while to come in, but the taper rate change in particular is coming much faster. In part, that reflects its urgency, but it also speaks to some broader issues. Whatever we think about its tax bill, Amazon is the pace of life at which many of our constituents now live: deliveries come the following day and supermarket slots are booked for an hour.
Government has to be deliberative—of course it does—but in the pandemic we showed that we can act with real agility. Our democratic pace is sometimes out of step with the pace that our constituents want, so I welcome the huge investment in further digitising the NHS so that digitally booking an appointment might feel a little more like booking for groceries. That does not mean that the availability of appointments has to be identical, but the ease of booking them and the way in which the Government interact with the citizen have to improve.
It has been easy to make those constructive criticisms, because I do not have to implement them, but Ministers do; Back-Bench MPs of the governing party are on the hook for delivering them, too. This has been a Budget that gets things done: it will fund better roads in my constituency, whether that is through the levelling-up fund or through the towns fund, and it will tackle the climate emergency as we find the path back to 0.7% and invest in some of the countries most affected by climate change. I look forward to the promise of lower taxes stimulating growth and helping around the world
What we say in this place matters. Budget debates, perhaps even more than Opposition day debates, often degenerate into Members on one side saying that everything is terrible and Members on the other saying that everything is perfect. Voters understand the immensely difficult choices that the Government face; I think perhaps we could sometimes level up the standard of debate in this place by acknowledging that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The Budget proved one thing about this Conservative Government: they are totally out of touch. They are out of touch with the cost-of-living crisis: despite people struggling with rising heating, food and mortgage bills, the Conservatives’ response is to raise their taxes. They are out of touch with the crisis facing our children: despite the dramatic loss of learning, thanks to covid, the Conservatives plan to spend less than a third of what their own catch-up expert recommended. They are totally out of touch when it comes to climate change: despite the Budget taking place on the eve of the most important set of climate talks ever, the Chancellor had literally nothing to offer on positive action for the climate. Instead, he offered tax cuts for people using fossil fuels, not least on short-haul flights.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It was such a missed opportunity and such an own goal. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there were other things that the Government could have done, such as the electrification of east-west rail, which would have affected my constituency? That would have shown that the Government were serious about decarbonisation, but what they did was encourage people to fly when they should not be flying.
Ed Davey
My hon. Friend is a real campaigner when it comes to the environment and climate change, and she is absolutely right. I make a prediction to her: this continuing concerted love-in with fossil fuels will be seen by our children as criminally negligent.
Let me be crystal clear about the Glasgow COP. Having led the UK delegation to three past COPs—in Doha, Warsaw and Lima—when I was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and having prepared the UK’s negotiating position ahead of Paris, I desperately hope that Glasgow succeeds. But when I see the Government’s gross diplomatic mistakes ahead of COP26, and when I hear a Budget speech that does not even mention climate change, I fear for the outcome of Glasgow, and I am angry with this Government.
I regret to say that, as I watched the Prime Minister pose in Rome’s Colosseum, he reminded me less of Emperor Augustus than of Emperor Nero. He talks about ending coal use across the globe, while refusing to stop a new coal mine being opened in Cumbria. He asks world leaders for the political will to act on climate change, while allowing new drilling—new drilling!—for oil on land in Surrey and offshore in Scotland. With the Secretary of State for Levelling Up refusing to use the planning power that he has for climate action, I fear that the only levels that will go up under his leadership are the sea levels.
I have to say to the Secretary of State that I am proud to be the Minister who passed the regulation that did more to stop fracking under this Government and I am proud that I passed it under his own nose in the Cabinet. He was one of the people urging me to go on to fracking but, because I fooled him, I managed to make renewable energy the watchword of the Liberal Democrats in power. We nearly quadrupled renewable energy. We made Britain the world leader in offshore wind power, despite opposition from the Conservatives. I am so proud that it is the Liberal Democrats who were responsible for cutting coal use in this country more than any other party.
By failing to take tough action on fossil fuels, the Government have missed an opportunity to help people who are struggling with heating bills, and to help Britain’s industries which are struggling with high energy costs. Here is what the Liberal Democrats would have done. We would have brought in a one-year windfall tax, on the gas producers making an absolute killing with the rise in global gas prices. We would have used that windfall and shared it with Britain’s fuel-poor and with Britain’s struggling energy-intensive industries. We would have used the cash from our fossil fuel windfall tax to target help on low-income households having to choose between heating and eating. For this, we would have more than doubled the warm home discount, and doubled the number of people who benefit from it.
Ed Davey
In a second.
We would have matched that immediate help with heating bills with a massive programme of home insulation, where this Government have so spectacularly failed. As I give way to the Secretary of State, I hope that he will say what investment there is under this Government for people to insulate their homes. The answer, by the way, is none.
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman boasted that he had deceived members of the Cabinet, raising questions, inevitably, about the reliability of any Liberal Democrat promise. In 2013, he said this:
“Shale gas represents a promising new potential energy resource for the UK. It could contribute significantly to our energy security, reducing our reliance on imported gas, as we move to a low carbon economy.
My decision is based on the evidence. It comes after detailed study of the latest scientific research available and advice from leading experts in the field.”
He also said that the US’s economy had benefited greatly from fracking, and that was why we could benefit here. Which of those words does he now enjoy eating?
Ed Davey
The Secretary of State is known very well for his debating skills, but he is also known for his political skills. My political skills were shown in my ensuring that his Ministers, and he, believed that we were taking real action on fracking when I was passing the regulation that did more to stop fracking—let him hear this. We did more to stop fracking than any other group of politicians. I am really proud that the Liberal Democrats did more on renewable energy—
Michael Gove
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The record must show that fracking was banned in the UK, but that it was the right hon. Gentleman who removed that ban because he was confident that the procedure would be safe from now on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I think I am supposed to respond to a point of order. That was not really a point of order, however; it was a matter of continued debate.
Ed Davey
I am very happy to debate fracking, and my record and the Government’s record on it. Thanks to the tough environmental regulation that we passed, particularly the seismicity regulation, we in the Liberal Democrats did more to stop fracking. I had Conservative Ministers shouting their case, day in and day out, saying that I should go faster, but I slowed it down and it is not happening. The record will show not only that there is no fracking industry in the UK but that there is a massive renewables industry, and that is thanks to the Liberal Democrats.
As we debate the need to level up—[Interruption.]
Ed Davey
Conservative Members do not like it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but they are going to have to learn to live with it.
As we debate the need to level up, anyone would have thought that the Government would want to save jobs in our energy-intensive industries, most of which are big employers outside London and the south-east. But no; there was no help at all in the Budget for the energy-intensive industries. The Government could have used money from a windfall tax on gas producers, as we would have done, to help those industries to decarbonise and to invest in the technologies of the future. This is yet another missed opportunity on climate change from the Conservatives. We can have a greener and fairer society, investing in climate action and helping the fuel poor, but we will not get it with this Conservative Chancellor and this Conservative Government.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
That last speech demonstrates what I have always believed: the Liberal Democrats will say one thing to one person and completely the opposite to other people.
I welcome the measures in the Chancellor’s Budget that pertained to local government spending, including the additional funding of £1.6 billion a year for adult social care. The reality is that most of the people who work in adult social care are on the lowest possible wages, so the increase in wages that they will receive and the opportunity to earn more money are good news, and I am glad that the Government are funding this appropriately. However, it is important for the Government to spell out the full detail of how adult social care will be funded not just for this year but for the years ahead. That is vital.
We know that as a result of the pandemic, an estimated 300,000 people who are renting privately are in serious arrears and at risk of losing their homes. The key here is the funding programme for housing, and particularly the affordable housing programme. I am delighted that we will see 1 million new homes created. I hope that it will be 1 million new houses, instead of multi-storey high-density flats that are unacceptable for people with families to live in. I also want to see the Government build 100,000 new homes for social rent, so that people can afford their rent rather than having to rely on benefits. The corollary of that is that we should reboot the right to buy, so that when people move into those homes, they are given the opportunity to buy them at the price that applies on the day they move in, however long it takes them to be able to afford to buy their own home.
The Government are to be commended for their work on combating rough sleeping. The Everyone In programme was a remarkable achievement, but we must ensure that we build on that and end rough sleeping for good by 2024. After all, that is the Government’s commitment. As I have said, Housing First needs to be funded and rolled out right across the UK. The reality is that every case of homelessness is unique, and everyone will need particular help and guidance. Some people just need a pointer in the right direction; others need a network of help and support to rebuild their lives.
I also welcome the confirmation of the £5 billion for replacing unsafe cladding. However, I remind Ministers that there was a promise not only of the £5 billion but of the details of the forced loan scheme for those people in low-rise blocks. We have still had no answer from the Chancellor as to how that funding will be made, the conditions that will be imposed or the mechanism by which it will take place. While the funding is welcome, and so is the tax on developers, it will not raise sufficient money to combat the amount of money that is having to be paid out. Equally, people still face the challenge of receiving huge bills for the replacement of unsafe cladding, and there is a huge backlog of that work still to be done.
I will raise two other matters before I sit down. The first is my disappointment that, after much lobbying, the Chancellor has still not seen fit to put right the long-term problem of refunding Equitable Life policyholders, who are still owed more than £2.8 billion. This issue is not going to go away; we will campaign on it until such time as the Chancellor comes up with the money that was promised in the first place.
Finally, I will just mention one tax increase in the Budget that is extremely welcome: the tax on tobacco. Often, we do not hear that announced from the Dispatch Box, but I am glad the Chancellor went there, increased the tax and carried on with the escalator. The fact is that smoking-related diseases cost the national health service £2.6 billion a year and the care budget £1.2 billion a year. I would like to see a levy put on the profits of the tobacco companies and the money put into smoking cessation services. That would be a welcome tax, and something we could do because we now sit outside the European Union. We would not have to pass that tax on to the smokers; we would hit the profits of the big tobacco companies.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
What with interventions and points of order, we are not really doing that well. After the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes. I call Clive Betts.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
First, I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the need for more money for social housing and cladding and the importance of dealing with the issues of rough sleeping. We have dealt cross-party with those matters on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Generally, I am supportive of the whole idea of levelling up, but I must say to the Secretary of State that I could be a lot more enthusiastic if I knew what it meant, how it would be achieved and how success would be measured. The recent report by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee said that, for all the current documents, levelling up was
“a wide ranging and disjointed programme of random policies…it is difficult to see how they all tie together under one over-arching strategy.”
I think that is a fair comment on what exists now.
Presumably, it is the job of the Secretary of State, with his new responsibilities, to produce that overarching strategy and to tie together all these disparate funding streams. I presume we will see all that in the White Paper, which is hopefully coming shortly, and no doubt we can explore that further with him when he comes to the HCLG Committee next week.
However, as well as having an overarching national strategy, councils need the ability to plan and have a local strategy. That means doing away with all the disparate pots of money they have to bid for. The Local Government Association last calculated that there are 117 different pots of money that councils have to bid for. I am not making a party political point here; if we go to Conservative leaders of councils, they will be just as strident in their criticisms as Labour council leaders on this. Will the Secretary of State please look at that as a major issue?
Mr Betts
I see the Secretary of State nodding, so hopefully we might be able to get some change there.
The Secretary of State is right to emphasise the importance of transport. Yes, the South Yorkshire region got £600 million, but its bid to the levelling up fund for transport expenditure got turned down completely. When councils look at their local plans, there is a levelling up fund, a bus service improvement plan, a city region sustainable transport settlement plan and a zero emission bus regional areas fund to bid for. That is four different pots of money that councils must bid for to fund local transport services and that they must try to tie together, in the hope they may get some of them. That is really no way to enable our city region Mayors to plan the transport for their areas—no way at all.
That, of course, is against the background that in the Sheffield city region, expenditure on buses is £5 per head of population. It is £70 per head of population in London. That really needs to be addressed in levelling up.
I welcome the successful levelling-up fund bid from Sheffield for the regeneration—or the beginning of the regeneration—in Attercliffe in my constituency. I also welcome the £1.8 billion for brownfield sites, which is really important. Peter Freeman, the chair of Homes England, came to look at Attercliffe and the sites there, and I say to the Secretary of State that some changes to the way Homes England distributes its money are needed. First, we need to do away with the 80:20 rule, whereby Homes England is obliged to spend 80% of its money in the south-east—that simply cannot be right. We must look again at the Green Book evaluations of spending on housing sites, which are totally biased towards uplift in land values. There is bound to be a bigger uplift in land values on a greenfield site in the south than on a brownfield site in the north, and that needs addressing. We also need to look at the no additionality rule; where a derelict site with 100 old homes is cleared and 100 new ones are put in, thus really regenerating the area, Homes England funding cannot be got towards that. Those three issues do need addressing.
Finally, we had a discussion about the Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis of local government spending and what that meant. I say to the Secretary of State that in the past 10 years local government has been the major subject of austerity cuts—it has had bigger cuts than anywhere else. Those cuts have fallen disproportionately on the poorest areas; it has not been levelling up, but a major exercise in levelling down. The very areas that he says he now wants to help have had the biggest cuts to their funding in the past 10 years. This Budget will probably stop the cuts getting worse, but it is not seriously going to reverse them. There is a Government policy on levelling up, an aspiration and even a Department and a Secretary of State with “levelling up” in the title. I look forward to him actually showing us what levelling up means, and producing the policies and a coherent strategy that actually deliver it.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
Levelling up is not about geography, it is about opportunity. When highlighting the deficiencies and challenges of a place, it is a tricky balancing act. When bidding for funding it is necessary to highlight the weaknesses, and when encouraging businesses to locate or relocate we emphasise the strengths.
Southampton has many strengths: it has historic medieval walls and one of the busiest ports in the country; it is home to the iconic Spitfire; and it is from Southampton that the pilgrim fathers set sail to the new world more than 400 years ago. The Port of Southampton and Carnival cruises are large private sector employers, and we benefit from a healthy public sector too, with two world class universities, the National Oceanography Centre, a renowned specialist hospital and a Premier League football club. On the face of it, it all sounds rosy, but if we scratch beneath the surface, we see a different picture. The city and my Southampton, Itchen constituency have some of the most deprived wards in the country. We have too many children in care, our schools underperform and we have generations in the same family who have never worked. The city had a proud shipbuilding and aviation heritage. It produced the famous Ford Transit van until 2013, and was home to Pirelli Cables and British American Tobacco. Those blue-collar jobs have mostly all gone; all too frequently, they have been replaced with jobs in retail, hospitality and leisure, with few, if any, prospects, no job security and notoriously low pay.
If the city is to thrive again, we need to create jobs with security, career prospects and good rates of pay. Our reliance on retail and hospitality was brought into sharp focus when covid arrived. When the country shut down, Southampton and, in particular, its young people, bore the brunt. Construction was quickly back and the port carried on, albeit somewhat differently, but hospitality and retail could not reopen and thousands found themselves either furloughed or redundant. With our major manufacturing gone, Southampton is like any post-industrial city of the north. Where once 4,500 people were employed in the Ford factory alone, and thousands more in Vosper Thornycroft and Pirelli Cables, now we have few manufacturing jobs and few with the job security that our former manufacturing base provided.
Levelling up is not about geography, it is about opportunity. In the first round of the levelling-up fund, Southampton City Council, then controlled by Labour, did not even bother to bid. Thankfully, in May they were kicked out of office and were ably replaced by a dynamic Conservative council, led by Councillor Daniel Fitzhenry and his deputy, Jeremy Moulton. We can be sure that Southampton will bid for the next round of the levelling-up fund in the spring.
To create more secure jobs, we need infrastructure. I agree with the direction of travel on net zero and clean air, but that does not mean that vehicles will not need to access the city—we just need cleaner, greener ones. Our port welcomes 2 million cruise passengers per year. It is the busiest car-export port in the country and the second-busiest container port. More containers and cars are going by rail, but it will never be all of them that do so, or anything like it.
As the Government look north to the red wall seats so dreadfully served by Labour for decades, they must remember to look south to those cities that fared little better from years of Labour representation. Levelling up is not about geography; it is about opportunity. If we do not understand that, we are likely to sleepwalk into a situation in which the rush to level up north will leave the south as left behind as it always was. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this vital Budget debate.
After nearly two years of boosterism and bluster, last week’s Budget was yet another opportunity missed by the Government to finally spell out how they are going to level up left-behind communities throughout the country. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor boast of bringing about a low-tax, high-wage economy, yet the Conservatives are increasing the tax take to its highest level in 70 years. In fact, according to the Resolution Foundation, the Government’s tax rises will cost British households an extra £3,000 by 2026-27. The Government could choose to use that money to help Britain’s poorest families during the worst energy price crisis in a generation, or to reverse the universal credit cut that is needlessly forcing millions into poverty; on the contrary, the Conservatives have handed tax cuts to the likes of Amazon and the banks, to the tune of £12 billion and £4 billion respectively. They are levelling up some of the pandemic’s most profitable companies at the people’s expense, yet they have no plan to remove the enormous tax burden they have placed on working people and small and medium-sized businesses.
Although the Government have provided some welcome relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, which are so critical to my community in Ealing, Southall, they must go much further to fix the broken business rates system and truly level the playing field between the high street and tax-avoiding tech companies.
At a time when families are suffering from a cost-of-living crisis brought on by the Government’s incompetence, they should not be punishing poorer families for their lack of luck. The cost of heating bills, food shops and fuel are all rising at a staggering speed. This winter, millions of families on universal credit will be forced to choose between eating and heating. If the Government were serious about levelling up, they would reverse the sickening cut to universal credit that is hurting millions of working families. The Government cannot claim to be levelling up while they chip away at the lifeline of some of our most disadvantaged.
As a result of the Government’s failure to properly pay and recognise professionals in nursing and midwifery, the NHS is now short of almost 40,000 nurses. The Chancellor offered no detail on how the Government plan to recruit or train more doctors and nurses, and there was no workforce plan for the NHS, only vague commitments yet again.
I urge the Government, instead of papering over the cracks as the Budget does, to actually help desperate families during their time of need, to protect and empower small and medium-sized businesses and to give NHS staff the pay rise that they truly deserve. Only then will the Government be able to say that they are truly committed to levelling up our society and economy and ensuring that no one, regardless of their wealth and background, is left behind.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for an excellent speech. I make no apology for raising what I consider—he might agree—to be several points of minutiae in respect of the levelling-up agenda.
The first such point is the line in the Budget papers about the delivery of £750 million over the spending review period to carry through devolution. We have all become familiar with the county deals and the appearance of mayors, but beyond all that I recommend an aspect of devolution at a much lower level: neighbourhood plans, which have proved to be an enormous success. They have transformed how villages and rural parishes look at themselves and plan for the future and, of course, they have delivered more housing than the targets set by district councils in the first place. Neighbourhood plans have been a great success in rural areas, but I anticipate that we will need to work to make sure that cities, and areas within them, accept neighbourhood plans as a way forward to see for themselves how their neighbourhood can be changed for the better.
Secondly, the community ownership fund is incredibly important for rural areas such as my own. We have lost a tremendous amount over the years, including many pubs, as has been pointed out, and many villages have lost sports facilities. The community ownership fund can be used to try to put some of those things back, because where there have been developments, the developers have not seen fit to work with communities to put many of those things back into communities.
Thirdly, I encourage people to look at the permitted development rights in respect of towns and cities to make sure that they are genuinely applicable to rural areas. Many of them, particularly those that deal with high streets, are not applicable in rural areas. It would be useful to have a distinction between the two.
Lastly, I welcome the £1.8 billion that is to be spent on housing, particularly on brownfield sites. The national planning policy framework clearly set out a brownfield-first presumption in the planning system—we have said that on many occasions—and I know because I helped to write it into the national planning policy framework. The £1.8 billion shows that we are prepared to put money where our mouth is and will deliver a lot of affordable houses on brownfield sites, which I fully support and recommend.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
The Chancellor has promised us a post-covid “age of optimism” and claims that the Budget will deliver it by levelling up the life chances and prospects of those in the north, like my constituents, who have been clobbered disproportionately since 2010 by Tory austerity and cuts that have adversely affected their chances to improve their lives and prospects. I wish the reality met that promise, but Ministers in this Government increasingly seem to promise the opposite of what they then actually do.
According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government’s choice to pursue a very hard Brexit is on track to cut long-term GDP by 4%, and the covid pandemic will cut the size of our economy by another 2%. That is a 6% permanent cut in the size of our economy. That means less money to deal with the big problems that we face as a nation over the next 10 years —in particular the zero-carbon transition and adapting to the information revolution to create the economy of the future, while tackling inequality and improving living standards for all.
The Tory years have seen much slower growth in incomes than was the case prior to the Conservative election in 2010. Income growth is one of the ways in which families judge their wellbeing and decide how optimistic they feel about the future. The OBR has forecast that real wages will fall next year with consumer prices index inflation of 4% and expected wages growth at 3.9%—so much for the end of the public sector pay freeze. Workers will feel cheated if the end of the pay freeze still results in real wages falling. They will not feel like they have had a pay rise or that they are living in an age of optimism. In fact, real wages have risen by a meagre 2.4% in total since the 2008 financial crisis, according to the Resolution Foundation. The OBR expects only a 1.5% increase a year, which is pretty low, and much less than the 2.5% a year increase that was the norm before this Government came into office.
As well as stagnating wages, the Chancellor is delivering huge increases in tax, although he said little about that in his speech, preferring instead to give a homily to his worried Back Benchers, some of whom we have heard from today, about how much he aspires to cut tax. That is another example of Ministers doing the opposite of what they say. He is in fact putting up taxes to their highest level since 1950, when the Attlee Government were rebuilding Britain after the war. So, we have slow growth in incomes and huge increases in tax at the same time as rising inflation caused by big increases in household bills for energy, food and fuel. The Resolution Foundation has calculated that the average household will be £3,000 a year worse off. That is not likely to engender optimism from my constituents.
What are we getting by way of levelling up? Well, in the Knowsley part of my constituency, the answer is not a lot. Improving educational opportunity is one of the best ways of levelling up. Young people in Knowsley already have to leave the borough to study A-levels. The Chancellor promised that, at the end of this spending-review period, he will put per pupil funding back to the levels they were at in 2010—before his party came into office. That is 11 wasted years, and three more to come before we are back to where we were without the damage having been mended—back to where we were in 2010! That is not a triumphant achievement.
In Knowsley, my constituents are seeing a cut equivalent to £485 per person, against an English average of £188 per person, with none of Knowsley Council’s bids for the Government’s levelling-up funds having been successful—this is in the second most deprived borough in the country. That is not what I call levelling up.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
In essence, this Budget contains three themes. The first is restarting the process to ensure that our public finances are put back on a sound footing. Therefore, the two new fiscal rules that underline that public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP must be falling and that the state must borrow only to invest in our future growth and prosperity, with everyday spending paid for by taxation, are undoubtedly correct. May I urge my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury not to follow the example of the previous Labour Administration in abandoning rules when they were inconvenient.
The second point is that we are here to deliver stronger public services. As a former Health Minister, I welcome the 40 new hospitals, particularly the plans that could see the refurbishment of St Helier Hospital—those plans are in the Treasury waiting to be rubber-stamped. I also welcome and applaud the changes to business rate revaluation and the new business rates relief, which, undoubtedly, will help a number of businesses in my constituency.
As COP26 starts today, one can only applaud the ambitious net zero strategy, the issuance of green bonds and the incentives for renewable growth. I have long campaigned for the changes that will allow pension funds to invest in long-term projects. All of that is welcome as is the new investment in public services. As my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said, it is not only how much we spend, but how we spend it and how we pay for it. It is key, therefore, that the Government do not, in their quest to work out how to pay for investment, become boxed in with the false choice of higher taxes or higher debt. Higher debt leaves the economy open to the ravages of inflation and higher interest rate costs, which only hit the poorest in our society. With experts at the moment predicting inflation to be 4% at the end of the year and possibly rising to 7% next year, any headroom that the Chancellor has created to invest more in public services will be eaten up by debt service payments. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend said earlier, we must attack inflation.
The choice now surely is for us to go for faster and more sustainable growth. Therefore, the third theme in the Budget was the Government starting to support all of those factors that can drive higher economic growth. We must not be left with a low- growth, stagflationary economy. I particularly welcome the tax relief for creative industries, more generous investment in economic infrastructure, and spending on research and development. However, the Government do not have the monopoly on wisdom in those areas and, particularly in the areas of infrastructure and skills, we should be much more open to using the innovation, the initiative and the help that the private sector can provide,
Beyond the measures that were announced in the Budget, may I say that, if we really want to achieve growth, we need to make sure that business succeeds. In terms of regulation, I urge those on the Treasury Front Bench to consider recommitting to the one in, two out —in fact one in, three out—rule. That would send the message to business that this is a Government who have changed their philosophy and mantra from eff business to love business, for we need to love business if we are to grow our way in the post-covid recovery.
Finally, let me say this to those on the Front Bench. Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) said, levelling up must not be about just geography; it must be about opportunity. Please can we ensure that we do not create a left-out London? Let us not forget that levelling up in one area must not mean levelling down in another, and I hope that the Budget will support that.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The one thing that delighted me about the Secretary of State’s speech is learning that he has been a secret Manchester City fan all these years. I look forward to him joining the all-party group on football, ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) in the weeks and years to come. However, little else impressed me.
Aviation communities have been particularly hard hit, as we all know. Manchester airport in my constituency is the international gateway to the north. The impact of the pandemic on its operations—going from 28 million passengers to 2.8 million passengers—has been devastating. That has resulted in job losses and significant knock-on impacts on sectors and businesses that support the operation of the airport. There is precious little in the Budget to support those aviation communities up and down the land.
However, in my constituency, we have other wider regeneration opportunities, championed by the local Labour authorities in Manchester City Council and Trafford Borough Council. We have a series of oven-ready schemes to drive genuine regional growth and economic development across Greater Manchester. The airport city masterplan includes the first phase of the Hut Group’s £1 billion business campus, which will support up to 10,000 jobs. A new £250 million hotel district is also gathering pace. Plans for a MediPark at Wythenshawe Hospital are well-advanced, with significant life science and health innovation businesses linked to the hospital and Manchester Airport.
We have also recently completed a masterplan for Wythenshawe Hospital. It is a plan that would: transform the hospital; create a world-class research and health facility; create a sustainable campus; and ensure a diversification of uses. The delivery model proposed for the development of the Wythenshawe Hospital site is for a financially driven, phased construction approach using a blended funding model. This funding solution could leverage in many commercial and health and social-related investment opportunities. However, to realise this, Government support is needed to unlock a technical solution to the current NHS capital regime. We have not stopped there though. There are exciting plans for the levelling-up bids for Wythenshawe and Sale town centres, and we eagerly await news on the timing of round two and the guidance on joint bids.
HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail are vital. We need the HS2 station at Manchester airport. Currently, it is unfunded in the proposals. If the Government really want to level up the north, why do they not put spades in the ground going south today? That would certainly help with the levelling-up agenda. We need platforms 15 and 16 across the constricted centre of Manchester to ensure that the northern hub means that train services across the north can operate effectively.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has revealed anaemic medium-term growth forecasts, with growth falling to an average of just 1.5% a year in the last three years of the forecast from 2024 to 2026. We need many things in our constituencies, but the Government’s various regeneration schemes do not come close to making up for the £15 billion of Conservative cuts since 2010. If the Government are serious about levelling up, they should work with Manchester, Greater Manchester and authorities across the north to ensure that we can deliver on the plans that have huge economic and social benefits to our people and our regions.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I am delighted to be standing here today to celebrate the fact that the “great city of Stoke-on-Trent”, as the Chancellor named it and I certainly call it, received not one, not two, but three fantastic levelling-up fund regeneration bids, bringing £56 million to our city. The city centre regeneration zone will get £20 million. The Goods Yard site will get £16 million to unlock £55 million of private capital investment. There will be £20 million for the heritage high streets, covering Longton, Spode and the great town of Tunstall, which I am proud to serve in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke; that funding will enable us to refurbish, repurpose and reuse Tunstall library and baths for a better future, while ensuring preserving its beautiful heritage.
We also got support from the restoring your railway fund to look at ideas for reopening the Stoke to Leek line, a campaign backed by my hon. Friends the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). With that £50,000 of funding, we can conduct a feasibility study on restoring passenger services, which have not been along the line since the 1950s. With a connected station at the great village of Milton, young people could get into the city centre to shop or learn, and people could go to the fantastic tourist destination of Leek. This is especially important because 30% of the residents of Stoke-on-Trent do not have access to a car, so public transport is vital.
What else? The national living wage increase to £9.50 means that constituents will be £1,000 a year better off. The universal credit taper rate means making work pay and a tax cut for 2 million of the lowest earners in our country. In a place like Stoke-on-Trent, where people get £85 less per week on average than in other parts of the United Kingdom, that will be extremely important.
There is also the change to the draught beer duty rate—a campaign run by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and pushed by Keith and Dave Bott, the owners of Titanic brewery. I look forward to having a pint of plum porter in the Bulls Head in Burslem to celebrate that fantastic achievement, which is ultimately a good step in the right direction.
The 50% business rates reduction for hospitality, retail and leisure, along with the 12 months of rates relief for those investing in properties, will allow our high streets to regenerate. I will hold to account those private property owners in Tunstall to ensure that they invest in their shops, tidy them up, look after our high street and ensure that people feel better.
I have already written to the Minister for Children and Families, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), saying that Stoke-on-Trent wants its family hub. I will be demanding that, because in Stoke-on-Trent once we have had a little bit of the pie, we want the whole thing; we will not be stopping there.
Let us look at Labour’s record of levelling up in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, and in Kidsgrove and Talke. Stoke-on-Trent, Madam Deputy Speaker? Labour Members are still trying to find it on their Ordnance Survey map! Captain Hindsight sent out a search party, but they got stuck in north Islington having chai latte and avocado on toast, while we—the people in Stoke-on-Trent, a Conservative-led council, Conservative MPs and a Conservative Government—are delivering for the people of Stoke-on-Trent. We are ensuring that we do not waste money on vanity projects such as £40 million for new council offices and that we do not spend only £15,000 over six years on Kidsgrove, which is the second town in Newcastle borough. We are not the ones who, for a single pound, let the sports centre close because we could not be bothered to save it.
We have: a £17.6 million Kidsgrove town deal; 550 brand-new Home Office jobs; £29 million through the transforming cities fund; £56 million through the levelling-up fund; £7.5 million to refurbish Middlehurst School to be a new special educational needs and disability provider; and £5 million for the children’s A&E at the Royal Stoke—a hospital built by the Labour party, with a private finance initiative, stealing £20 million a year from the frontline and built with 200 fewer beds in it than the facility that was there previously. We have also gone and got more money to improve our buses and are bidding through the bus back better strategy. This is a Government delivering for the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as a metro Mayor.
The UK is more centralised than most other developed countries. In the north, we feel that acutely. Regional inequality afflicts every aspect of our lives: trains—slower; wages—lower; life expectancy—shorter. The Government were elected, in part, on a promise to rebalance the scales by levelling up the north. It is an ambition that I share and have long championed. Frustratingly, however, two years on we still have no working definition of levelling up, no measurable goals, and no sign of the transformative level of investment that the north needs and deserves. Invariably, no strategy leads to no success. I am aware that a White Paper is forthcoming, perhaps by Christmas—we will see—but it cannot come a moment too soon and it needs to be developed in close co-operation with leaders across the north.
I am proud to say that in South Yorkshire, we are not waiting to follow, but are already leading the way. We have established an ownership hub to support worker buy-outs and co-ops. We are working to confront the climate emergency, with a plan to reach net zero carbon emissions, and we are developing a pioneering strategy to reduce flooding. Through our innovative working win programme, we have supported thousands of people with physical and mental health conditions. The same is happening across the north in West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, North of Tyne and the Liverpool city region: Labour Mayors drawing on the industrial heritage of the past, the dedicated workforce of the present, and the cutting-edge innovation for the future, to transform our communities for the better. With the right backing, we can unlock the huge potential in the north and level up our country, but to do so in full we need the Government to play their full part.
Last week was the moment for the Government to show that they were serious about levelling up the north, turning slogans into substance and delivering policies that will make a difference to our people. Instead, the Chancellor barely mentioned the north. Nothing announced last week will reduce regional inequality, and levelling up remains under-resourced, undefined and over-centralised. Take transport, for example, which is a key part of the levelling-up agenda. South Yorkshire, like everywhere, deserves a world-class public transport network that is fit for the 21st century. Although I welcome the money that was provided under the city region transport settlement, where was the clarity on Northern Powerhouse Rail and HS2—projects of huge scale that are now under a cloud of uncertainty?
The same applies to our levelling-up fund bid—the Government’s flagship programme, which regrettably delivers less money than its predecessor, the local growth fund. Our mayoral combined authority proposal is a great example of how to rebalance the scales. The bid, which I personally submitted and has the backing of all our local leaders, targets investment in our bus services. It is not a massive amount of money, but it will help us to drive towards net zero—an objective to which levelling up must be inextricably linked. On Wednesday, we received word from the Government: a hugely disappointing, “No.” I urge them to take another look at our bid during the next round.
Those are just two of the many examples of how last week’s Budget and spending review failed the north. It is only with real investment, a real plan and real control that we will tackle regional inequality. Only then can we end this harmful, needless and unhealthy divide in our country. The message from the north is simple: give us the tools and we will do the job.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
From a Waveney, a Suffolk and an East Anglian perspective, this Budget is very much a step in the right direction, but there is a great deal of work that remains outstanding and some anomalies that need to be corrected. Much good work is already under way. In Lowestoft, construction has already begun on two vital infrastructure projects—the Gull Wing bridge and the Lowestoft flood defence scheme—and East Suffolk Council is busy working out the details of the various projects that are included in the successful towns fund bid that was announced in the March Budget.
From a Suffolk perspective, the headline from the Budget was £1.7 billion of new, direct Government funding to enable a large-scale nuclear project to proceed, and they very much have Sizewell C in mind. This funding is linked to the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, which has its Second Reading on Wednesday. Subject to the development consent order being granted, construction will begin next year on the project, which could bring enormous benefits to Suffolk people and businesses. It is vital that once the 12-year construction period has ended, we leave a lasting legacy of knowledge, skills and infrastructure.
Investment in infrastructure is important, but to achieve meaningful levelling up, we need to invest in people, so that they have the skills to secure the well-paid, exciting jobs that are emerging in the green economy and new technologies. It is welcome that the Government recognise that, are funding the lifetime skills guarantee, and are continuing to provide an education recovery fund. However, I have some concerns. There is no commitment to increasing per-student funding for adults. By the end of 2024-25, it will not have gone up for 14 years. There is also a worry that there is a lack of support for level 1 and 2 qualifications. Level 3 qualifications and T-levels have an important role to play, but we need to put these rungs on the ladder if as many people as possible are to embark on that lifetime learning journey.
In the short time remaining to me, I will briefly highlight two barriers that need to be removed if we are to deliver meaningful, enduring levelling up in the east of England. It was disappointing to learn that the New Anglia local enterprise partnership’s proposal for a regional fund had not been accepted. Along with the south-east and London, from which we are very different, we are now the only area in the UK without such a facility. In the same vein, it is concerning that page 56 of the Red Book explicitly states that the Government will invest in research, development and innovation outside London, the south-east and the east of England. Speaking from an East Anglian perspective, I strongly urge the Government to review that, as Suffolk and Norfolk are very different from London and the home counties. Failure to recognise that will undermine levelling up, particularly in coastal East Anglia, which I represent.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I rise to speak in today’s Budget debate in disappointment, because I have campaigned to bring Northern Powerhouse Rail to Bradford city centre for six years. I have raised the issue of Northern Powerhouse Rail many times in this place, in many Budget debates—perhaps even as many times as the Government have made their many announcements on it. Among the avalanche of leaks from the Treasury, I was really hoping to hear some positive messages about Northern Powerhouse Rail, but there was nothing. Then I hoped that the Chancellor would pull something out of the hat on Budget day, but again—nothing. I trust that if the Government had positive news for Bradford, they would not keep it secret—they would not be quite so shy or blushing about it—so I can only conclude that the rumours are correct, and that there is to be a drastic scaling back of Northern Powerhouse Rail, with no city centre stop in Bradford.
My constituents got little from the Budget, or the spending review. We still have no firm date for when the integrated rail plan will be published. Despite the Government’s promises, they seem happy that transport spending is set to continue to be disproportionately centred on London and south-east England. I have no doubt that more promises will come forward, but I fear that we will be asked to settle for just an upgrade of the existing train line, which will be rebadged as Northern Powerhouse Rail—more smoke, and more mirrors. Bradford needs and deserves more than that.
I am asking for fairness in funding, and a rebalancing to ensure that the economies of the north are no longer held back by under-investment. Specifically, we need a trans-Pennine route upgrade; we need High Speed 2’s eastern leg in the north; and we need a new Northern Powerhouse Rail line, with a city centre stop in Bradford. Those are not either/or options, because Bradford matters. The north matters. It is time for the Government to stop the endless rhetoric of levelling up, and to deliver some real infrastructure investment in the north.
What is more, Northern Powerhouse Rail would support carbon-free, sustainable travel, and would contribute to the next era of carbon goals, not just for northern cities, but for the whole UK. One of the biggest city-to-city journeys to work in the country is between Bradford and Leeds, and it is done mostly by car. At scale, Northern Powerhouse Rail would support a 400% increase in rail travel, and it would take 64,000 car trips per day off the road.
Time and again in this House, I have raised the north-south economic imbalance, and time and again Ministers have responded with warm words, but nothing concrete. Let us have no more shallow promises. It is time to deliver.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I start by saying that I very much welcome the Chancellor’s Budget statement. I look forward to levelling up the north, south, east, west, south-west, and particularly Devon, which is the centre of the universe; there is no doubt about that. I cannot imagine that there has ever been an easy time to be Chancellor, but the challenges that the economy has faced in the past 18 months make it especially difficult now. That being said, we are in a better place than expected, and I am pleased to hear that the economy is on track to return to pre-pandemic levels by the end of the year.
There was a lot that I liked in the Chancellor’s Budget, and a lot that will be welcomed in Devon. In particular, many of my constituents will be delighted to hear that they will get cheaper pints of cider, even if only by 3p. Indeed, patrons will be cheering all the way from the Culm Valley Inn in Culmstock to the Masons Arms in Branscombe. It is not just the patrons who will benefit; as the Chancellor said, local pubs do a lot of their trade on draught, so the cut to draught beer and cider duty will make a huge difference to these pubs. The reform of alcohol duty is long overdue, and I commend the Chancellor on making it happen.
Pubs will also benefit from a huge cut to business rates, as will small businesses across the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. I look forward to hearing more detail about the planned small producer relief, which will help many small cider producers in my constituency, such as Norcotts Cider in Honiton.
As well as supporting businesses, the Chancellor is rightly providing extra funding for public services, including the NHS and schools, both of which have been badly disrupted by the pandemic. The extra £6 billion for the NHS to tackle the backlog of checks, scans and surgeries is very welcome. So is the cash boost for schools. It is absolutely right that funding should be set aside for catch-up training for students whose education has been disrupted, but schools can also expect a £1,500-per-pupil boost over the next three years, which is very welcome indeed. We talk about levelling up, and having a high-wage, high-skilled economy, and that starts with education. We need to be sure that we give the next generation of workers the skills and qualifications that they need. We also need to invest now in the infrastructure that they will be using in the years ahead, so I support the levelling-up agenda.
I am particularly delighted that the Chancellor has given the green light to £5 million of development funding to progress the plans for Cullompton station, and Wellington station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). My neighbour and I have long worked for this, and we are really happy to see the Devon and Somerset Metro Group come to fruition. Cullompton is a town set for expansion, and we need to be ready for that, as well as tackling the challenges we face now. The extension of the Devon metro will help cut congestion on our roads, slash commuter time for students, and create exciting new opportunities for local business. Construction is set to start in 2024, and with this funding, the project is on track for great success, if you will pardon the pun, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope we will not have to wait too long for extra levelling-up funding.
Finally, I am glad that the Chancellor announced that the commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on foreign aid will be back on the statute books by 2024. If the economy improves more than expected, I hope we can put that right in ’23, because that 0.7% is absolutely essential for the rest of the world.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Levelling up, in itself, is about as close to an acknowledgement as we are ever likely to get from Westminster and, in particular, this Conservative and Unionist Government, that there is a huge gulf in access to wealth and opportunities in the UK. This is not a new thing; it has continued throughout the 21st century. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
At the start of covid, I wrote that we were not all in this together and that the poorest and those living in the areas with the worst deprivation would suffer most and experience a higher mortality rate. Unfortunately, I was right. Six out of 10 people who have died of covid-19 are disabled, and those living in a deprived area are more than twice as likely to die from covid. The chief executive of health thinktank the Health Foundation, Jennifer Dixon, said:
“Covid-19 is not a great leveller—the pandemic is having an unequal impact on our already unequal society.”
Therefore, it is clear that this great act of benevolence, “levelling up”, is long overdue and is required because large areas of our society have been neglected for a long time. Areas such as my constituency of Inverclyde have suffered long before the shipyards closed under Thatcher: all she did was pile misery on top of despair. The labour-intensive industries paid poorly and worked men and woman into early graves, and as those industries died we never adjusted to develop employment that was rewarding either financially or for our wellbeing. As a result, inequality remains rife, and patching will not fix it.
It should come as no surprise that many people believe that levelling up is no more than a bribe to endear the Government to the electorate prior to the next general election, which is currently scheduled for after the new boundaries are put in place. Of course, with his old powers reinstated, the Prime Minister can effectively call a general election anytime he likes. Buying seats is one way to prop up a Government.
As MPs, we will look at our constituencies and always be able to find ways of investing in and improving them. Some constituencies will need more than others, which is why the funding should go to the most in need. Some people, including the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, have questioned that I, as an SNP MP, am willing to appeal to Westminster to fund projects in Inverclyde: does this not prove that we are better together? It is really very simple—we have been paying into Westminster for all these years while our industries were left to wither and die, and it is high time we got something back.
In Inverclyde we have two excellent projects for which I will pitch for funding. The first is a culture quarter that will host artists, creatives and artisans. It will be close to the ocean terminal, where we welcome 150,000 cruise passengers every year, and it will save two existing buildings of incredible heritage from destruction. Inverclyde council will also be looking for funding to improve the transport system around the town centre. I could of course be petulant and turn my back on these opportunities, but my heart is in Inverclyde and the prosperity of the people, and I will not miss out on any opportunity that can improve Inverclyde. Councillor Liz Robertson reminded me of a story about General Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, who, when he was asked about dubious funds being used by his charity, is reported to have said, “I shall take all the money I can get, and I shall wash it clean with the grateful tears of widows and orphans.” The shame is that 155 years later we still have such inequality in our society, and that runs throughout this very disunited kingdom.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this Budget debate and I would like to congratulate the Chancellor on a truly inspiring Budget.
Many of my constituents think that this Conservative Government are profoundly different from any Government who have ever gone before, and listening to the Chancellor’s speech it is easy to see why. It would be unthinkable only a few years ago to hear a Conservative Chancellor delivering such a Budget. The fact that this has happened only goes to underline both how much our party has changed and how much we seriously value our commitment to the new voters who put their trust in us only two years ago in places such as Blackpool South.
NHS funding will rise by £44 billion throughout this Parliament, demonstrating that we are the real party of the NHS. Blackpool has some of the poorest health outcomes in the whole country. When the Prime Minister speaks of levelling up, people expect to see real change in their lives, and this unprecedented investment in our NHS will help to deliver just that, with thousands more GP appointments for my constituents, a £13 million pound upgrade to my local A&E, and a commitment like we have never seen before to close the unacceptable differences in life expectancy between central Blackpool and other parts of the country that have persisted for a generation.
In the same vein, there was a huge increase in our schools budget. This will help to narrow the educational differences that have existed across our nation for far too long. Why is it that a white working-class boy in Blackpool has statistically lower life prospects than any other person in the UK? This is an appalling statistic and a damning indictment of all Governments who have left white working-class communities at the bottom of the pile. If we are serious about levelling up in educational terms, there is no better place to start than in schools in Blackpool.
However, the Chancellor saved the best announcements until last. Increasing the national living wage by 6.6% will deliver a £1,000 pay rise to thousands of my constituents in low-paid jobs: a Conservative Government delivering on our pledge to make sure that work truly pays. Then there is universal credit. I have to confess that I was slightly uneasy at the £20 uplift being taken away. It is easy to give out money but often very difficult to take it back. However, the changes announced in the Budget more than make up for this. Reducing the taper rate from 63% to 55% is a massive step forward in ensuring that work truly pays. It focuses our welfare system on those who are willing to meet the state halfway by working hard. This is exactly what a Conservative Government should be doing. These changes mean that a single mother with two children who works full-time will be £1,200 better off every single year. While the Opposition talk the talk on making sure that work pays and helping those on low incomes, it is the Conservatives who truly deliver. I cannot thank the Government enough for making this change that sends out this clear message to those on low incomes: if you do the right thing and are willing to work hard, this Government will support you all the way.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), even if we might disagree on our interpretation of the Budget.
Living standards are below where they were before the global financial crisis, spending on education is back to 2010 levels when Labour left office, and today a quarter of children in Barnsley are growing up in poverty. As we head into a difficult winter, with energy bills rising and inflation soaring, this Government have refused to take important steps to support working families, such as removing VAT from home energy bills. Instead, the measures in this Budget leave the vast majority of my constituents worse off, with taxes up, inflation up and universal credit cut. Yet this Government have found money to cut taxes for bankers, champagne and domestic flights. Those might be the Government’s priorities but they are not the priorities of people in Barnsley. We have had some of the worst cuts in the country. Barnsley Council alone has lost £150 million from its annual budget. Our local services have been devastated by austerity. The Government’s money for so-called levelling up will go nowhere near to compensating for these devastating cuts. No levelling up money will be invested in Barnsley despite two applications, both rejected. This Government cannot claim to be serious about levelling up for as long as they continue to ignore areas like mine.
Most of all, the Government cannot claim to be serious about levelling up while they continue to betray the “categorical” promise that the Prime Minister made to my constituents. During the general election, the Prime Minister pledged to end the theft of miners’ pensions, saying that
“we will make sure that all their cash is fully protected and returned, I have looked into it and we will ensure that’s done.”
The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which has a Conservative majority, backed our campaign to end the miners’ pension rip-off. The Government should now implement the Committee’s recommendations, and the Budget was an opportunity to do just that. The average miner receives a pension of just £84 a week, with many on a lot less. Ending the theft of their pensions would not only be the morally right thing to do, but it would provide an immediate boost to miners’ pockets to deal with spiralling living costs and to spend in coalfield economies, but the Government are refusing to act, just as they have refused to act in this Budget.
As the cost of living spirals, all our communities needed a Budget with the right priorities, but, much like with the miners’ pension scheme, when our communities most needed a helping hand, they have instead found the Chancellor’s hand in their pocket.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The Chancellor’s Budget is good news for my constituents. In fact, a number of priorities that I have either worked on or took particular interest in saw light in this Budget. The most obvious was the £48.4 million for the sea link between Penzance and Scilly. For years, I have been working with others to find ways to deliver improvements to Penzance harbour and harbours on St Mary’s, along with securing the funds to replace the ships that serve the islands. In 2018, I set up meetings between the then Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and her staff and leaders on Scilly, leading to the reform of the local transport board, which I now chair. Last year, the board battled to save the transport system itself once lockdown had kicked in, successfully securing nearly £10 million to keep various transport operators afloat. That was because tourism, which is the mainstay of the islands’ economy and the source of the lion’s share of income for transport operators, was shut down at the very eve of the season’s start.
Recognising that resilient and affordable transport was a critical issue for everyone on Scilly, Whitehall saw fit to include Scilly as a category 1 area for levelling up funding. The council and local transport board, whose membership represents businesses, stakeholders and the community, worked like billy-o to complete a comprehensive submission for the fund in June. It was a remarkable example of nearly everyone putting their differences aside and knuckling down to deliver what the islands most need: an improved, resilient and affordable method of handling freight and transporting passengers. The work we do with this money, along with money announced as part of the Penzance towns fund early this year, will be a welcome and much-needed improvement to harbours and deliver a far greener and accessible link to Scilly.
Further to that, all six Cornish MPs have been working to secure continued investment in Cornwall and Scilly from just weeks after the Brexit referendum. I remember that we met the then Chancellor, Philip Hammond, at the start of the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), to explain why money we received via the EU for Cornwall would still be needed once we had left the EU. Soon after, the idea of shared prosperity was announced and I am pleased that the Chancellor confirmed last week that Cornwall and Scilly would continue to receive the same level of funding for the life of this Parliament. I expect shared prosperity money to impact more households more positively than the EU funding did.
Other initiatives I have taken a keen interest in for some time include the first 1,000 days, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), which looks at how we can best support a young life from the very start. There is also the role of family hubs promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). Both initiatives received cash boosts as part of the Budget, and Cornwall is well placed to use that cash to transform the life chances of our constituents.
The cut in business rates and changes to VAT for retail and hospitality are good news, and we must not underestimate the positive impact of the increase to the lower rate income tax threshold, the rise in national living wage and the changes to the taper for universal credit. The rising cost of living must be brought under control, but these changes will help many families in Cornwall and on Scilly.
Match funding to build the stadium for Cornwall was not forthcoming. The stadium we envisage will house the UK’s first concussion unit and additional facilities for Truro and Penwith College, be the home of elite rugby and football and have a state-of-the-art pitch for grassroots football and rugby. Cornwall has a population larger than Iceland, but no stadium or facility of that scale. We must persist, and there is absolutely no reason why the stadium cannot secure shared prosperity funding, if Cornwall Council and the local enterprise partnership are minded to see it through.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I am an optimist by nature. While I do like an occasional glass of prosecco or bottle of fruity cider, I have struggled to find that much to be optimistic about following last week’s Budget in terms of the impact it will have on my constituency. It therefore came as no surprise to me to read in the excellent Yorkshire Post this morning that in a survey conducted as part of the “Hopeful Towns” project by HOPE not hate, with which I have worked previously to explore how we build strong, resilient and well-connected communities, three quarters of the British public have no faith in the Prime Minister’s promises on levelling up.
Indeed, my constituents in Batley and Spen have a healthy scepticism about political promises generally. I summarise their view of so-called levelling up as, “We’ll believe it when we see it”, and I am not sure that there was much last week to give them confidence that there will be very much to see in the coming months. What they do see is roads badly in need of repair, high streets crying out for investment and a desperate lack of amenities, especially for young people.
Councils urgently need clarity about how services will be funded over the next three years, and the absence of a multi-year funding settlement means they still cannot plan effectively to meet the needs of our communities. This lack of forward planning by the Government, on top of a decade of cuts to local authorities, means more frustration for councils and a knock-on impact on the people they serve. We could see increases in council tax effectively forced on councils by this settlement. As the Local Government Association has warned on levelling up funding:
“The competitive bidding process means that scarce council resources have been diverted at a time when local capacity continues to be stretched by multiple pressure in local areas.”
My other key concerns about last week’s announcements, which I share with others, include the lack of funding for education—we know it is now only back to 2010 levels—meaning a lost decade for our children, our most precious resource; a lack of investment to deal with the immediate needs of the crisis in our social care system, which, along with the NHS, is on its knees; and a lack of support more broadly for our young people, who have lost a big chunk of their lives to the pandemic and many of whom are facing deeply concerning issues with mental health.
Indeed, it is significant that 71% of people questioned in the “Hopeful Towns” survey were concerned about the lack of opportunities for young people. That brings me to another report out today, from the National Youth Agency. This survey, part-funded by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, found that children in affluent areas are twice as likely to have access to youth clubs and out-of-school activities than those living in poorer areas. Youth groups across my constituency, from Birstall to Hightown, are working hard to support young people, but they are often run by volunteers who need greater support, funding and resources to continue their important work.
That lack of facilities is in my view inextricably linked to the increased risk of young people being exploited by criminal gangs or getting diverted into antisocial behaviour because of boredom and a lack of meaningful ways to channel their energies and frustrations. Let us be clear, that is not an excuse for crime or antisocial behaviour, but only the wilfully ignorant would deny it is a contributory factor. If we want strong communities where people are supported in working together to address the problems we face, levelling up has to be more than just words in places like mine.
I will end on a broader point. We have talked a lot in recent times about the need to restore trust in politics and to give the people who put us here faith that we mean what we say and say what we mean. Fine-sounding words have to be translated into improvements in people’s lives that they can see with their own eyes. I genuinely want levelling up to become a reality. If it does, I will be more than happy to say so, but for now, like my constituents, I am still looking for the reality behind the Budget headlines, and I am struggling to find it.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
The Budget and the contents within it for Wales bring together an ambitious programme of renewal that will generate jobs and level up local communities. Going forward, Wales will see a record £18 billion a year, the largest annual funding settlement since devolution began, helping to level up across the whole United Kingdom. Wales will also benefit from UK-wide support for people, businesses and green jobs, and investment to level up all the opportunities before them. There will also be targeted UK funding to support local infrastructure improvements and investment in communities in the form of the £121 million outlined in the allocation of the levelling up fund, with further rounds to follow. I remain hopeful that the Labour-run Flintshire County Council, the local authority area in which Delyn sits, will have prepared a bid for the next round of funding, having decided not to bother with applying for constituency-level funding in this round.
Infrastructure improvements will hopefully include a new train station at Greenfield. That was a key pledge during my election campaign in order to level up the Holywell area of Delyn and would bring constituents there closer to the job opportunities that exist in the wider north Wales and north-west of England economic region. The Chancellor set out a plan to deliver the priorities of the British people by investing in stronger public services, levelling up opportunity, driving business growth and helping working families with the cost of living and owning their own homes.
In calendar year 2019, the average UK constituency built 246 new properties; in Delyn, the figure was 29% lower. In 2020, the average constituency built 189 new properties; in Delyn, the figure was 34% lower. So far in 2021, the average constituency has built 180 new homes; in Delyn, just 74 have been built, which is almost 60% less than the average. The Welsh Government Minister told me that housing is her top priority. With figures demonstrating that it is only getting worse year on year, I hate to think what the details look like for things that are not her top priority. Hopefully, with the Welsh Government having significant new funding available, they will up their game and be as ambitious as the UK Government.
As part of the spending plans, there is on average a 2.6% rise in the Welsh Government’s budget each year. With the Welsh Government set to receive about £120 a head for every £100 of per-person equivalent UK Government spending in England, the old Labour argument that “Westminster does not send us enough money”, which was questionable before, is downright ludicrous now. That is another of Labour’s excuses for poor Government in Wales out the window.
I echo the Chancellor’s sentiments and it is worth quoting them:
“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?”—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 286.]
I could not have been happier to hear that from him.
Given not only the economic challenges of the past 18 months but the ongoing societal challenges, perhaps it is time to revisit the traditional three Rs of education. Of course, we still need reading, writing and arithmetic, but I venture that to build back better from the pandemic both financially and in terms of community coherence, we need a focus on a new set of three Rs: respect, responsibility and resilience. The Budget has the potential to help the people of Delyn and north Wales enormously, and it will undoubtedly help the United Kingdom to build back better as a strong Union of equals.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
After the austerity decade, Brexit and nearly two years of covid, the Budget heralds a vicious spiral of low growth, high tax and a cost of living crisis for the working poor. Most concerning is the laser-like focus on squeezing real incomes by increasing unreformed, regressive taxes such as national insurance and council tax. So the poor are keeping the poor, as George Lansbury would have observed.
From Lord Heseltine’s 2012 report “No stone unturned: in pursuit of growth”, it was clear that we needed to boost UK GDP growth by taking pressure off the congested south-east and regenerating the north. However, nine years after that report, seven years after the northern powerhouse was launched and two years after a general election where levelling up promises were made, Hull and our Humber energy estuary awaits the transformative actions needed to deliver those promises. Sadly, the Budget is no game-changer for Hull, and there is certainly no sign of a London docklands experience for the Humber docklands.
I welcome Hull getting some levelling up funding for city centre sites at Whitefriargate and Albion Square, where retailers suffered so much in the austerity years, but—let us be honest—£19.5 million does not claw back the £131 million of core Government funding removed from Hull City Council between 2010 and 2019. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, said that the poorest areas saw the biggest cuts in those austerity years and, as the all-party parliamentary group on “left behind” neighbourhoods pointed out, what most needs levelling up is social and physical infrastructure outside city centres, such as in Bransholme and Orchard Park in Hull North. I am disappointed that the all-party group’s idea to use nearly £1 billion of dormant assets to create a community wealth fund for such neighbourhoods at no extra cost to the taxpayer has not been taken up. Moreover, there is only a third of the £15 billion education recovery funding that Sir Kevan Collins recommended, a three-year wait to return to 2010 per pupil funding and a cut-down version of Sure Start—certainly not levelling up.
On transport, we heard about £50,000 for a feasibility study on reinstating the Hull-Beverley-York rail line. However, if the Government were truly levelling up the Humber with London, we would see a much bolder plan to revive disused Beeching lines, with perhaps a Humber version of the docklands light railway connecting communities. We still await the integrated rail plan, where we will learn whether our freeport city will get rail electrification within the next 20 years—Ministers blocked it five years ago—whether there will be high-speed rail coast to coast across the north and whether HS2 will have any tangible benefits east of the Pennines. They are essential for levelling up the north.
With the Chancellor congratulating himself so warmly on an economic plan that he says is working so well, we can assume that the Government face not as severe an economic challenge as the 1945 Labour Government, which set up the NHS and the welfare state. Why, then, are they failing to invest in levelling up in the north, and in Hull and the Humber in particular? For the communities that I represent, the Chancellor served a dish with a very large bill but hardly any ingredients.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I welcome the Budget’s investment in people, families, education and skills, and jobs, which are all vital for combating poverty and levelling up. For too long, many of the worst-off people and places across the UK have been left behind by uneven economic growth and fewer opportunities. Levelling up means that everyone gets an equal opportunity to unleash their potential to make a difference. That will help to combat poverty. Poverty does not make the most of a person’s potential and deprives our society and economy of the skills and talents of those who have meaningful contributions to make.
Levelling up is important to my beautiful constituency of Hastings of Rye: a coastal community with so much potential to be unleashed, if given the opportunity. We have fantastic contributions to make as individuals and businesses, with huge potential for growth in, for example, culture, tourism and manufacturing. I am delighted that Hastings was successful in its towns fund bid, with £24.3 million awarded and another £85 million leveraged to invest in the town through its investment plan. However, I will highlight Professor Chris Whitty’s recent report on health disparities in coastal communities and his recommendations.
While I welcome the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, Professor Whitty highlights the clear commonality in the drivers of poor health, which include deprivation, poor housing, alcohol and/or substance misuse, low educational attainment, poor transport infrastructure and connectivity, and a lack of diversity in jobs and local communities. Will the Minister consider those common factors in strategies for levelling up coastal communities during the Parliament?
I welcome the Chancellor’s focus in the Budget on helping working families to meet the cost of living and helping to support more vulnerable families. Poverty reduction comes through well-paid jobs, but more money for universal credit—an in-work benefit—is essential in enabling people to work and get the financial support that they need. By reducing the taper rate from 63% to 55%, millions of people will be able to keep more of their income—it is a tax cut for the lowest paid. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who pioneered universal credit, said:
“More money for Universal Credit is vital to support the conservative ideals of hard work and determination.”
I also welcome the rise in the national living wage, which will help working families to meet the cost of living and help to level up.
Investment in people continues with investment in education and improving skills. It is fantastic that we are increasing skills funding by 42% in cash terms, meeting our national skills fund commitment. The new numeracy programme will help to tackle poor numeracy skills, improve basic maths skills and therefore improve people’s earnings and employment opportunities. Again, that is levelling up.
I welcome the funding boost in our primary and secondary schools, but I would like to see the opportunity area funding that supports social mobility and levelling up in some of the most disadvantaged areas extended to more left-behind places, and especially coastal communities. Hastings and St Leonards schoolchildren and teachers have hugely benefited from that targeted funding for the past five years.
The continuation of the holiday activities and food programme is very welcome. To coin the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) when she was children’s Minister, the HAF programme is a living, breathing example of levelling up in action.
I have got so much more to say, but I have to cut it short. The Budget is very welcome.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is shame that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) is not in his place because he put his finger on the nub of the debate. A strategy for growth should have been at the Budget’s heart, yet the International Monetary Fund and Office for Budget Responsibility took one look at the Budget and downgraded our growth forecast. Our long-term growth is something like two thirds of what it used to be.
The IMF, which has looked out over the next four years, says that we in the UK, for all the Chancellor’s measures, will have the worst recovery from covid in the G7. It is not surprising. While other countries around the world invest in science-led growth, what did the Chancellor do last week? He chose that moment to defer science spending by two years.
While other countries around the world are going for trade, the OBR looked at the magnificent new global Britain fund that we have heard about and downgraded our trade forecast. The current account deficit, which has been about 3% to 3.5% for some years, is now forecast to be 4% to 5% or 5.5%. A red-tape Brexit has ensnared our traders in so much bureaucracy that exports to the EU will fall by 15%.
Because growth is bad, taxes are up—we have the largest tax rise since the 1950s. In a couple of years, the average family will pay £3,000 extra in tax, thanks to the Prime Minister. Taxes are going up, not fairly, but affecting ordinary working people and we therefore have flat living standards. This decade is now the worst for pay rises since the 1930s. Of course, because we have a Tory Government, the poorest will be hit hardest. What we have heard today about the universal credit taper cut making up for the removal of the £20 uplift is absolute nonsense. The poorest people in this country will be £280 worse off as a result of the Government’s decisions. That is the reality.
The net sum of the measures is a catastrophe for social mobility in this country. Once upon a time, the Conservative party boasted about its social mobility credentials; not any more. It now takes five generations for someone born in the poorest cohort in this country to rise up and make even average wages. The gap between private school and public school funding is now so big that it would take £55 billion to fix it. The Conservative party should never again be trusted on social mobility.
My final point is about the west midlands. The Mayor of the west midlands, my friend Andy Street, is down with covid at the moment. We wish him a speedy recovery. However, many of us were pretty sick when we looked at the settlement for the west midlands. The budgets for the levelling-up fund and the towns fund put together give us the fourth worst settlement in the country—£217 million behind the north-west. In the levelling-up fund announcement last week, £33 a head for the west midlands is the fifth worst settlement in the country. Our transport budget is a £1 billion less than we asked for—one of the worst per capita settlements in the country, as the West of England Mayor was quick to point out.
This was a Budget for anaemic growth, rising prices, rocketing taxes, record debt, red tape that ensnares our traders, flat living standards and increased poverty. After all the agony of loss that the country has been through, we deserve better.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I was elected almost 18 months ago on a platform of levelling up. I therefore relish the challenge when we are asked what levelling up is. In the Chamber, we talk about levelling up as opportunity of policy, place and people. That is all very well, but people from Bosworth are pragmatists and they want to know what that means, so I will explain very simply what levelling up looks like for the people of Bosworth.
On policy, we talk about the green revolution. That is 60,000 green jobs in the freeport just up the road from Bosworth. We talk about investment, and we won an Israeli investment from REE of £250 million, which will bring 300 jobs to MIRA technology park, leading the automotive industry in the heart of the midlands. Britishvolt has put its HQ in MIRA. Although it is building in Blyth Valley, its high-end HQ will be based in my constituency. Amazon is investing in Hinckley, bringing 700 new jobs. We have got £400 million through the Midlands Engine Investment Fund to add to the £300 million private investment for small and medium-sized enterprises to grow. As has been pointed out, that is the way out and the Budget has provided a framework for that.
We should remember that the measures are based on covid support for our businesses, which meant bounce back loans for 1,869 businesses in Bosworth, amounting to £55 million, and 104 businesses taking up the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme at £29 million. That was to get them through so that they could survive and now thrive.
What do I mean by place? In the road investment strategy—RIS2—there is £20 million to improve the A5. Millions of pounds of investment has gone into Hinckley Academy so that we have quality education at the heart of Hinckley. We have had £28 million of investment in Leicestershire broadband to see the likes of Sketchley Brook finally get its service. There is £1.8 million in the high street heritage action zone for Hinckley high street. What about healthcare? There is £250 million for Leicester Royal Infirmary and £3 million for George Eliot Hospital, where 30% of my constituents go. What about rail? In the levelling-up bid, £17.6 million has gone to Leicester to improve the train station, and there is £50,000 for the Ivanhoe line to look at opening the line that would go straight through my constituency. I have not even got to the jewel in the crown so far—Twycross Zoo, which has been given £19.9 million. That is levelling up typified: conservation, growing tourism, and providing high-end STEM jobs in our region.
Finally, in the last minute of my speech, we must not forget people. We must not forget the 15,000 people in my constituency who were given furlough support during the pandemic. Unemployment in Bosworth is 3.4% when the average is 5%. We must not forget the £3.5 million of the £500 million household support grant for the most vulnerable. That matches the minimum wage of £9.50 and the reduced universal credit taper from 63p to 55p. In Leicestershire, we also have 227 new police officers to keep us safe. I could go on, but the key thing to remember is that although the job is not done, there is hard evidence of the difference that we are making, which is tangible, palpable and visible. That is levelling up.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Nothing typifies the difference between the Pollyanna view of Conservative Members and the more realistic view of the Opposition than the conversation about the Chancellor’s brave decision, as he described it, to cut the universal credit taper from 63p to 55p. Had the Chancellor been brave enough to put a 55p tax rate on high earners, I would have applauded because it would have been legitimate to raise it from the 47p in the pound that high earners pay, compared with the 55p in the pound that the poorest people in our society have to pay. That is the difference between the values of this Government and those of my constituents and the overwhelming majority of people in this country.
The Budget did nothing about the environment. We saw a decrease in air passenger duty and fuel duty, and no investment in heat pumps, insulation for our homes and all the things that we know we have got to do. Where was that investment?
The Chancellor cut bankers’ tax, and he cut Amazon’s tax, I think by a total of £15 billion. I could have found better ways of spending £15 billion. I would have spent it on the things that matter to those on universal credit, for example, because they are our fellow citizens and they are in need. He should come to my constituency—to a constituency that is poor. It is not poor across the piece —there are people there who do well enough—but in the worst wards, 60% of children are living in poverty. That is a disgrace to this country of ours and it is a disgrace to this Government, because it has got worse consistently, year by year, since they came to power in 2010.
Look at the pay of the public servants that even the Conservatives now say they value. Someone working as a medical secretary, for example, is 5% worse off today than they were in 2010. A paramedic is 7% worse off, and people in other industries are even worse off. The Chancellor’s lifting of the pay restraint on those in public sector services will not go a long way, frankly.
Let us look at the question of growth. We know that this country has a productivity crisis. We know that there are things that we have to invest in for the long term rather than engaging in short-term tinkering as the Chancellor did. That long-term change will require investment in health so that, for example, my constituents in the worst wards do not die 10 years younger than constituents in the City of Westminster. That is another disgrace in modern Britain.
We also need investment in education. Again, young people in my constituency see less spending and bigger cuts to education than those in other parts of the country. We have had 8% cuts over the last 10 years, compared with 4% nationally. Are we going to see that money put back with the new investment in education? I hope so, but I do not rely on this Government to do that. We have seen cuts in further education. We have seen cuts in our sixth-form colleges, which are so important to young people in towns such as Rochdale. When will we see that money back?
There is real anger in my constituency. This Budget is not disappointing; it is a waste of time. It was an opportunity to make real change—an opportunity that a tinkering Chancellor used to put himself forward to be leader of the Conservative party, not for the country.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this Budget debate. Fortunately, the Government were in a position to provide unprecedented assistance throughout the height of the pandemic to support individuals and businesses across the UK. As a result, our economy is recovering quickly, with growth forecast at 6.5% for 2021. Fears of widespread unemployment have proven unfounded, as analysis confirms that peak unemployment will reach 5.2%, down from the 12% predicted in July 2020. That means that we can focus on the ambition to level up our country and the communities in it.
In his Budget, the Chancellor made a number of long-term commitments that will support north Wales in a sustainable way. I have been working hard to ensure that the region benefits from Sir Peter Hendy’s soon-to-be-published Union connectivity review, and it is pleasing that an additional £22.5 million is being made available for the development of transport projects, including along the north Wales corridor.
I am also very encouraged by the first levelling-up fund allocations. Since March, I have been working closely with Denbighshire County Council, residents, businesses and voluntary organisations to prepare the Vale of Clwyd bid, which the council intends to submit shortly. Projects in our bid will benefit all parts of the constituency, reinvigorating our communities, our economy and our culture.
Throughout the pandemic, our reliance on telecommunications has increased, and it has been concerning that so many properties in north Wales have poor broadband connections. I have been working hard with Openreach to address that, and I was pleased last week to hear the Chancellor express his continuing commitment to this agenda through Project Gigabit.
Levelling up also requires the Government to help people into work and to ensure that work always pays. I am therefore extremely glad that the universal credit taper rate has been cut by 8%, which I have been pushing for. Together with the £500 increase to the work allowance, that means that thousands of those in lower-paid jobs in the Vale of Clwyd who rely on universal credit to top up their earnings will now have more money in their pockets.
Similarly, with the boost in the national living wage to £9.50 an hour, more people will be better off. The end to the public sector pay freeze will be hugely beneficial to my constituency, where public sector employment is significant. The UK-wide Multiply programme will also help residents who are keen to develop essential numeracy skills, which can boost the employability of those who are currently economically less active.
When it comes to crime, it is often the most deprived communities that suffer most, so the commitment in the Budget to press ahead and fund 20,000 new police officers is very welcome. Since September 2019, 147 police officers have been recruited in north Wales, bringing the total to 1,654, virtually on a par with the highest headcount on record, 16 years ago.
In England, a temporary 50% discount on business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure premises has been announced, along with more frequent revaluations and improvement relief for changes to premises. Those are important measures, but the Welsh Government must ensure a level playing field for businesses in Wales.
This Budget delivers for the people and businesses in north Wales, and I am delighted to support it.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The message from the Budget was clear: the Conservatives are now the party of low growth and the architects of the highest sustained tax burden in peacetime. The aspiration of Margaret Thatcher; the delivery of Ted Heath.
We are told that this change of philosophy is temporary —that the virus has infected our economic growth and the growth of developed nations around the world—but the simple fact is that Britain has suffered the worst economic hit of any major economy, coupled with the highest death toll in Europe. The national insurance hike alone will cost a care worker £140 a year, a nurse £310 and a paramedic £420. Meanwhile, banks, which have recorded record profits, are set to save £4 billion in taxes by 2027. In the words of my late mum, is this not just another example of “much gets more”? The cost of living is rising at its fastest rate for 30 years and the tax bill is £3,000 per household higher than when the Prime Minister came into post. There is no hiding place. This is Conservative economic mismanagement, and it is working people who are paying for it.
The Chancellor delivered most of the Budget in advance through co-ordinated announcements to the press, but after hearing it in full, I am amazed that he had so many announcements to leak. This Budget offered so little to so many. Universal credit was slashed, pushing thousands of the poorest people in our society even further into poverty at a time when their energy bills are about to soar. There was barely a word on connectivity and closing the digital divide, which is vital for levelling up and pivotal for the technology-reliant society we now live in.
With 200,000 children transferring from primary school to secondary school this year, we were asked to celebrate a boost to the schools catch-up fund despite that support providing just £310 per pupil, a third of the amount the Government’s own education tsar stated was required before he resigned and only one tenth of what the Dutch Government believe their children deserve.
However, Budget announcements cannot be considered in isolation; to understand the impact of spending increases, it is important to consider what has been cut in turn. The final totals are revealing and clear. This is a Government who ask the poorest people in our country to celebrate £2 billion from one hand while taking £6 billion with the other, to be thankful for small wage increases that are negated by higher taxes and inflation, and to watch their taxes rise while banks have theirs cut. That is not what I understand by “levelling up”.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
To truly level up, we must address many aspects of people’s lives by implementing measures that contribute to equality of opportunity and of health and wellbeing, and, of course, deliver the benefits of prosperity for all the country. I am delighted that the Government and the Chancellor have so thoroughly addressed these things with a range of initiatives and investments in the Budget that will enable us to truly build back better post-pandemic.
Our home lives and the environment in which we live impact us all greatly. The Government are investing unprecedented amounts of money in housing, including in the new £11.5-billion affordable housing programme, as part of the ambition to deliver 300,000 new homes a year by the mid-2020s. Alongside that, the Government’s 95% mortgage guarantee scheme goes further still, to help first-time buyers secure a mortgage, with a deposit requirement of just 5%. That will enable many people to buy their own home who were previously unable to. Opportunity, aspiration and social mobility go right to the heart of the values and principles of my party.
Even though we have reduced rough sleeping by a third, we must do more. The additional funding of £640 million a year represents an 85% increase compared with 2019, enough to make sure that fewer people are sleeping rough than at any time in the past decade.
On brownfield sites, I was also very pleased to see the £300-million locally led grant funding to unlock smaller brownfield sites, including the £75-million brownfield land release fund to help to unlock locally authority-owned land. Some £57 million of the fund has recently been allocated, with my council, South Gloucestershire Council, receiving £2 million and Bristol City Council receiving just under £200,000. To complement these new communities, the Chancellor also announced a £1.5 billion regeneration fund to improve transport links and other community facilities.
The Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget that the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors will benefit from a 50% discount on business rates will be music to many people’s ears. That will incentivise and assist this important sector of our economy, culture, recreation and overall wellbeing. Although this will be very welcome across the whole of the UK, it will certainly complement a number of developments and regeneration projects in my Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency, including, for example, the impressive YTL arena complex and the new Filton north railway station which collectively will provide a 17,000-capacity concert area, leisure facilities and other employment opportunities, and is due to open its doors in 2024.
Such regeneration projects not only demonstrate the Government’s commitment to building back better and improving transport and connectivity, but play a key part in improving overall wellbeing and enhancing equality of opportunity and aspiration across the country. I am proud that my constituency contains some of the world’s leading defence and aerospace companies, such as Airbus, Rolls-Royce and GKN, so I was delighted by my right hon. Friend’s Budget statement, which confirmed that the Government recognise the need for and benefit of investing even more in innovation and maintaining the target of £22 billion investment in R&D.
I am delighted by the announcement that we will have major transport infrastructure improvements in my constituency and that the west of England will benefit from the £540-million investment in local transport projects. My right hon. Friend stated in last week’s Budget:
“Infrastructure connects our country, drives productivity”—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 279.]—
That will enable us to level up.
This Budget demonstrates that, on the Government side of the House, there is a commitment and a determination to deliver the people’s priorities and enhance aspiration and opportunity, which will deliver prosperity, social mobility and wellbeing across our whole nation.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I love the enthusiasm among Government Members, but it reminds me of that story about the emperor’s new clothes, with them all simpering over the Chancellor while ignoring what is before their eyes. I understand why they want to believe in levelling up, but after 11 wasted Tory years, they are not levelling up. Our economy and public services are facing terminal decline. After 11 years, households across the country are facing a collapse in living standards. High inflation, rising taxes, low growth, falling living standards and crumbling public services are not indicators of levelling up; they are evidence that the Government have lost the plot.
This Budget does not address the childcare crisis. It disproportionately penalises women. It continues to ignore those self-employed who have been excluded and cast adrift. It punishes those working hard by crippling them with national insurance increases, council tax rises, unaffordable mortgages and a combination of shortages and higher food bills.
We need to grow our economy if we are ever to pay properly for decent public services without taxing people out of existence, but the Chancellor’s ambition is to return education spending to the level that he inherited in 2010. He is taking us back, not forward, wasting time when we should be taking the necessary steps towards a high-value, highly skilled, productive and green economy. As those missed opportunities mount, so the façade becomes harder to maintain. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have hit on a good slogan, but they are completely naked when it comes to taking the necessary action.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I know that time is tight tonight, but I cannot let the speech from the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) go without some response. It was lacking much coherence and any credibility. We heard from him that the covid-19 pandemic should have been predicted. His party have been in government in Scotland for almost a decade and a half, and I do not remember at any point, prior to covid hitting, warnings about that pandemic.
As for credibility, I would have had a little bit of support for the hon. Gentleman if he could at least recognise that this Budget delivers £600 million of additional funding to the Scottish Government this year; and that, for the next three years, it delivers an additional funding pot of £4.6 billion each year for the Scottish Government added on top of what they already have, making it the most generous settlement since devolution in 1999. The SNP now has more money to spend as a Scottish Government than any of their predecessors, and it has to recognise that this has been a very good Budget for Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about a local distillery in his constituency and how the Government should look at the taxation scheme to support the employees in that distillery. I hope that he considers that when he goes to the SNP conference later this month, because a motion is laid down in its conference papers right now calling for his party to look at “raising additional revenue by taxing the significant profits of the Scotch whisky industry”.
Douglas Ross
I will give way, using my own time, to hear what the hon. Gentleman thinks about the proposal from his fellow SNP members to tax whisky even more.
Peter Grant
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the SNP policy is that spirits should be fairly taxed regardless of how they are produced, unlike the system that has been maintained in the United Kingdom since the day alcohol taxation was first invented? Does he accept that that is the SNP’s policy as of now?
Douglas Ross
I will come on to taxation, because the Exchequer Secretary is sitting on the Front Bench and I want to make my own comments about that. However, there was nothing from the hon. Gentleman, leading the SNP in the response to the Budget debate tonight, about what his party are putting forward for debate at its conference later this month, which would see taxation on Scotch whisky go up. What we have seen from this Government is a fifth successive UK Government Budget that has frozen taxation on Scotch whisky, and that is something that I welcome for the many distilleries in Moray and across the country. There has been nothing from him or any SNP representatives so far tonight about the £172 million being invested by this Government on levelling-up projects across Scotland. From the borders to Edinburgh, from Ayrshire to Aberdeen, those projects will get funding from this Government.
The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), another SNP speaker today, used a quotation to suggest that he would wash the money coming from the UK Government to deliver these projects. These are projects that have been outstanding in Scotland for years. If the SNP Government had acted to deliver them, they would not be looking for investment from the UK Government, but because we have devolution and Scotland has two Governments, we are seeing the UK Government delivering these projects where the Scottish Government have failed.
Finally, I want to comment on the duty freeze on spirits, which is very welcome in Scotland. We know that there is a wider review of alcohol taxation in the United Kingdom; the Prime Minister announced it at Roseisle distillery in 2019 on a campaign visit to Moray. While the Exchequer Secretary is on the Front Bench, will she reassure the distilleries in my constituency and the Scotch Whisky Association that this Government will be true to their word? In their briefing notes on the Queen’s Speech after the 2019 election, they said that the review would
“ensure our tax system is supporting Scottish whisky and gin producers and protecting 42,000 jobs supported by Scotch across the UK.”
That is what I will be holding this Government to. I hope to see a very good response in the near future.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
This Budget should have been first and foremost an opportunity to address the very serious cost-of-living crisis that is now affecting an increasing number of families across the country. Instead, the Government’s decisions have made things worse. There is now immediate pressure on all our constituents from rising energy bills, fuel bills and food prices.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Last month, I launched a cost-of-living survey in my constituency. Three quarters of my constituents told me that their wages have either flatlined or fallen in the past two years, and that their main concern is the spike in gas and electricity bills. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a much-needed solution in these difficult circumstances is to cut VAT on gas and electricity bills this winter from 5% to 0%? Surely that is a glaring gap in the Chancellor’s Budget.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that there was action that the Government could take to address the cost-of-living crisis. Instead, the Resolution Foundation has said that we have the weakest pay growth since the 1930s, with little prospect of things improving.
The Government have failed to take action to ease the bottlenecks that are pushing up inflation. They have failed to boost the productive capacity of the economy, so that when demand rises, prices rise too. Even worse, they are still going ahead with the £20 cut to universal credit and are increasing national insurance contributions and tax on low-paid workers at a time when costs are going up.
I am glad that campaigning pressure has forced the Chancellor to change the taper rate and take some measures on universal credit, but the reality is that that is not enough to stop people facing huge pressures this winter. It is not enough to stop many families losing hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds. A constituent of mine who has got in touch is in his mid-60s. He has just lost his job and is struggling to find new work: because he is so close to retirement, he cannot find an employer to take him on. He has paid taxes for nearly 50 years and has worked all his life, but is now worried that he will not make his remaining mortgage payments. He is seeing his income hugely cut this winter at a time when he is worried whether he will be able to pay his fuel bills. It is deeply unfair.
Underpinning the cost-of-living crisis is the fact that the Government could have taken other decisions. They could have cut VAT on fuel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) says; they could have raised national insurance thresholds to ease the pressure on lower-income workers; they could have gone further in increasing the minimum wage—but they chose not to.
It is not just about the choices that the Government have made. Underpinning those choices is the real story of the Budget, which is that the Conservatives have become the party of low growth. We have had a decade of weak growth in national income, in productivity and in real wages, which is why the Government are now putting up taxes.
It will get worse, too. The OBR forecasts growth—once we come through the bounce-back from the pandemic—of 1.3%, 1.6% and 1.7%. For all the warm words in the Budget, and for all that Conservative Members seize on particular phrases of the Chancellor’s, that is the underlying reality that they should be most worried about: weak economic growth for the future. That is what will hit our future public services and hit future living standards. We do not have the investment in regional economies, in jobs of the future or, particularly, in tackling climate change and the environmental challenges that have been highlighted so heavily this week at COP26.
Perhaps the greatest travesty of all is the lack of funding for our children’s education. Sir Kevan Collins has warned that we will pay the costs of lost learning in lack of productivity growth and lack of economic opportunity for many years to come. Not restoring the funding for our schools to the levels that we had under the last Labour Government for several more years will mean 14 years of lost investment in our schools. That is an entire childhood—a kid’s entire childhood in schools lost. The cost in lower productivity will be felt for very many years to come.
If we want an age of optimism, we have to be able to be optimistic for our kids’ future, optimistic for our towns’ future, and optimistic that our children will have a fairer, better and more sustainable future than we have. That optimism is missing; that optimism was not in the Budget; and until we can invest in our kids’ future, we will not see that optimism come back.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I extend my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his team at the Treasury for their work on the Budget. As I have only a short time, I am unable to go through the many excellent announcements that he made last week, but I particularly support—and wish to discuss, if time allows—his assistance to businesses located across the country with cuts to business rates, the reduction in alcohol duties to make our drinks manufacturers more competitive, the heavy investment in infrastructure to boost our productivity, the support for those in need and the commitment to creating safer streets.
I fully support the £7 billion reduction in business rates to promote investment and business in this country. I am particularly pleased by at least a 50% reduction in rates for businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, which have had such a difficult year but have remained resilient throughout the pandemic. As a former retail business owner, I know how vital the cuts to business rates will be for those who work and run businesses in the sector. They will enable businesses to invest in capital, innovation and, importantly, people, enabling more businesses to hire new staff.
Investment will not just benefit businesses; reducing business rates is good for consumers, too. Increasing businesses’ capacity to invest enhances competition far more than increasing Government intervention in markets, resulting in lower prices and better products for consumers. I hope that, along with tax cuts and reliefs such as extending the £1 million annual investment allowance, greater wealth creation will be achieved. Decreasing taxes facilitates the opportunity for businesses to invest and grow. After all, it is businesses that create more employment opportunities, affording every person in this country the opportunity to level up, regardless of our backgrounds.
I am also pleased to hear about the simplification of alcohol duties and the prospect that that creates for the growth of British drinks manufacturers and pubs. Pubs are at the heart of the communities in my constituency, as they are across the country, and I know that the issue of alcohol duty is important to my constituents who have contacted me. I am delighted that reducing tariffs on drinks and supporting small craft producers such as Tring Brewery through the small producers relief will result in higher profits for businesses and help to protect our pubs.
I am equally delighted by the £5.7 billion investment in infrastructure, better connecting our country and better connecting us. As society reopened this year, the importance of reliable and healthy transport for business and personal journeys became even more apparent. Investing in both our national and our local transport affirms the Government’s commitment to levelling up all regions of the United Kingdom.
I am assured that the £5 billion designated for improving the quality of local roads will be welcomed by my constituents, particularly those who live in smaller villages and rely on local roads to connect them to larger towns and onward to cities. This investment boosts our productivity, enabling faster transport times, as well as improving safety on our roads. I am dedicated to campaigning for reliable and healthy transport, for an improvement in transit times and for the frequency and safety of public transport in my constituency and further afield.
I am conscious of time, so I will end by congratulating my right hon. Friend on delivering the excellent news that we have had better economic growth than forecasted and by welcoming his commitments to creating a more prosperous country for us all.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
This was a Budget that let down Birmingham and Erdington. The Government have made big promises to the country over the past two years with the rhetoric of levelling up, building back better and a high-wage, high-skills economy. The gulf between the rhetoric and the reality grows wider by the day, however.
Let me say why levelling up matters to the people of Erdington. A man who gets on a train at New Street and gets off at Gravelly Hill or Erdington is likely to live seven years fewer than he would if he continued his journey to Four Oaks in leafy Sutton Coldfield. The fact that such a grotesque comparison is possible in modern Britain is nothing short of a scandal. That is why it is so important for the Government to fulfil their promise to invest in communities such as Erdington.
Last week the Government released details of the successful bids for the levelling-up fund, and Erdington High Street submitted a bid to the fund. Like so many others across the country, Erdington is a proud community, and proud of its history as a thriving working-class community, but sadly the high street has fallen into decline, with big names leaving one by one and empty shopfronts left behind. Working with Birmingham City Council and all the key local stakeholders, the local community decided to turn that around. They submitted a comprehensive and ambitious bid to the levelling-up fund, underpinned by a solid business case and significant private sector investment. Part of the high street bid was £43 million in match funding alone, nearly double the amount of funding provided to the three other bids that Birmingham had made to the fund. However, the answer from the Government was no: there would be not one penny from them for the redevelopment of Erdington High Street.
That decision is inexplicable and outrageous. Erdington is the fifth most deprived constituency in the country. What planet are the Government living on, if levelling up means nothing—not a penny—for the most deprived communities in Britain? If it is to mean anything, surely it requires the Government to support the Erdington High Street bid.
Following the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), let me say this. The Government talk about a new era of optimism. What about schools and young people? We know that 42% of children growing up in Birmingham are growing up in poverty. Kevan Collins, brought in by the Government, warns of serious long-term consequences—scars as a consequence of the Government’s letting down the children of Birmingham and Britain. As for a new age of optimism more generally on the economic front, let the Government use those words to the families who will have to pay an additional £3,000 in tax. Two thirds of those paying national insurance will still have to pay the full whack.
The idea that what the Government did in the Budget was somehow to listen and learn and react to the people of Britain and their legitimate concerns could not be further from the truth. The simple reality is that we have slow and anaemic growth, an economy that is not firing on all cylinders as it needs to be to achieve recovery, and grotesque unfairness. When the Government talk of levelling up, I am afraid that there is a belly laugh from the people of Erdington, who feel badly let down.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I want to reflect on what I think was a great speech from the Chancellor last week, and another fantastic tour de force from the levelling-up Secretary today.
It is important for us to see everything that the Government are doing in context—the context of the hundreds of billions of pounds that they are putting into supporting the economy during the pandemic. We have had the furlough scheme and grants for business, support that has only been possible because of a decade of sensible financial management by the Conservative party. That is something on which Opposition Members should reflect, and it is something that they could not do after the financial crisis of 2008-09. However, as the Chancellor said in his statement, we should look more broadly at value for money in public spending, and that is certainly something that I shall be doing on the Public Accounts Committee along with the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).
I disagreed with the hon. Member when he said that the House was only about party politics. I have worked closely with the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on policies of hers. I have worked with her on, for example, the Menopause (Support and Services) Bill, supported by the Government last week, and the all-party parliamentary group on gambling-related harm. There is more to this House than just party politics, and we can work together on certain important matters. I hope that the hon. Member will reflect a little on his earlier comments.
Some Members, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), spoke of what extra borrowing at this time would mean. That was all I could really hear from the Opposition, who seemed to be saying, “We want this extra spending, but we do not want the taxes to pay for it.” Those on the Government side of the House are prepared to be honest with the British people; those on the Opposition Benches clearly are not. We should bear in mind that a 1% increase in interest rates that the Government have to pay would be the equivalent of a huge chunk of the defence budget being wiped out in interest alone. We need to think about that in a wider context, and about the sound management that the Government are delivering.
As for levelling up itself, one element in the Budget that has really hit home is the taper rate. Labour Members have said that it is not enough, but they talked about wanting to get rid of universal credit, which was introduced to stop taper rates of over 100% for working people. Now the rate is down to 55%, about half what it was for some workers before. Ours is the party that is delivering for working Britain, and we are also delivering more vacancies and more full-time jobs than ever before: even now, there are more full-time jobs than ever before in the UK. This is the party of work. Whenever Labour has been in government, it has left unemployment higher. I am delighted to support what the Government are doing.
More broadly, we are being honest with people. We are saying, “If you are to have good public services, you must be able to pay for them.” That is why I support what the Government are doing. Opposition Members all say that they want more money and more investment, but none of them can say where they would raise that money. These are the two wins of levelling up: good jobs, better paid, with people being taken out of unemployment and into work, and the delivery of great public services funded by that.
In my own constituency, I welcome the excellent news about the Weardale railway line, which I will say more about in the Adjournment debate—the House is safe for the time being—and the money for Shotley Bridge Hospital, as well as the feasibility study on reconnecting Consett and the Tyne. I thank, in particular, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for the draught beer relief, and the 107 Conservative Members who supported it. However, as we are seeking to level up, I ask her to look a little at a campaign that I will be pressing on pensions. I want to see our pensions system levelled up across the country. However, I will leave that for another day, and simply thank the Government for everything that they have done so far to help level up our country.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Somewhat uncharacteristically for an Opposition Member, I will start by mentioning some of the measures in the Budget that I do welcome.
Reducing the universal credit taper rate from 63% to 55% is certainly a modest step in the right direction, as is the £500 increase in the work allowance. However, I should make it clear that wider reform of universal credit is still desperately needed—a point to which I will return later in my speech. I also welcome the freeze in duty for Scotch whisky, which has had a torrid time in recent years as a result of Brexit, the pandemic and punitive US tariffs. I shall return to that later as well.
One of the so-called flagship announcements in the Budget was the announcement of that modest reduction in the universal credit taper rate, and I do not deny that some, although by no means all, will be able to benefit from it. However, despite all the hyperbole—some of which we have heard today—we must not lose sight of the fact that the Chancellor has merely tinkered around the edges of universal credit. The stark reality facing many of my constituents in Easterhouse, and across the east end, is that a modest reduction in the taper rate will come nowhere near to compensating for last month’s £20-a-week cut in universal credit.
We should also remember that changes in the taper rate will not benefit those who are out of work or unable to work owing to sickness or a caring responsibility, or indeed those who have a disability. Those living with a disability had already been cruelly overlooked by the Government on the £20 uplift at the beginning of the pandemic, so this is arguably a double blow to a group of people who are impacted—arguably even more so—by the cost-of-living crisis. We know that only about four in every 10 universal credit claimants are in work, so this change in the taper rate will not benefit 60% claimants living in Carmyle, Craigend or Carntyne.
To be blunt, this Budget was a missed opportunity to strengthen the UK’s social security net, which too many in our communities still fall through. We should have used this opportunity to build back better by scrapping the benefit cap, ending the punitive sanctions regime, binning the two-child limit and the rape clause, dropping the five-week wait, and abolishing the bedroom tax elsewhere in the UK. Instead, the Chancellor has opted to focus on tinkering around the edges, rather than transforming the lives of the most vulnerable in our communities. By scrapping the triple lock, it is clear that the Chancellor is balancing the books on the backs of pensioners who continue to get a raw deal from a pension system that they have paid into their whole lives.
I want to raise another concern that arose from Wednesday’s statement, and I do so as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Scotch whisky. I welcome the freeze on alcohol duty, which we know disproportionately hits our iconic Scotch whisky sector. That sector supports 42,000 jobs, hundreds of which are in my own constituency of Glasgow East. However, it is worth reminding the House that the freeze on duty only gives breathing room to an industry that already faces a 70% tax burden. It will not be lost on the Scots that the same Budget that saw duty for Scotch whisky stay the same saw a tax cut for English sparkling wine. For a Government who talk a good game on levelling up, it seems that our premium spirit is indeed missing from that all-important level—something that our Scottish Tory colleagues might want to explain in their speeches tonight. Let me say clearly to the British Government: by all means, fly in and have your photo opportunities at Speyside distilleries and announce another review on alcohol duty, but do not be surprised when there is a backlash from distillers who can see that Scotch whisky will be left at a severe competitive disadvantage by a Treasury that must do much more to support Scotch.
The theme for tonight’s debate is levelling up, but this Budget demonstrates that levelling up is all spin and no substance. The Red Book says that this Budget is about
“a stronger economy for the British people”.
In truth, it delivers more for sparkling wine than it does for social security. I can tell the House that my constituents in Cranhill will not be popping the prosecco and toasting this smoke-and-mirrors Budget.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I cannot really add to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and his praise for the impact of this Budget in north Wales, but I will give just one example before I turn to some of the contributions we have heard from the Opposition in today’s debate. The Wild Horse Brewing Company in Llandudno makes my favourite drink, the IPA, and it has already been talking about the impact of the small producer relief in the Budget. That is just one small thing, but it is an illustration of how the Budget has reached the parts that other Budgets have not reached before. Aberconwy is a place that has been hit first, hardest and longest by the pandemic, and we have seen the Chancellor’s typical awareness of and sensitivity to that in the support package we received and now in the Budget that he brought forward last week. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for that.
This is a debate, and I have listened carefully to what the Opposition have offered as an alternative to the Budget. Three ideas have come through. The hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) talked about radical devolution and about investment, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and many others talked about growth. I wondered what these things would look like under a Labour Government and I realised that in Wales we know exactly what they look like. After two decades, radical devolution in Wales has resulted in the centralisation of powers to Cardiff. For example, just 9% of European structural funds are decided by the local authorities in Wales, compared with 36% in England. This Budget has demonstrated that the UK Government trust local authorities and it is for all parts of the UK.
On investment, although Wales has just 3% of the UK’s population, before devolution, it enjoyed over 5% of the UK’s inward investment. After two decades, that figure is now closer to 1%. Inward investment has collapsed under the care and attention of the Labour Government in Cardiff. On growth, I was interested to hear it mentioned several times. In Wales, at the start of the period of devolution, about 20,000 jobs a year were being created by inward investment. Now, the figure is closer to 5,000 a year. It has collapsed under the Labour Administration.
This Government have invested in research and development and have promised £2 billion extra in the Budget. I welcome the insight that has come with them saying, “Let’s not take things as they are. Let’s make them different. Let’s see how we need to do things such as the introduction of the taper relief faster, and let’s see how we need to do things differently, including investing in research and development.”
I want to use these last moments to talk about something I think we can all agree on. These are words of wisdom from a resident of the King’s Road in Llandudno, who said to me last summer as we talked over their garden wall:
“Someone will have to pay for this.”
I really welcomed the Chancellor’s words at the end of his Budget when he said that we were moving towards a small-state, low-tax economy and that we had to move away from being a society in which the Government were the first resort for every problem. That is what my conservatism is to me. I welcome that, and I welcome this Budget.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
There were two main challenges facing the Chancellor as he prepared for the Budget. One, on the eve of COP26, was to accelerate progress on tackling climate change, yet he had nothing to say on that. Instead, he cut air passenger duty on domestic flights, sending out entirely the wrong signal when he should have been investing in our rail services. It was clear that net zero could not have been further from his mind.
The other challenge was to take the pressure off working people. The pandemic has hit household incomes and widened inequality. The Government have also created a perfect storm of financial pressure with the universal credit cut, the national insurance rise, energy prices soaring and food prices rising at the fastest rate for more than a decade. People were looking to the Chancellor to help them out, yet, according to the Resolution Foundation, this Budget has increased the UK’s tax burden by £3,000 a year per household. The Office for Budget Responsibility has also confirmed that the Chancellor’s underlying strategy is to put even more pressure on council tax payers, with £5.3 billion more expected by 2025. The Budget is masking the fact that the Government are seeking to take even more out of people’s pockets. There is a suggestion that the average council tax bill will be well over £2,000 in the next few years.
The tax system has been rigged in favour of the wealthy, with bankers and Amazon getting a tax cut while ordinary people are being hit with national insurance. A huge opportunity to level the playing field has been missed. A survey by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers of 2,500 low-paid workers shows that over half of workers on less than £10 per hour are having to miss meals to pay everyday bills. Working people are being asked to pay more for less, and we are all paying the price for past Government failures.
On education, we know that there are 1,000 fewer Sure Start centres now than when the Conservatives came into power. The 75 family hubs are welcome, but after a decade-long failure to invest in children’s futures, this is clearly too little, too late. It also appears that schools are expected to fund the Government’s commitment to increasing teacher starter salaries to £30,000 from existing budgets. Schools simply do not have the money to meet that commitment. Also, the trumpeted rise in the budget for 16 to 19-year-olds is no rise at all when we look at the rising student numbers in that cohort. This comes at a time when the underfunding of colleges over recent years has already forced them to narrow their curriculum and put more pressure on an already stretched workforce. St Brendan’s College in my constituency has been trying really hard not to make those cuts, but the pressure is becoming very difficult for it to manage.
I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of an £1.8 billion fund to develop brownfield land, which, it is claimed, will bring 1,500 hectares of brownfield land into use. I hope this means that Bristol will finally get the funding we need to unlock the development of Temple Quarter in the centre of the city. That could mean 10,000 new homes and 22,000 new jobs.
Finally, I would be failing in my duty as a west country MP if I did not mention cider. However, the 40-litre threshold for draught duty relief overwhelmingly favours large breweries. So on behalf of the smaller breweries and cider producers in the area, which often supply 30-litre kegs and would therefore be excluded from this measure, I urge a rethink from the Chancellor on this. Lowering the threshold to include any container would be a simple fix with huge benefits for independent businesses, and I am sure that my constituents would raise their glasses to the Chancellor if he did that.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It seems to me that we are hearing the same old speeches from the Opposition. I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who is no longer in his place. We heard no mention of education in his speech, and I wonder why not. It is because in 2019 and 2020, the proportion of pupils passing three or more highers was only 43%, which is lower than any year in Scotland since 2015. It is a disgrace that the Scottish Government continue to fail the many young children growing up north of the border.
When we last debated a Budget in this place, the country was in a very different situation from the one we find now. In the middle of the third national lockdown, many businesses in Keighley and Ilkley were telling me that without further support they might not be able to open their doors to customers again. In March, I said it was essential for the Chancellor to extend his world-beating support for businesses, including the furlough scheme and cash grant payments. The Chancellor proved he was on the side of British businesses and workers then and, after last week’s Budget, as we build back better from this pandemic, it gives me great pride to say that this Conservative Government are on their side once again.
While March’s Budget was about supporting people through an unprecedented time, this Budget is all about giving local businesses the tools and the confidence they need to succeed in the post covid economy. Take small businesses, the backbone of the local economy in Keighley and Ilkley: cuts to business rates for those in the leisure and retail sector will help them to bounce back from months of closures. With the Government’s small business rate relief, £7 billion of tax cuts will be granted to more than 700,000 businesses—businesses that have shown such resilience over the past year. They deserve a Government who are on their side and will put them at the forefront of UK economic growth.
The Government are acting on another issue that is important to me and many of my constituents: the skills agenda. The Budget will bring skills spending to a total of £3.8 billion during this Parliament, and it will go directly to practical changes that will make a real difference and make levelling up a reality. The funds will introduce T-levels to our national curriculum, create more traineeships and apprenticeships, and build more institutes of technology.
On a micro level, the Government have already invested and committed £33.6 million in Keighley through the towns fund. At the very heart of that plan is a new skills hub, a new manufacturing, engineering and tech hub and a new health and wellbeing hub, all of which will be built in the centre of my town. I am pleased that the Government have already committed to 40 new hospitals, with a further eight to be announced; I made my plea for a new Airedale hospital this week, and I will continue to do so. This Government are on the side of working people, and I am proud to support this Budget.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I will keep my comments on the Budget specifically to youth work. I do so for two reasons. The first, more positive reason is that this week is national Youth Work Week, and I put on record my thanks to the youth workers in my constituency and across the country, who do a tremendous job in safeguarding, caring for and looking after our young people and guiding them through adolescence. Let us face it: adolescence is a difficult enough thing at the best of times, and in recent years we have not had the best of times, with covid, with lockdown and with education interrupted.
Secondly, youth work offers a good example of how this is a smoke and mirrors Budget. To give some context, youth work in England has seen a 73% cut in the past 11 years. That has had consequences. It has seen 940 youth centres closed and 4,500 qualified youth workers no longer working in frontline youth work—a figure that rises to about 13,000 if we take youth and community workers together. The National Youth Agency estimates that about £1 billion less per year is being spent on youth work than a decade ago.
I feel incredibly passionate about youth work, so I was glad two years ago when the Government announced a £500 million youth investment fund. The only trouble is that not a penny of that has been spent in the past two years. When the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and announced £560 million for youth funding, I was immediately suspicious, because I had already heard about £500 million for the youth investment fund, which we had not seen a penny of in two years. It is no surprise that the £560 million that has just been announced included that £500 million, so we could argue it was just a £60 million funding announcement. However, it gets worse, because when we read the small print in this Budget, we discover that the National Citizen Service funding is included in that money. Once we start crunching the numbers, we soon realise that the Budget includes a £450 million cut to youth services.
Our young people will get £450 million a year less under this Budget, yet the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and announced a £560 million investment. That is smoke and mirrors; it is deceiving to the young people and youth workers around the country, who have had a really difficult time over the past two years. For this to come during national Youth Work Week and at a time when the NYA has done research proving that young people in more affluent areas are twice as likely as those in poorer areas to have access to a youth centre and a youth worker shows that the Budget is not about levelling up; it is about smoke and mirrors.
If we are to do politics better, let us play with a straight bat and be honest: this Budget contains a funding cut to our young people. It is deceiving for the Chancellor to stand at the Dispatch Box and say it is an investment when it is quite clearly the opposite. I call on Government Members to be more straightforward with the voters, particularly with our young people. We need young people to engage in our democracy. When politicians stand up and say one thing, but once we look at the small print we discover that it is another thing, it gives our young people a sense that politics is not for them.
The consequences of that are far more than the loss of youth centres or youth workers—I fear that it will lead to a loss of trust among a generation of young people who have already faced 11 years of austerity and cuts to youth services, when they see further cuts. In youth services, 11 years is an entire generation. Given the scale of cuts we have seen to youth work and the 50% decline in youth work degrees, we know it will take an awful lot to build back a sector that is on its knees. We owe it to our young people to be straight with them and to be clear that this Budget contains a huge cut to our youth services.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this great debate on the Budget, which gets to the heart of what this Government do —levelling up. Levelling up is so important for Rother Valley and the people living in my constituency. There has been debate about what levelling up is. To me, it is about creating opportunities. It is about the job creation and wealth that we deserve in the north, which other places in the south have historically had.
I often think we should treat levelling up as we would treat a natural disaster. We need that emergency aid pumped in—the short, sharp injection of cash—but, more importantly, once the cameras have gone, we need the long-term support of aid for skills and training. Some of my constituents have said that Rother Valley is a bit like a natural disaster, having been ruled by Labour for 101 years, but, at last, this Government, with the Chinook helicopters flying over, is coming to the aid of levelling up in Rother Valley.
I welcome this move, looking at both the short-term and long-term funding. I am incredibly pleased that this Government are investing in Rother Valley. With Rother Valley and Rotherham council, we put in two bids for the levelling up fund—divided bids, but bids that would cover levelling up—to cover both the short, sharp measures and the long-term growth measures that we needed. That follows my 2,000-person parliamentary petition, my Adjournment debate on levelling up, and the other work I have done convincing Rotherham council to invest in our area.
I am pleased to say that one of those bids was successful; we have a £4.5 million grant for Maltby Academy, which will create an incubator space for skills and apprenticeships. The Gulliver’s Valley skills village will create training and areas of accreditation in hospitality, creating jobs, and Rother Valley Country Park will be overhauled to help to create new jobs and new leisure receipts in the area.
Those are the overarching measures we need to create long-term growth. Skills and jobs: that is what the £11 million levelling up pot does for Rother Valley, and I am incredibly pleased. It is on top of all the other measures the Government have announced on long-term skills and the desire to create more jobs, whether that is the £570 million given to South Yorkshire for much-needed transport, or cutting the taper rate by 8%. That is putting more money in people’s pockets, showing them that the Conservative Government is on the workers’ side. Only by getting jobs and prosperity can we level up our areas, and this Government are doing that.
However, I must say I am mildly disappointed that our bid for £9 million for Dinnington High Street was not successful. For me, that would be the much-needed short, sharp injection of cash to the high street. When the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in charge of levelling up—my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) —toured Dinnington High Street with me, he witnessed the burnt-out building opposite my office. I noted in the prospectus for the levelling-up fund that there was even talk of using the money to get rid of burnt-out buildings. The fund is designed for areas such as Dinnington in Rother Valley. So I hope that, in spring, working with the Dinnington Land Trust and Dinnington’s council, Rotherham’s council will put in an even stronger bid for that money. I know that I have great guarantees already from this Government that we have had one bite of the cherry but there are two more to go. I will be working with this Government to make sure that in the next round our bid for the levelling-up fund is even stronger, so that we can have that money we so need.
Overall, this Budget is giving us long-term measures to help look after areas such as Rother Valley and areas across the north of England. I also make a plea to this Government: do remember those short, sharp injections of cash we need in Rother Valley as well for our high streets, not just in Dinnington, but in Maltby, Thurcroft, Aston, Swallownest and across Rother Valley. Together, we will overturn this natural disaster and improve Rother Valley for everyone.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind everyone that if you have participated in today’s debate, you will be expected to be present at the wind-ups.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I have been in this debate all afternoon, and I have to say that I am more discombobulated now than I was before I came in. I am not sure what is meant by “levelling up”; a number of attempts have been made to explain it, but I cannot understand what has happened. I do know that I would love the type of finances that have been afforded to some of the areas represented by Government Members—some of the millions and millions of pounds that their constituencies have received. Perhaps it is because they are Conservative constituencies—I am not sure—but one thing I do know is that I would not mind a portion of it for my constituency.
It is not just about shiny projects; levelling up must be about people. It must be about addressing the grotesque inequalities in today’s society. It must be about opportunity, ambition, fairness and hope for everyone. Over the past decades, from Thatcherism to austerity, the party in government has followed the same playbook: foster division, foment turmoil and attack working-class families, so that it and its social strata always benefit.
The Budget delivered on Wednesday showed once again that levelling up is nothing but rhetoric and means nothing while families are left to struggle and health outcomes are shockingly distorted. The Chancellor’s words of commitment for families and communities could not be further removed from reality. In the past five years, child poverty in the north-east has risen from 25% to 37%, whereas in his constituency it stands at 13.8%. That is where we need the levelling up. The realities on the ground are stark. Working people are hit by the national insurance rises and hikes in the cost of living, while bankers are given a generous tax cut—that is not levelling up. Thousands of people had their universal credit ripped away from them—that is not levelling up. That comes on top of a decade of austerity that has ripped a hole in the public services. How exactly is that levelling up with families and communities in mind? Schools in the Chancellor’s constituency get more block funding per pupil than they do in mine—is that levelling up? Real wages will be lower in 2026 than they were in 2008—is that levelling up? Wages in the north-east are £10,000 less than those in London—is that levelling up? A man born in Bedlington East, in my constituency, is expected to live to be 75.2 years of age, whereas the figure for leafy Richmondshire is 81.3—is that levelling up?
The Chancellor talks of personal responsibility, so let me just say something very simple: I hold him, his friends, this Government and those on the Government Benches personally responsible for the deliberate holding back of people in my community.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in the Budget debate today on the theme of levelling up. In the short time I have, I want to focus on Stoke-on-Trent—or, to quote the Chancellor in his recent speech, the “great city” of Stoke-on-Trent. We have had £56 million of levelling-up funding for Stoke-on-Trent, which represents the biggest Government investment in my home city for 50 years and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to supporting our ambitions as a city.
When I was elected in 2019, I listened to those who said that Stoke-on-Trent had been forgotten and nothing could be done to change that. I made a promise to them that this would change, and I am glad that it has. Stoke-on-Trent is now recognised in Westminster as the litmus test for the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Pre-pandemic, the city was undergoing the most remarkable economic transformation, driven by our excellent location and resurgent manufacturing economy. However, Stoke-on-Trent is still the fifth most deprived city in the UK, so this investment is crucial for boosting local growth. The city needs help with its brownfield sites because of its industrial past. Subsidence has been an issue in Stoke-on-Trent for many years, and it will be for many to come, due to the former North Staffordshire coalfield, with more than 8,000 disused shafts, many ancient workings, and a huge and intricate web of tunnels beneath the city. Water is another issue. It was pumped out of the mines to extract the coal, but now the water level has risen again and is causing erosion and further subsidence. The prospect of harnessing this water and the power of geothermal energy to heat our city is an exciting one that needs Government support.
Transport also plays a huge role in levelling up, so I welcome the £50,000 awarded through the restoring your railway ideas fund for the Stoke to Leek line, to level up opportunity for our local communities. I will continue to make the case for a new station in Etruria to replace the one closed in 2005. Its location, next to our most successful enterprise zone, makes it a wise investment in an area where air pollution makes improved public transport options essential.
Levelling up is also about owning the challenges we face as a city and at community level, and owning the solutions. It is about asking Government for help, but not asking them to deliver everything, so I support trusting the people and investing in our social fabric, to empower communities with the delivery of innovative solutions to problems they understand better than anyone. The shared prosperity fund must be targeted at our community development, rather than capital funding, repurposing existing buildings and investing in youth workers, volunteer leaders, community champions and the multitude of very localised activities that need long-term support to ensure that services are sustainable. Levelling up must address such grassroots challenges, found in every village, town and city throughout our four nations.
The Budget provides the investment needed to power up key sites in Stoke-on-Trent, and nationally it strikes the right balance between fiscal responsibility and backing the UK to continue to recover, grow and prosper. It has my full support.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly to my position as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group, as I shall focus my remarks on public sector pay.
The true test of a Budget is whether the political position holds in the days after or starts to unravel within minutes, which is what happened with this Budget. It did not take very long—indeed, the suggestion that we should all drink sparkling wine is unravelling as we speak, as wine experts cast their eyes over the Budget. We can see the Budget unravelling in no area more than the much-promised pay rise for public sector workers. It turns out that even the Treasury leaks were not accurate, because the Budget provided little or no comfort for civil servants who work for UK Government Departments.
In the past few days, the Chancellor has said in many interviews that pay is a matter for pay review bodies. If someone happens to be a civil servant who works for a UK Government Department, they will discover that their pay is not covered by a pay review body. Treasury money is needed to fund their pay rise. For those who, along with many, have helped to keep the economic wheels turning—who have, for example, processed and paid universal credit payments for a record number of claimants—and who have been subjected to 11 years of pay cuts and pay freezes, there is no clarity at all as to whether they will receive either a real-terms pay cut or a real-terms pay rise. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, that is not levelling up.
Added to that is the fact that civil servants continue to overpay their pension contributions by 2%—of course, the Budget said nothing about that—so the Budget does not mean much at all for public sector workers who work for a UK Government Department. Inflation is over 3%, meaning that most have suffered a real-terms pay cut with this year’s pay freeze, and the predictions are that inflation will rise to perhaps 4%, with some even suggesting 6%. We need a commitment from the Government that civil servants will be rewarded.
As always with Budgets, the devil is in the detail. The Chancellor indicated that the Government want to cut jobs to 2019 levels. That would equate to 32,000 jobs leaving UK Government Departments. We have seen the benefits of the public sector and public sector employment, and the need for world-class public services, but the Budget does little to reward those who have kept UK Government Departments going and supported so many people. The Government have a duty and a responsibility to reward handsomely those who work for them.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Budget will deliver a stronger economy for the British people, and it has certainly delivered for the great city of Stoke-on-Trent. This has been possible only through Conservative MPs and the Conservative-led city council working together to secure the investment we need.
The £56 million promised for realising our levelling-up schemes comes as a welcome addition to £40 million from the transforming cities fund to improve local bus and rail, as well as the millions secured through the housing infrastructure fund, heritage actions zones and many other schemes. Our successful levelling-up bids focus on making the city even more inviting and an even more attractive place to live, work, study, visit and invest. The historic Spode and Tams factories, which were left to rot by Labour, will receive investment. The arson-prone Tams Crown Pottery in Longton, which has been derelict for more than 15 years, will see 64 modern apartments achieved. With all that combined with the heritage action zone and partnership schemes in conservation areas, we are levelling up Longton back to where it should be. We are breathing new life into and increasing residential footfall for our high street and the much-loved Victorian market hall.
The need to level up is certainly pressing. Three wards in my constituency are identified as left-behind neighbourhoods by the all-party parliamentary group for left-behind neighbourhoods—40% or more of households in those wards do not have a car—so the combination of levelling-up schemes with the TCF and, crucially, the reverse-Beeching schemes is the right one. Labour left our local rail network to rot, just as Labour left our potteries to rot after the disaster of the 2008-09 financial crash and the loss of a huge part of our local industry in the late ’90s. We have changed that: we have rebuilt our local economy to become one of the fastest-growing cities in the country. Thanks to the TCF, the restoring your railways fund and—I might say—my relentless campaigning, Longton station is to be refurbished; Stoke station is to be an intermodal transport hub; Meir station is progressing from the ideas fund to the advanced-project stage of RYR; and, thanks to the Budget, our plans to reopen the Stoke-Leek line have won funding. I should stress that Stoke-on-Trent does not have a working-from-home economy, so commuter transport is needed, reducing congestion for everyone. The scale of bus decline locally is concerning. It is the second highest of anywhere in the country. Only recently Onward identified Stoke-on-Trent as one of the worst areas of the country for access to employment opportunities by public transport.
Alongside TCF, the Government must fund the improvements that we want to see through the bus service improvement plan, including the possibility of franchising for the Potteries. After years of decline, many manufacturers, including our ceramics industry, are enjoying a resurgence. The gross value added of the UK ceramics sector has more than doubled in 10 years—from £419 million in 2009 to £1.2 billion in 2019. My own ambition is for a £1-billion ceramics economy in Stoke-on-Trent alone. While demand is high for our excellent products, energy price fluctuations continue to be a serious concern for both ceramics and other high energy intensive users. Given the prevalence of small and medium-sized enterprises, it is vital that the sector is supported through a larger share of UK R&D investment if it is to transition to cleaner, more efficient and resilient technologies.
Connectivity and regeneration are key to opportunities for good jobs, good pay and access to education and skills. The job now is to deliver locally what we have won funding for nationally.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
This Budget comes on the back of a lost decade for many of my constituents—a decade of lost investment, a decade of lost opportunity and a long decade of crippling cuts to essential services. This applies no more so than for our further education colleges and sixth forms across the country, and that is the topic on which I shall focus in the short time that I have available this evening.
The Chancellor announced that schools funding for up to 16-year-olds will eventually match the per-pupil levels of the previous Labour Government, but adult skills and 16-19 further education miss out by an estimated £4.8 billion. The Government talk about levelling up and putting skills centre stage but, in reality, the swingeing axe of austerity still falls.
Tracey Aust, principal of West Thames College in Isleworth, told me that, by 2024, per-student funding at her college would not have gone up for 14 years—14 lost years. The current per-student funding is just £1,050 per annum, compared with £6,600 per university student. That has meant cuts in the college year on year: less choice of courses; less career advice; fewer opportunities to link with local employers; and less mental health and welfare support. Furthermore, vocational courses cost more to deliver than desk and whiteboard courses. Together, these two factors make it much harder for this excellent college to provide world-class education and the skills that our economy needs in the future.
West Thames College’s principal also said that replacing BTECs with the new T-levels would risk more students falling through the gaps, as the T-levels require level 2 and above entry requirements. The Department for Education’s own equality impact assessment on T-levels said:
“Those from SEND backgrounds, Asian ethnic groups, disadvantaged backgrounds and males are disproportionately likely to be affected.”
That is yet more levelling down.
Colleges such as West Thames College have done amazing work, ensuring that young people get a world-class education and the skill that they need for later life in the jobs that need doing. Yet they are being held back by a Government who spout warm words about skills and retraining, but then offer virtually no support.
With the climate crisis hardly getting a mention in the Budget, nothing was said about green skills. FE colleges are critical in this regard. They provide the essential learning that will be needed, including designing, installing and maintaining heat pumps, solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars and better insulation; and rewilding our natural spaces. We cannot deliver net zero here in the UK if UK people do not have the green skills, and we cannot level up if people who want to work and who want to get better paid work do not have the skills that this country needs in future.
Better skills need better funding. We need to invest in people and to invest in productivity. Time and again, this Government have been warned about their inadequate investment in skills, and this Budget is just tinkering around the edges. This Budget does not make up for the lost decade that West Thames College and other colleges across England have faced. This is a lost decade that will leave a scarring impact on so many.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
This Government were elected on a mandate to unite and level up, and for my constituents in Penistone and Stocksbridge this Budget will begin to close the gap. I am delighted that the Chancellor has awarded £50,000 to explore the opportunity to restore a passenger rail service between Stocksbridge and Sheffield that could reduce journey times significantly, and open up important opportunities for work, training, leisure and healthcare. I thank Chris Bell and the Don Valley Railway group, who have campaigned for this project for many years.
To create a productive, high-wage economy, we must focus on skills. The last census showed that fewer than 50% of adults in the Stocksbridge and Upper Don ward have a level 3 qualification. That is a significant barrier to progression in work. I am delighted that, in addition to the programmes already announced, the Government’s plan to improve adult numeracy skills with the multiply programme, will be a massive bonus to my constituency. I know that the outstanding Barnsley College and Northern College stand ready to deliver. This is also a great Budget for local businesses, with help for high streets in Penistone, Stocksbridge, Chapeltown, Ecclesfield and Dodworth through reduced and reformed business rates.
Even more importantly than delivering investment in infrastructure and skills, this Budget will level up because it recognises that the true birthplace of opportunity is the family. Economic circumstances can create a framework for opportunities, but a child’s ability to grasp those opportunities depends for the most part on their family circumstances. It is families that offer children security, and teach them the values and virtues that they need to flourish. That is why the Chancellor rightly says that families and communities are
“more important than the market or the state.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 286.]
The first two years of a child’s life are crucial to their life chances. I warmly welcome the £500 million start for life offer that will roll out family hubs, improve perinatal health, and invest in the early years workforce and parenting skills. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for their tireless efforts in advocating for babies, children and families. This investment is desperately needed. If we have learnt anything from the mistaken decision to close schools during the pandemic, we have learnt that we are living through a crisis in parenting. I am delighted that this Budget begins to put that right, and recognises the importance of strong and confident families as the building blocks of society.
This Budget levels up by addressing the causes of inequality and creating the conditions for opportunities to grow and spread. However, I do understand the concerns of those who worry that the Government are doing too much. Big state does not create the best conditions for human freedom and flourishing. There are many problems that the Government cannot solve and the Government cannot make us good.
If the UK was a proud, old Sheffield terraced house, it would be one with some rather worrying cracks in the brickwork. However financially prudent we are as homeowners, we must spend upfront to fix structural issues, otherwise we know that the costs will spiral—in fact, we may lose our house. There are some deep cracks in our nation and we must invest now to fix those problems if we are to move towards a better future. The ambition must be to develop a new social covenant where the Government provide the framework, but where we all share the responsibility for building stronger families, stronger communities and a stronger nation.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that this is a Budget for an “age of optimism”, and I agree. We do not deny the challenges that we face, but we will not be distracted from our vision of Britain as a free, fair and independent country, setting a course towards a future of more equal opportunities and greater prosperity.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), who is no longer in his place, stated that levelling up is not just about geography. Although I am not yet clear what it is, I do agree with that. It is not just about people knowing that they will have decent schools, good hospitals, connected transport and investment in local jobs, no matter where they were born, grew up or live now; it is also about a society in which all people—no matter their situation, who they are or where they live—have an equal chance not just to survive, but to thrive. Public services and infrastructure are obviously part of that, and public services include the provision of social security.
It is not shameful to receive social security. That is important and not said enough. It is not shameful to be born without enough, for someone to lose their job, or to have health difficulties or caring responsibilities. As many in North East Fife and across the UK have found in the last 20 months, anyone can require to be in receipt of social security. The way that the Government have treated social security in the Budget suggests that they feel otherwise. Although it has taken some time, I am pleased that the Government now seem to recognise that universal credit is an in-work benefit. Yes, the taper rate for universal credit has been cut, but that restores only a third of what was taken away by the £20 cut, and it helps only those people already in work. There are thousands of other people struggling to enter the workplace, or in receipt of legacy benefits—and what about those, still predominantly women, with childcare commitments?
Research done earlier this year by the University of York found that most mothers claiming universal credit struggle to meet the work conditionality requirements because work coaches do not understand the commitments of childcare. The childcare element of universal credit barely covers costs anyway, but cannot be claimed until the end of the first month of paid work, so people are supposed to do up to 30 hours of work search each week while caring for their children. I know from experience, and I hope that anyone who has or had small children knows, that that is just not possible. Without reforms of conditionality and better access to full-time childcare, parents—particularly mothers and single parents—will continue to be left behind.
What about those who provide unpaid care to their loved ones and receive either carer’s allowance or the caring element of universal credit? Our society relies on those unpaid carers, but the Government’s refusal to uprate those benefits, or to give additional support, almost amounts to abandonment of those people, who do so much.
I could mention many more groups who will not experience a levelling up through the Budget, but I am aware of time, so finally I turn to vulnerable and homeless young people—young people starting their life with nothing but barriers before them. The Government appear to base their policies for under-25s on their own experience of being young. In response to a One Parent Families Scotland campaign that I and other hon. Members have supported on the young parent penalty, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said that young people need less social security than older people because they can rely on support from their parents. How does that thinking apply to young parents who are living independently with their children, to care leavers, to homeless young people, or to those who, through no fault of their own, have no parents or care givers who can step in when things get tough?
Last week, at the launch of Centrepoint’s report on the experience of vulnerable and homeless young people in the social security system, one young person asked, “If it is not good enough for you or your children, why is it okay for us?”. I ask the Minister to think about that when reflecting on the Government’s policies. The Government can change this. By failing to even acknowledge the needs of those who provide and need support, the Government are failing to level up before they even get started.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Budget presented last week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After over four and a half years in this place, and over 10 years involved at some level or other in Scottish politics, I am used to the SNP being able to manufacture a grievance out of absolutely nothing. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) gave it a good shot tonight, but I was pleasantly shocked and surprised by his contribution. Granted, there was very little mention of the £176 million that the UK Government invested directly in local communities in Scotland through the levelling-up fund, and there has been no mention from those on the SNP Benches of the domestic air passenger duty cut, which I campaigned for, and which will support regional airports in Scotland as they recover from lockdown and the pandemic, though the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), where Aberdeen airport is situated, is still to speak. I look forward to his comments welcoming it.
There was very little mention—the honourable exception was the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden)—of the spirits duty freeze, which will support the Scotch whisky industry. There has been no mention from those on the SNP Benches of the freeze on fuel duty, which will support commuters, and help people in rural Scotland more than those anywhere else. Also, there has been literally no mention of the increase in the national living wage, which will help so many people across Scotland.
What shocked and surprised me was the fact that in answer to my intervention, the hon. Member for Glenrothes actually welcomed the largest increase to the lump sum given to the Scottish Government since devolution began in 1999—£4.6 billion on top of the annual baseline figure of £36.7 billion. It is the largest annual block grant, in real terms, in any spending review since devolution was created. It is almost as though, earlier today, the hon. Member, like me, read Mandy Rhodes saying in Holyrood magazine that the SNP have to stop being the
“winner at being a sore loser.”
In that spirit of cross-party consensus, I am reaching out across the aisle and offering an olive branch to my SNP colleagues. I ask them to join the Scottish Conservatives—not in campaigning to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom; that would be too far for them. I ask them to join us in calling for the Scottish Government to spend this biggest ever block grant better; join us in campaigning for the £200 million that was promised to the north-east of Scotland to improve journey times between Edinburgh and Aberdeen in 2016. Where is that money? Join us in—
Andrew Bowie
I will not because there is not much time left. I am sure the hon. Member is speaking later, if not tomorrow, and I will look out for his contribution then. [Interruption.] He has already spoken. Well, I apologise.
Join us in calling for the Scottish Government to spend more money on education so that we can shrink the now-growing attainment gap in Scotland. [Interruption.] Join us in fixing the bridges in Aberdeenshire, which the hon. Member shouts out about.
Andrew Bowie
Aberdeenshire has not even applied to the levelling up fund yet—we are applying in the next round. Aberdeen city, which we have heard nothing of in this debate, has received £76 million to level up the city centre—something that I support and I really hope the hon. Member will add his support to as well. This is a Budget that levels up across the United Kingdom.
In this new age of cross-party consensus, which the hon. Member for Gordon is doing so much to undermine by shouting across the Chamber tonight, I would like to work with my SNP colleagues so that we can press the Scottish Government to spend their money better. In that way, maybe they will see that what the Chancellor said last week is true: that we truly are better, stronger and wealthier when we all work together.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I am sure I am not alone in noticing—certainly the Foreign Secretary has done—that the Chancellor seems to be a little bit too preoccupied by his own self-image and should perhaps be more concerned about the prospects of others.
The harsh reality out there is that we are facing a 1.3% growth rate versus the 2.3% that we enjoyed under the last Labour Government, which would have carried through to the past decade. The economy has been badly damaged by the past 18 months, but particularly by the past 11 years. The purchasing managers index, a true measure of confidence in the economy, shows the widest margin between services and manufacturing since 2009. Vehicle manufacturing was down by 42% last month, and that is the third consecutive month that it has fallen. We are facing a cost-of-living crisis ripping through our communities, with food inflation at 1.1% just in the month of August. As for the pay increases that the Chancellor has talked about, just remember that back at the beginning of the year he was talking about 1% for nurses, and he must have realised that inflation was going to start tearing through our economy.
This is hurting people everywhere, and not just the majority of those on universal credit—hot on the heels of national insurance increases, it is going to affect all of us. According to the Resolution Foundation, we all face an average of £3,000 in tax increases, with women, on average, £1,800 worse off over the next six years. There is an energy crisis with people facing energy poverty—the stark choice between heating or eating. The Government could have done more by capping VAT, but they chose not to. In education, just one third of Kevan Collins’, the catch-up tsar’s, budget is actually being allocated, with £10 billion missing that could have been put in. There is no mention of funding for higher education and support for students at this difficult time. We see communities and town centres decimated by the hollowing out by the likes of Amazon who are then rewarded with tax breaks. I welcome the announcement on housing support and more housing, but, like the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), I want to see an absolute commitment to more social and, in particular, council housing.
There was no mention of the climate crisis, which the Chancellor failed to address. This Government are not on track to achieve the fourth or fifth carbon budget, yet they still, despite the penalties that we will face, see it as right to cut air passenger duty on short-haul flights. The reality is that we are seeing one of the major impacts of climate change—heavy instant flooding—happening in Yorkshire, south Wales, London, the midlands and elsewhere.
Let me contrast this with what Labour would promise. We have made it clear that we will not cut corners on children’s education. The full £15 billion that was called for by the catch-up tsar would be put into our schools. There would be a proper rise in the minimum wage to £10 per hour. We would cut VAT on energy bills to help families through this winter. We would remove business rates to help our businesses and secure jobs. We would deliver a green industrial revolution providing jobs and investment in every community. We would provide an industrial strategy. Just look at what Joe Biden has done in the US with his $52 billion CHIPS for America Act to secure semiconductor supplies. That is what I call a strategy. The choice is clear between the high-tax, low-productivity, low-growth model of this Government and the fair-tax, high-productivity, sustained growth model offered by Labour.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I start by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving councillor and vice-president of the Local Government Association. To be a Conservative in politics is about our willingness to take collective responsibility for making difficult and sometimes very tough decisions about money for the benefit that brings our communities and our people in the long term. The difficult decision was made that we would raise taxes to balance the books. My constituents in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner are now beginning to ask how we are going to demonstrate we are spending that money in the right way—in a way that makes the difference in the policy areas we are concerned about.
In the limited time available, I will focus my attention on two aspects of a Budget that had many very welcome announcements within it: child poverty and the resettlement of refugees into the United Kingdom following commitments made by our Government after the collapse of the civil Government in Afghanistan. At a roundtable organised by the Local Government Association earlier today, which was attended by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), we heard welcome feedback from local government leaders that the finance made available, underpinned by this Budget, will be sufficient to ensure we can fulfil the Government’s commitment to resettle 20,000 people into the United Kingdom, in addition to around 15,000 arriving among those who supported the allied efforts at stabilisation and maintaining the civil Government in Afghanistan. That demonstrates clearly that, while we are still waiting for the guidance about who exactly will benefit—there are logistical challenges ahead—the money is being put in place to ensure that local communities accepting those refugee families will, as was the case with the Syrian scheme, know that they do so without bearing additional cost to council tax payers, because the Government are properly funding the costs.
We have heard a great deal about child poverty in this debate from all parts of the Chamber, including some helpful and clear comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates). Family hubs, additional investment in youth services and the holiday activities and food programme are all a big step forward in how we approach the issue. Those of us who have been around programmes such as Sure Start for many years will know that, while it was well liked and often well received by people who accessed those programmes, the evidence simply was not there that Sure Start was resolving the issues in communities that it was set up to do. There was the same issue in the United States, where Sure Start originated. It demonstrated the same problem. We need to recognise, for example, that the challenges a child and their family may face do not simply stop at the age of five. We need a new policy solution to these problems, and family hubs in particular are a significant step in the right direction.
In conclusion, there is an old saying that all politics is local. Those in the House who have been or continue to serve as local councillors will be aware of the challenges we face in local government. It was said by the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, that local government was
“the most efficient part of the public sector.”
Every pound spent by a local authority buys the taxpayer more value than any other part of the Government system. By investing appropriately in services that are delivered locally in this Budget, we are demonstrating confidence that our councillors—Conservatives are the largest party in local government—and local authorities with their knowledge of their communities will do the job for us in ensuring that our communities get the help and support they need.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the Budget resolutions debate. Most of the time, debates in the House serve to illuminate a topic and make it clearer. The debate so far has had the opposite effect. What has become increasingly clear is that no one agrees what levelling up actually means. There are fundamental differences on the Government Benches on what levelling up is. The fact is, so much of the Chancellor’s Budget was about not levelling up but repairing damage done by the Government, replacing some—but not all—the money squeezed from public services since 2010.
Take my Slough constituency as an example. I asked the ever-excellent House of Commons Library for the facts about Slough council’s budget since 2010. The Library informed me:
“we can see that Slough’s spending power—broadly speaking, the money that the council had available for making decisions, i.e. excluding ring-fenced funding—decreased by 28.9% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2020-21.
The part of core spending power that came from central Government funding—listed by the National Audit Office as ‘Government-funded spending power’—fell by even more in the same period, with an overall 53.8% real-terms decrease.”
I am going to repeat that because it is staggering—a 53.8% real-terms cut for Slough since the Conservatives came to power.
While issues with Slough Borough Council’s finances undoubtedly extend beyond this, councils have been increasingly forced by the Government to seek more creative ways to bring in income in the face of such cuts. Councils have undertaken governance of complex company groups and investment portfolios to make up for the shortfall and protect frontline services, but they are not geared up to take such risks and operate like property development companies; they are there to provide much-needed public services within communities. In a borough where 30% of children live in poverty, the Government’s callous £20 cut in universal credit will hit those with disabilities and poor families the hardest just when fuel and food prices are soaring, taxes have been increased and winter is coming. That is the reality of the Budget: giving with the hand that has already taken away so much.
No opportunity was more missed in the Budget than investing in UK railways. I share the Rail Industry Association’s disappointment. There was no guarantee of the long-term day-to-day investment that the railway needs to survive after the pandemic; still nothing on the integrated rail plan for the midlands and the north; continuing uncertainty about the eastern leg of HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and the midlands rail hub; no update on the rail network enhancements pipeline two years after it was published; and still no announcement on when the western rail link to Heathrow will finally be built. With COP26 now in session, Ministers could have announced plans for a net zero railway with a huge rolling electrification programme and significant investment in developing battery and hydrogen technology, but no.
The Budget and spending review needed to do two things: give help to the poorest and most vulnerable right now, including in my Slough constituency, with real levelling up for people facing tough times rather than more meaningless slogans; and invest in a green economy, with the railway at its heart. It failed miserably on both counts.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I anticipate that the wind-ups will begin at about half-past 9.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Last week was significant for me: I got married—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”]—and the Chancellor gave Peterborough £20 million in his Budget. As wedding presents go, it was a pretty big one.
To be strictly accurate, my wife and I finally got to hold our wedding ceremony. We had managed to get the legal bit done just before the pandemic, but then we had to wait. In fact, our wait was long enough for the Government to launch their levelling up fund and to identify Peterborough as a priority area, for me to work with Peterborough City Council and others to develop our bid, and for the council to submit the bid back in June.
I listened to the announcements, and the Chancellor had plenty of good news for Peterborough, including a cash uplift of £1,500 per pupil for our schools and freezing fuel duty for the 12th year in a row. The announcements kept coming, with a £2 billion tax cut for working universal credit claimants, making work pay; a 6.6% increase in the national living wage; much-needed support for Peterborough’s pubs; and help on business rates for 90% of our city’s venues.
But there was one thing that I was desperate to know: had we got the levelling up money? Our bid was ambitious. For those who do not know, we are developing a new university. I was shocked to hear some Opposition Members speak about the Government not investing in skills and research because the university is not any old university, but one that specialises in science, technology, engineering and maths subjects, and is linked directly to local employers. The first stages are through planning, building is under way and partners are on board. Our university project has already benefited from generous Government support, but the levelling up submission was on another level.
The application underpinned our plans to expand the new university, bring investment to the city and deliver an amazing living lab science block and an entire university quarter cultural hub. Hon. Members have to visualise it to get the points: extra teaching space, innovation and research facilities, 1,700 local students studying in STEM fields, all open to the public and attracting up to 50,000 visitors a year, and all relying on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I got hold of the Red Book and leafed through many pages. When I reached page 78, I saw what I wanted. There, proudly listed, was Peterborough. That is fantastic news for my city. The £20 million—the first tranche of levelling up allocations—will transform my city and we are raring to go. One reason Peterborough got the cash was our ability to complete construction by 2024. That is less time spent building the facilities than it took me to get married. I say without hesitation that last week’s levelling up funding was the best wedding present I could possibly have received.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd. May I take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) on his marriage?
The Government made a massive rhetorical commitment to levelling up Wales. We would want to support that, wouldn’t we? We would expect the Government, in fulfilling that commitment, to decentralise power from the Treasury, empower decision making closer to our communities and match rhetoric with resources. The Budget once again fails to do that. The Government scorn our Senedd, by which they snub our democracy.
The UK’s regional inequality is hardwired into the economy and the institutional decision making of the British state. While the Prime Minister has claimed that levelling up is about taking the pressure off parts of the overheating south-east, it should be about fixing the investment, income and opportunity inequalities that result in unequal standards of living. To put that into perspective, in London, productivity and earnings are between a third and a half higher than the UK average, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In Wales, our productivity is at least 15% below the UK average and earnings are nearly 40% lower than those in London. In my home county of Gwynedd, local GVA per capita is nearly 30% below the UK average. We might think that that was deserving of levelling up, but Gwynedd was deemed by the Government to need no levelling up funding whatsoever.
Investment in research and development—we have heard some mention of that—which is a key driver of innovation and increases in productivity, has long been centred in London and the south-east, with expenditure per head in 2019 being £577, more than twice the amount in Wales. That inequality is not just expressed in economic terms. London and the south-east of England’s dominance is expressed everywhere, from the availability and quality of local transport links to support for local museums and galleries.
A startling statistic from the Chancellor, who doubled down on inequality in the Budget, is that between 2010-11 and 2017-18, cultural spending per head in London was £687—nearly five times the average in the rest of England, let alone Wales. Perhaps most important of all, that inequality is reflected not only in the quality of life, but in the very stuff of life itself. Those living in London can expect to live two and a half years longer than people in Wales.
Levelling up is therefore about far more than the economy; it is about improving life itself in those communities all too often dismissed and ignored by Westminster. Against a challenge of such a scale, any Government would struggle, and there were indeed several welcome measures in the Budget. It was a relief to learn that the shared prosperity fund is to happen after all, and that Wales has received investment through the levelling-up fund.
Yet the spending review also confirmed the loss of the £370 million that Wales would have received annually if we had remained part of the EU—funding that this Government are unprepared to match even though they had it in their 2019 manifesto. Sadly, the Budget also confirmed the UK’s indefensible intervention in Welsh and devolved affairs. While of course I welcome efforts to improve numeracy, such a programme, which oversteps into a devolved competency, should be achieved through devolved settlements and not unilaterally decided by one part of the UK. I remind the Chancellor that the EU worked with the devolved nations and let us, rather than some distant Whitehall bureaucrat, set our own funding priorities. We do not need Westminster to teach us that these sums do not add up.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
First, may put on the record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) on his marriage?
It is a pleasure to speak in this first Budget debate since the establishment of the Darlington economic campus, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already been working in. If I needed a better example of levelling up, I would struggle to find one. This is a policy that the Leader of the Opposition described as “giving up”. What an insult to my constituents.
A child growing up in Darlington can now aspire to working in the most important Department of Government. If that child secures a degree from one of the fantastic universities in the north-east, such as Newcastle, Northumbria, Durham, York, Teesside or Sunderland, they will have the opportunity to go far but stay local. We have always known that talent and ability are spread throughout the country, but the opportunities have not been.
Indeed, the north-east has lagged behind for too long, under Governments of all colours. It may be useful to remind the House that once upon a time, Teesside and the wider Tees valley were represented by Mandelson, Milburn, Mowlam and, of course, Blair. But it is only this Government, with a northern Chancellor, who are truly delivering real transformation for Teesside.
I welcome the UK’s newest, largest freeport, launched last week—something that could not have happened without the ingenuity of our northern Chancellor. I welcome the towns fund money coming to Darlington, Hartlepool, Thornaby and Redcar. Each will also benefit from the new £310 million investment in Teesside’s transport infrastructure for buses, trains and cycling, improving connectivity. Building on the £105 million commitment in 2020 to redevelop Darlington’s Bank Top station, the gateway to our regional connectivity, we are now campaigning to ensure that the Transport Secretary chooses Darlington for the headquarters of Great British Railways. We are, after all, the birthplace of the railway—where it all began.
So, £310 million for transport, £107 million from the UK Infrastructure Bank and £20 million for Yarm and Eaglescliffe from the levelling-up fund; that is £437 million for the Tees valley. We have a saying up north: “Shy bairns get nowt”. We will keep pushing for the investment we need to ensure that we are levelled up. Mr Deputy Speaker, the buns are in the oven. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s great, great grandparents, who lived in Darlington and were bakers, would have known, they take time to rise, and the prosperity of Darlington is on the rise.
Investment is always warmly welcomed, but we must not rest on our laurels. There is still more to do. We have excellent primary schools, but more must be done to improve secondary education. I was delighted to see the increase in the earnings threshold for working people on universal credit and the much-needed reduction in the taper rate, ensuring that those who work earn more. I welcome the increase in the living wage to £9.50, the fuel duty freeze and reform to alcohol duty. The commitment to build a stronger, fairer economy is most welcome.
I am thrilled to be here delivering for Darlington as part of the transformation of the Tees valley spearheaded by our northern Chancellor and our Tees Valley Mayor.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
No one doubts that the Chancellor has delivered this Budget in difficult circumstances, but this is not the best Budget for Britain. His proudest policies in it are cutting tax on alcohol and domestic flights. Do I really need to tell the House that these are not the priorities of everyday people living in Lewisham East, although I do not think that anyone will say no to paying less for a drink or two?
On a serious note, the Government have not made promises to bring people out of poverty, tackle the climate crisis, fix our healthcare system and deliver safe, affordable homes for all. That is what my constituents wanted out of this Budget, and that is what I wanted. We heard in detail about the various drinks that the Chancellor plans to lift taxes on but there was not a single mention of the climate. It is astonishing, considering we are hosting the historic COP26 summit. Are our Government more interested in supporting offshore tax havens than offshore wind farms?
Coming out of the pandemic, we need commitments on supporting green industries, which will provide sustainable energy and great new jobs. We need to lower our vehicle emissions and clean up our air. The Government started making excuses about not being able to achieve a 1.5°C global warming pledge before the summit had even started. What sort of message does that send to the world leaders approaching negotiations? It is a mindset of defeatism and not so Churchillian from our Prime Minister.
Moving on, I recently met the Lewisham refugee and migrant network and representatives of the “Patients Not Passports” campaign. They told me of vulnerable pregnant women who do not yet have settled status in our country. One woman is avoiding going to hospital because she is terrified of the charges that she will face. Traumatised families such as hers can face bills of up to £9,000 for having a baby. What country are we living in? I thought that this was the United Kingdom, not the United States. That unethical practice must be brought to an end. The Government should tax major corporations, not migrants and people seeking asylum in our country.
In addition, there is a pitiful offering in the Budget for owners of small businesses. Owners in high streets and town centres are desperate for financial support and have not been given enough. They do not just need relief from business rates; they need them scrapped and replaced. The Chancellor needs to listen to small businesses—that is what they need.
Finally, an issue that is very important to my constituents is the local housing allowance, which continues to be so uselessly low that people are sometimes forced into unfit houses in multiple occupation. Those properties can cause antisocial and chaotic behaviour in their neighbourhoods, as well as misery for some of the people living in those HMOs who do not add to that antisocial behaviour. The Chancellor must think again about the local housing allowance. It must be raised to meet the growing need. We need a Budget devoted to improving the lives of a greater number of people. It is that simple.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
When the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered his Budget speech last week, he said that his Budget would deliver a stronger UK
“fit for a new age of optimism”.—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 274.]
However, his Budget is a source of optimism for only a few people and certainly for very few people in my North Ayrshire and Arran constituency.
The International Monetary Fund forecast that the UK will suffer the worst economic damage from covid-19 of any G20 country, while ordinary citizens are left short-changed. My constituents and millions of others will face a squeeze in living standards over the coming year. Middle-income earners will see their take-home pay fall by about 1%. The tax burden is now at its greatest since the 1950s, with national insurance contributions being raised and personal income tax allowances frozen, cutting people’s disposable incomes while inflation is set to rise above 4% by April. There is no levelling up there.
While the Chancellor cut taxes on bank profits, he failed to introduce measures to help households already struggling with rising food and fuel prices. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, 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 Budget fails to deliver equality or fairness and fails to improve the lives of many people in Scotland. Indeed, anti-poverty charity Z2K has said that this Budget has
“absolutely nothing for the 3 million plus whose disability, illness or caring responsibilities mean they can’t work”.
Where is the levelling up for them?
With nearly one in five pensioners living in poverty—the highest rate since 2008—more than 2 million older people are struggling financially. Yet the Tories think that now is the time to end the pensions triple lock, which has been abandoned. Many pensioners will be £520 worse off next year—no levelling up for them either.
By refusing to use the Budget to reinstate the £20-a-week universal credit lifeline that was recently cut, the Chancellor has failed to protect its recipients—two thirds of whom are in work—from falling living standards. As for the national living wage increase, the new £9.50 rate does not apply to employees who are under 23 years old, and workers on the national living wage who are in receipt of universal credit will lose more than half of any wage rise through a sharp reduction in their benefits. Of course, it is not even a national living wage; it is not a real living wage; it is a wee pretendy living wage.
Hard-pressed Scottish businesses also wonder where the Chancellor’s optimism is coming from. With post-Brexit supply chain costs and disruption, labour shortages, price rises and soaring energy bills, it is difficult to see what is ahead for them.
Despite the Chancellor’s announcing an increased Scottish block grant, the reality is that the Scottish Parliament will receive less grant funding in each of the next five years than in this one, despite the continuing challenges posed by covid and the economic recovery.
No one doubts that the Chancellor has a difficult job to do. For the majority, however, he is clearly not going about it in the right way. One in three children in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran live in poverty. For them and their families, talk of levelling up feels insensitive and hollow. The ambition for Scotland to govern herself is therefore growing by the day.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I put on the record my role as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
After almost two years of the gruelling covid-19 pandemic, with the economic consequences of Brexit starting to bite hard, and on the eve of the COP26 climate summit, our best last chance to save our planet from the consequences of catastrophic global warming, we needed a Budget fit for the task—a Budget to deliver a net zero economy, a just transition, skills and jobs fit for the 21st century, fair taxation and public services to provide support for everyone who needs it. The Chancellor’s Budget fell far short on every one of those measures.
First, in relation to the climate emergency, this needed to be a Budget to make tackling climate change a prism for all economic decision making and all public spending. The Government could have entered their COP presidency leading the way on a just transition to a net zero economy, harnessing the opportunities to create new high-quality green jobs and deliver better public health and wellbeing, and ensuring that no part of the United Kingdom was left behind. Instead, we have the embarrassment of a Government rushing out their net zero strategy at the 11th hour before COP26 got under way, refusing to rule out new fossil fuel extraction in the North sea and in Cumbria, lowering air passenger duty for domestic flights, and failing to invest in retrofitting at anything like the scale required to decarbonise our homes.
Secondly, while any additional funding for adult social care is welcome for a sector deep in crisis, the Government’s approach of allocating arbitrary sums without an overall plan for reform is simply not good enough. It is hard to overstate how exhausted and desperate many who work in the social care sector feel as we head into this winter. The trauma of the pandemic, endemic underfunding, low pay and the ever increasing needs of an ageing population have left social care on its knees.
The Local Government Association and London Councils are clear that this Budget will not make a substantive difference to the funding pressures on adult social care now. It will not fund a real-terms pay increase for social staff, it will not stop social services contracts being handed back to councils, and it will not ensure that the million people who need social care but are not currently receiving any support can live with independence and dignity.
The theme for today’s debate is levelling up—an incoherent, ill-defined concept that has now been honoured with its own Department. Our experience in London is that levelling up almost invariably involves cutting funding from our hard-pressed public services and from some of the most deprived communities anywhere in the country, and handing it to areas where the Tories find it politically expedient to do so. A coherent approach to levelling up would not pit north against south, or city against village. It would be underpinned by an industrial strategy and a net zero strategy for the country as a whole, and would fund and empower local councils and communities to tackle disadvantage wherever it is found.
Finally, let me say something about education. Kevan Collins had a plan for levelling up, helping children across the country to recover from the disadvantage and hardship of the covid-19 pandemic. It would cost £15 billion. Instead, the Chancellor has set out the paltry ambition to return to 2010 levels of per-pupil expenditure. While I welcome his sudden recognition that austerity has been bad for our children, is it not a terrible indictment of almost 12 years of Tory government that the only thing he has to offer them is to give back to the next generation some of what his own Government so cruelly took away from the last? For London schools, the Tories’ version of levelling up always means doing us down, snatching away resources under the banner of “fair funding”—except that it is not fair at all. The children and young people in my constituency have a right to well-funded schools, with the resources and extracurricular activities that they need, but they have suffered the worst cuts anywhere in the country, at more than £1,000 per pupil.
Our country faces very serious challenges, and this Government are simply not up to the task of dealing with them.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
In the build-up to the COP26 summit, which began today, I held three climate assemblies in my constituency, and I have sent our manifesto to the COP26 President. Cynon Valley is an old mining community suffering higher than average levels of poverty and ill health. While the people of our community are ready for and want change, they are also anxious to ensure that in the future-proofing of our planet, communities such as ours are not left behind, but this Budget and spending review give me no confidence that that will be the case. Indeed, yet again, the people of Cynon Valley and of Wales are being short-changed by this Tory Government. The Welsh Government’s budget in 2024-25 will be nearly £3 billion lower than it would be if it had increased in line with the economy since 2010-11. The Chancellor’s Budget offers Wales no help to deal with dangerous coal tips, although the whole UK benefited from the coal dug out from the south Wales valleys. Must we wait for another disaster before action is taken, given that a disaster becomes more likely as the climate crisis accelerates?
There is talk of levelling up, but losing £375 million of EU structural funds and replacing it with a £120 million levelling-up fund, most of which has gone to Tory-held seats, does not sound much like levelling up to me. To add insult to injury, this Government are bypassing the democratically elected Welsh Government in making their decisions about how to spend money in Wales. For my constituents—thousands of them—the decision to withdraw the universal credit top-up has been devastating, and there is no benefit for the unemployed and the most disadvantaged. The Budget and spending review have been celebrated by Opposition Members. Some say that the Tories have “stolen Labour’s clothes”; I am relieved to say that they have not stolen this socialist’s clothes.
We urgently need to reconfigure our economy and society. We need to reverse the effects of austerity on our communities. We must act now to reduce inequalities in our society, and that is not just about levelling up; it is also about levelling back down the extreme wealth owned by such a small proportion of our population—millionaires whose wealth has grown over the time of the pandemic. We need to introduce a wealth tax, which could raise more than £300 billion over a five-year period.
That money should be invested in developing a democratically controlled green new deal, ensuring that decisions are made by local people, communities and their elected representatives who best understand their needs. It could develop the green industries that we want, creating numerous well-paid green jobs in my community. It could help to renew all the public services, and generate community wealth along with the museums, libraries and theatres that we lost because of austerity. We could at last develop the kind of green rail infrastructure that we need, and with prices at a level that people can afford. Wales has already lost out on nearly £5 billion of investment because HS2 is being classed as a Wales and England project. When is the Chancellor going to rectify that?
I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the green new deal Bill—the Decarbonisation and Economic Strategy Bill—which is relevant today. Addressing the climate crisis must be embedded in everything we do from now on. It means prioritising the future of the planet in every decision we take, including budgetary and spending reviews. We need urgent action now, and it is my sincere hope that the world will come together at COP26 to save our planet. No, this Tory Government have not stolen my green clothes at all; they have given to the rich and made life harder for the poor. That is the opposite of what I stand for, and levelling up it most certainly is not.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As Christmas is coming, the last two speakers have five minutes each.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is another great advantage of speaking at this late stage of the debate, which is that I have been able to hear the contributions from Members from all parts of the House. Those contributions have been thoughtful, genuinely interesting and well delivered. I am sure that Members will forgive me if I also say that there has been a fair amount of buzzword bingo. Sadly, while there was certainly a degree of buzzword bingo in the Budget statement last week, the numbers for rural Britain did not come up. If we are talking about levelling up, which is the theme of this debate, the Government should look at those parts of the country that are suffering with peculiar problems and unique difficulties and seek to address them. However, that has definitely not been the case when it comes to rural Britain. I am a fellow Yorkshire dales MP with the Chancellor, and he has no excuse for being ignorant of some of the issues that I am going to raise, which must raise the question of how much he actually cares about rural Britain.
There are huge issues facing rural Britain at the moment, and I am going to pick just a few that the Government had the opportunity to deal with but chose not to. The first is the housing crisis. “Crisis” is an overused word, but in rural Britain, and particularly in Cumbria, the crisis of the past 18 months has become extreme and acute. What do I mean by that? Throughout Cumbria, we have communities that have a minimum of 50% second homes. In some cases, 80% to 90% of the houses in a particular village or town are not lived in. I do not need to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, what that can mean for a community, because you know very well that it can mean the loss of life for a community. Communities can lose their schools, their bus services and their very communities.
During the covid crisis, up to 80% of all house sales in Cumbria have been on the second home market, so a terrible problem has become disastrously worse in no time. Let us remember that the south lakes are Britain’s biggest tourist destination outside London, and we already have tons of holiday lets. In my community of South Lakeland, in one single year during the pandemic, there was a 32% rise in the number of holiday lets. Where from? I will tell you where from: hard-working local people in private lets who have been kicked out since the eviction ban. Their homes are now being handed over to Airbnb. The Chancellor had an opportunity to raise taxes in the Budget. We are criticised on the side of the House for not saying what we would do. I believe that we should double council tax for second homeowners to ensure that there is money to invest in those communities and to provide a disincentive to people wanting to buy too many second homes in those communities. We also need to change the planning laws so that holiday lets and second homes have different categories of planning use, so that local communities in the dales, the lakes and elsewhere in Cumbria can have control over their housing stock.
The consequence of this absolute catastrophe in our housing stock is local families being forced out of the area. The lakeland clearances are happening in our communities right now in this day and age, and that is having an impact on our employers in hospitality and tourism. Some 80% of the local working-age population in the Lake district work in hospitality and tourism, so the Government’s incredibly foolish, cloth-eared policies on visas mean that we are killing the tourism industry not just in the Lake district and the dales but elsewhere. Action could have been taken to prevent this.
I want to talk briefly about health and the hospital improvement programme. The Government are currently putting on the table a proposal that would close Lancaster Hospital and Preston Hospital and merge them somewhere in the middle. For people in the lakes and the dales, that will mean travelling twice as much as they currently do to reach an A&E department that is already too far away. There was an opportunity in the Budget to give money to radiotherapy satellite centres right around the country, and the Chancellor could have awarded one to Kendal, as has been proposed many times in the past. Some people have to make a four-hour return journey for their daily cancer treatment at our nearest centre in Preston. That could have been addressed, but it was not.
When it comes to dentistry, I have had constituents just in the past week being told that their nearest NHS dentist is in Doncaster, Manchester or Newcastle. These are issues that could have been focused on if the Government cared about levelling up rural Britain as well as the areas that have been mentioned.
Last but definitely not least, what about farming, the backbone of our rural communities? As the Government botch the transition from basic payments to the new environmental land management schemes system, we see farmers expected to live on half their income within three years, clearing those people from the landscape too and undermining rural Britain. I wish the Chancellor cared; he has no excuse whatsoever, given that he surely knows.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Bell, we will not put the timer on you; just resume your seat no later than 9.30 pm.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. In my—not as short as I thought—time, I want to focus on the majority of people who have been affected by the Budget. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), this is “a polluters’ Budget”, a bankers’ Budget and an arms manufacturers’ Budget. Thankfully those groups are not in the majority, but the majority are worse off because of this Budget.
The Conservative party has broken its manifesto pledge to maintain the triple lock on state pensions, affecting more than 1 million people. State pensions levels in this country are shamefully low and many people do not receive the full amount. Millions of households are also affected by the cut in the uplift to universal credit. They are among the poorest people in our society; a large proportion of them are in work and/or are disabled people, and millions of children are affected.
All this we know not because of the Chancellor’s speech, but from the vital analysis provided by the OBR, the IFS, the Resolution Foundation and the fantastic House of Commons Library. The Chancellor’s speech was an exercise in public relations, not a serious presentation of his own actions. He failed to mention that his own tax changes mean the average household will be paying £3,000 more in taxes per year by 2026. So much for building back better and so much for levelling up. The reality is that this is another austerity Budget from yet another Tory Chancellor.
We should not forget that the same Chancellor, in this same Budget, cut the bank levy and bank surcharges. The beneficiaries will be bank shareholders and bankers’ bonuses, which we know have always been a key concern for the Conservative party. Ordinary people are worse off as a result of this Budget, and as a consequence inequalities can only grow, but that is exactly what this Budget is—a Budget for inequality.
Among others, women will be the biggest losers from the Budget. A gender audit of Wednesday’s announcement by the House of Commons Library showed that 27 million women would be disproportionately affected. The research shows that an average British woman over 18 will be £1,800 worse off over the next six years because of the Chancellor’s tax rises, and those who are older will be hit, with £2,500 less in pension benefits. The research also shows that low-income households will be disproportionately hit and that disabled people and people from minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in lower-income households.
The Conservative party is no more the party of women than it is the party for workers; it is the party for bankers and the party for inequality. The public understand that: in a post-Budget poll for YouGov, a net 32% said they expected their household finances to deteriorate over the next 12 months, and a net 38% expected the economy to deteriorate over the same period. That is hardly a vote of confidence.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I pose a question with which perhaps you or the Clerks can help—I certainly hope the Government can. Where is the equalities impact assessment on the Budget? I do not mean the four pages out of 200 that mention inequalities, or the basic note that was recently added; I mean the full and comprehensive assessment that by law should accompany every single Bill. It is nowhere to be found in the bundle of Treasury documents. I know that what I have outlined as the substance of the Budget might be embarrassing for Ministers, but equality impact assessments are a statutory obligation, so the only question I ask is: where is it?
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In the days since the Budget, we have seen it unravel. The Chancellor tried to bury the reality—or should I say Burnley?—[Interruption.] You will get that one in the end. It is less levelling up and more hiking up: hiking up taxes, hiking up the cost of living, hiking up interest rates and inflation. The only thing it is not hiking up is growth. After 10 years of stagnant growth and stagnant wages, the forecasts for the next few years make yet more sober reading, with growth downgraded to a meagre 1.3% in 2024. Taken together, the rising cost of living, along with rising taxes, inflation and interest rates, mean that families will be worse off to the tune of £3,000 a year. You simply cannot claim an agenda of levelling up while presiding over an era of no growth and ordinary working people becoming worse off. A few tiny, piecemeal pots of cash to various places will not even remotely make up for that overwhelming tidal wave hitting those on modest and low incomes. This is
“not a set of priorities that is consistent with…levelling up”.
Those are not my words; they are the verdict of the IFS. This was
“an acid test for the government’s flagship levelling up agenda—and the Chancellor has fallen short... The country is no more on track to level up than it was yesterday.”
That is not my view, but the view of the IPPR North.
As is becoming the theme with this Government, they will the ends but they have no plan to will the means —that is otherwise known as rhetoric not matched by reality. That view was echoed in excellent speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge); my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater); my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne); my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper); and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).
A plan for real levelling up begins with a plan for real and sustainable growth, disproportionately focused towards the people, places and industries most in need of it. That means a programme of real investment and a strategy. I know that the Secretary of State is not here this evening, but I am pleased that, in lauding the spending increases, he has finally accepted our view that we cannot cut our way out of a crisis. If only he had realised that before 10 years of austerity, which have left a million more people in poverty and the fabric of our public services in tatters. But it is obvious from today’s debate that most behind him have not had the same epiphany.
Given that the Resolution Foundation says that this must be a decade of high investment as we transition to net zero, it is astonishing that in the Chancellor’s flurry of giveaways there was almost no mention of green investment. The huge upheaval and change that meeting our net zero targets requires is the once-in-a-generation opportunity to truly level up and to create a fairer, better distributed economy—it is an opportunity this Government are frittering away. This is about winning the green global race in the sectors that power our regions, such as steel, aerospace, wind and wave, but there was not a single mention of that in this Budget. It is also about reducing demand and, in so doing, reducing the cost of living crunch through a major drive to retrofit homes and switch to green energies, but there was not a flicker about that in this Budget. It is also about investing in people, especially those who need it the most. The Government’s own report on lost learning during the pandemic, published just last week, shows the stark regional inequalities, with children in the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber losing 15 times more learning than those in London, but that was not referred to in the Budget. Its stark findings should be at the heart of any Budget that claims to be levelling up. The Government cannot level up without a serious programme of catch-up.
On transport, at last we see some recognition for buses, but a major test of levelling up will be the Government’s commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail and the eastern leg of HS2, neither of which was mentioned at all by the Chancellor. The Government should listen to the excellent speeches today from my hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on this topic.
Key to addressing the deep divides in Britain is tackling the housing crisis, which was so brutally exposed during covid. Yet again, we see lofty ambitions not met by any kind of real plan. If the Chancellor’s announcements on housing sounded familiar, that is because they are: we have heard them all before. That £5 billion to address the building-safety crisis was announced back in February. It is a lot of money, but it is not working. The huge bills for leaseholders keep rolling in, insurance costs are soaring and mortgages are still virtually impossible to get. It is not about the cash; the fundamentals need to be fixed and the Government are not doing that. It is no surprise, then, that the Secretary of State did not even mention that today.
The funding for so-called affordable housing was another recycled announcement. The Government’s spin cycle goes round more often than a Hotpoint spin dryer—
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman might groan, but he was not here for the better jokes at the beginning of my speech. In future, he needs to be here at the beginning of the wind-ups—that is one of the rules of this place.
If the Government’s record is anything to go by, they will deliver neither truly affordable homes nor levelling up. Their house building targets look dead in the water. Their definition of affordable is anything but, aligned with overheated markets, not with what people can actually afford. The Secretary of State made no mention of social housing in his speech; perhaps that is because he is projected to build only 6,000 new ones a year—far fewer than the number lost through the right to buy. The Secretary of State heralded the brownfield sites fund, yet he did not mention the fact that more than three quarters of that money currently goes to the south-east. That is hardly levelling up. Without reform of the arcane compulsory purchase order laws, too much of that cash will end up in the hands of the speculators who buy up land on the cheap.
For hard-pressed renters hit by the pandemic, we heard the Chancellor take credit for a small relief fund, but he failed to mention that he has also frozen local housing allowance again. Add that to the cut in universal credit and the almost 1 million renters who already face a gap between their income and housing costs now face real hardship. It is no wonder that we have seen homelessness rise on the Government’s watch—
Lucy Powell
I am afraid we have.
We heard nothing in the Budget about stamp duty—perhaps because the last stamp duty cut drove house price inflation and volatility, according to the OBR. [Interruption.] Government Members should look at the figures. The Chancellor fuelled a buy-to-let and second-home bonanza while first-time buyers lost out. The Government’s disastrous starter homes pilot scheme—non-starter homes, more like—promised 200,000 homes for first-time buyers and cost £170 million, yet it did not build a single starter home. The Government’s new pilot for first-time buyers, the first homes scheme, is not working, because as house prices rocket, the discount is all but wiped out. It is no wonder we have seen home ownership fall under this Government. Do Government Members want to say anything about that? No, because it has. The Conservatives can no longer claim to be the party of homeowners, nor of renters, because they have become the party of landowners, landlords and speculators.
The Government might have the soundbites, the slogans and the Instagram posts, but they do not have a plan. They cannot level up while they are scaling back; they cannot level up while growth forecasts are so down; they cannot level up while hiking up taxes and cutting universal credit; they cannot level up without addressing the housing crisis; and they cannot level up while denying children in the midlands and the north the chance to catch up, which is what they have done. Government Members might laugh about it this evening but it is absolutely shameful. Although the Government might talk the talk, time and again they do not walk the walk. Levelling up is fast becoming a rather empty campaign slogan, and this bitty, piecemeal Budget does not amount to more than the sum of its parts.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to close this debate. I thank the many right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today for their speeches. The number who have spoken and the passion of their speeches demonstrates just how much we want levelling up, in this Chamber and in the constituencies that we represent.
Levelling up is the defining mission of this Government and it is a golden thread running through this Budget and this spending review. We believe that the place where a person grows up should never dictate their prospects, yet, as the Chancellor said last week, for too long, the location of people’s birth has determined too much of their future. Right now, communities throughout the country are held back by disparities in health, education and jobs.
Levelling up is about no longer accepting the consequences of a skewed economy, no longer accepting lower expectations, no longer accepting limited life chances, and no longer accepting that each new generation must choose between their family and their future, forced to travel to far-flung cities like modern-day Dick Whittingtons in search of opportunity. Levelling up is a new and optimistic future for the whole country—a future where a person’s hard work determines their success no matter whether they live in Burnley or Bromley. It is a future where there is a chance to succeed in your education, to follow your dreams and to achieve your ambitions wherever you live.
What does that mean in practice and how are we going to do it? First, we are investing in people across this country so that they have the skills they need to seize opportunities. We will start at birth and in childhood, with an extra £500 million investment, recognising the importance of the first 1,001 days of a child’s life, continuing through school and into adulthood with £3.8 billion extra spending on adult skills, welcomed I know by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) among others.
We are investing in places and in the infrastructure that connects them. We are investing £130 billion in infrastructure, including £21 billion in roads and £46 billion in railways. I was delighted this afternoon to hear colleagues welcoming our investment in roads, rail, buses and broadband across the country. May I congratulate many of those who have secured investment in the first round of the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), for St Ives (Derek Thomas), and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I should also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) who not only argued for more of the pie, but who probably got the highest word count per minute achieved in this Chamber this afternoon—a position that was hotly contested.
Stephanie Peacock
A quarter of kids are growing up in poverty in Barnsley yet both of our applications for the levelling-up fund were rejected, Can the Minister tell us why that is? If this Government are so committed to levelling up, why is the Secretary of State for levelling up not in his place?
Helen Whately
I am sure that the hon. Lady well knows, having followed this debate and recent conversations about the Budget, that constituencies and Members on the Conservative Benches and on the Opposition Benches have received funding from the levelling-up fund, including Members of the Opposition Front Bench. I encourage the hon. Lady’s constituency to bid in future rounds of the levelling-up fund. So far—[Interruption.] If she would please listen to what I am saying rather than continuing to shout at me. She asked me a question and I am responding. It is important to her constituency that she listens. Her constituency is clearly seeking levelling-up funds. I would be delighted if it received them. It will have the opportunity to bid for further funding in future rounds, along with other Members and constituencies that have expressed an interest in doing so.
Across the UK, we are creating the conditions for businesses to invest and flourish, because businesses create jobs and drive the growth that will see people’s living standards going up. This was an argument that was made skilfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) among others. Hence, we have a £1.4 billion global Britain investment fund and £1.6 billion additional funding for the British Business Bank’s regional funds.
As we pursue levelling up, we are empowering local leaders to shape and drive the transformation in their communities—local leaders who know best what their communities need. That was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) among others and exemplified by the £5.7 billion five-year consolidated transport settlements for the eight city regions.
During today’s debate, I heard several colleagues make comments such as “Don’t forget about the south”, from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith); “Don’t forget about London”, from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond); and “Don’t forget Suffolk and Norfolk”, from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). I also heard, “There’s not enough money for the north.” I assure hon. Members across the House that levelling up will happen across the UK, in all regions and nations of the United Kingdom.
David Linden
One wonders why the Government need to level up after 11 years in power, but that is perhaps a damning indictment of their record in office. The Minister talks so much about levelling up and a level playing field, so why is it that English sparkling wine gets a tax cut in the Budget, but Scotch whisky only gets a duty freeze?
Helen Whately
I am delighted to pick up on the hon. Member’s comments. I am surprised that he did not welcome the level of funding—the highest ever block grant—that Scotland is receiving as part of the Budget and spending review. We are making much-needed reforms to the alcohol duty system, which has been recognised by many commentators over the years as dysfunctional and in the interests of neither public health, nor our economy. We are now moving to a fairer system that taxes more alcoholic drinks at a higher level. This is also fair to whisky. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) called for whisky and wine to have the same duty rate by unit of alcohol. That is exactly what we are proposing in the reforms that will be introduced in 2023, because we recognise the importance of many parts of the sector—whether it is beer, cider, English and Welsh sparkling wine, or whisky—to the UK economy.
We are ensuring that regions that have historically received less investment are no longer overlooked. For example, some £500 million of the £1.7 billion of the first round of the levelling up fund will indeed go to the north of England, but there are examples of levelling up fund investment all around the country.
Helen Whately
I will make a bit more progress.
I heard some Opposition Members say that rich people are not paying in enough. Well, I ask them to look at the Government’s distribution analysis and the analysis of the Resolution Foundation. These analyses say that the Government’s policies boost incomes for those on the lowest incomes, while those with the broadest shoulders—the better off—are the ones who will be paying the most. I also ask Opposition Members to acknowledge, as so many Government Members did, how both the increase to the national living wage by 6.6% and the changes to the universal credit taper rate will help millions of households on the lowest incomes. For example, a single parent of two children who works full-time will be £1,200 better off next year thanks to these changes.
Liam Byrne
I only intervene because I am sure that the Minister does not want to lead the House astray. The Resolution Foundation is very clear in its analysis that three quarters of the 4.4 million people on universal credit will be negatively affected and the bottom fifth of people will be £280 a year worse off as a result of the £20 uplift being stripped away. I am sure that she would want the record to reflect that.
Helen Whately
I stand by what I said: the Government’s distribution analysis and the Resolution Foundation analysis say that this Budget and spending review boost the incomes of those on the lowest incomes, and that those who are better off are paying in the most. The crucial point about the changes to the taper rate for universal credit is that it is about ensuring that people keep more of what they earn, and get the benefits and rewards of their hard work. The effect that it has is a tax cut for those on the lowest incomes.
There were times when I wondered whether Opposition Members were scrutinising the same Budget as Government Members. At many points, it felt as though they had missed the point. It was clear that the Opposition have no alternative plan. It was not clear whether they felt that we were spending too much or too little; what they would cut; what they would change; or where they would raise funds from. We on the Conservative Benches know that we are making the hard, responsible decisions, and setting ourselves up for the future.
I come to a serious point I want to make. Colleagues rightly pointed out that public spending is relatively high, and I share colleagues’ concerns about the size of the state at the moment. In fact, the Chancellor himself spoke about this last week. We on the Conservative Benches know that government should have limits. We want people to keep more of the rewards of their efforts, and we have said that, by the end of this Parliament, we want taxes to be going up, rather than down.
Helen Whately
I would like to quickly correct the record. My apologies: I wanted to say that, by the end of this Parliament, we on the Conservative Benches want taxes to be going down. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank my hon. Friends for their support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Helen Whately
I would like to sum up. In this Budget and spending review, we are seizing the moment to end historical disparities in education, health and employment opportunities, so that in the years ahead, more people throughout this United Kingdom will have the opportunity to live healthier, happier lives, and to fulfil their hopes, dreams and ambitions, wherever they live in the country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before the Whip moves the motion to adjourn the debate, may I say that there were 65 contributions from Back Benchers today? That has to be some sort of record for a Budget resolutions debate. I congratulate each and every one of you on your contribution.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mrs Wheeler.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Weardale Railway
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I am absolutely delighted to kick off this Adjournment debate on the feasibility bid for the Weardale railway. In an announcement last week, the Department for Transport agreed to that bid. I am delighted to see the Rail Minister here today, because he was one of the first people to come to Weardale to see the railway in all its glory at first hand.
The connection is particularly important for the communities that I represent, and for my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), and for Darlington (Peter Gibson). It is not only the Minister himself who has visited. I have also, in the past couple of weeks, had a visit from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who came up to Frosterley, Stanhope and Eastgate to see the railway and all the potential that it has to deliver transformational change not only for my constituency but other constituencies further down the line. I am particularly glad that my hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield and for Darlington are here today. I am also grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, who has just had the excellent news that the Toft Hill bypass is finally going to happen. It was first mentioned in the 1951 Durham county plan and it has now been approved by the Government a mere 70 years later. I beg the Minister to lean on his Front-Bench colleagues also to support my bid for Crook, Willington and Tow Law, which will hopefully be coming down the line in funding rounds 2 or 3.
It is not just hon. Members in this place who have supported the bid for the Weardale railway. The Mayor of Teesside, Ben Houchen, was also involved, along with hundreds of local people who completed my recent surveys on it, my Crook councillors elected last year—Patricia Jopling and Mike Currah—and local candidates who have been campaigning: Robbie Rodiss, Will Wearmouth and Steve Cowie. In particular, there is the group of people who have been keeping the railway going as a heritage line over the past few years—the huge number of volunteers at the Weardale Railway Trust.
The Weardale railway ceased operation as a freight line back in the early 1990s, but it has been operating a heritage service since then. Last year it was bought by the Auckland Project after its previous owner failed. I thank Jonathan Ruffer, who has been doing so much great work down in Bishop Auckland, and the chief exec of the Auckland Project, David Madden, who has been really involved in helping me, and other hon. Members, in the project to help to transform the west of County Durham. One of the most important things that they have done is to give a private sector edge to what is going on. I also thank Durham County Council and Darlington Council for the support that they are giving more broadly to the project and to the bid.
Bishop Auckland was first connected to the rail network back in the 1840s. The extension went further to Crook in 1844, then to Frosterley in 1845, and finally to Stanhope in 1862. In 1887, there was a further bid to extend the line from Stanhope right the way up to the top of Weardale. The budget for the entire line, as I read recently on the excellent Weardale Museum’s website, was a mere £48,627. The bid we have just put in for the feasibility study alone is £50,000 for the whole project. It is one of those interesting quirks of history that Sir Joseph Pease, the then Liberal MP, finally cut the first sod on an extension in 1893. It would be great to see the first Conservative MPs, largely, for County Durham doing exactly the same for the renewed line—if, hopefully, the feasibility study comes through—in the next few years.
Far earlier than the railway line were the wagon ways that we had across County Durham. That is because we were part of the heart of the industrial revolution. Back in the early 19th century, we had horse-drawn wagons going all the way over the moors because we had ironstone that had to be taken to Consett. It is very much in that theme of us being at the heart of the first industrial revolution that Conservative Members now really want to press this project to provide the connectivity to help to transform our communities going into the next industrial revolution that we are currently seeing taking place under this Conservative Government.
Unfortunately, passenger services ended on the line in 1953 and to Crook in 1965, with the freight service finally ending in the 1990s with the closure of the Eastgate cement works site, at which my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield worked. It is great to see him here today, supporting the bid as the Member for Sedgefield and wanting to deliver that transformational change.
Mr Holden
Since that closure, there has been an irregular heritage service operating locally. The bid now is not for that heritage service to come back; what we want to do is connect the communities I represent to the rest of the north-east and to improve the line further down, as my hon. Friends will mention briefly in their speeches. We have a real opportunity in Weardale, and it looks like we potentially have the second-largest lithium deposits in the country outside of Cornwall. That could provide a real freight anchor for that service. As exploration is going on, it is only right that we start to look at the feasibility of how we would transport some of that lithium, particularly as part of that proper industrial revolution with the next generation of manufacturing jobs that we are seeing up at Blyth or at Sunderland, where Nissan is putting in huge amounts of investment.
The bid is not just about freight, however; it is also about connecting communities. We represent proud villages and towns across County Durham, and the town of Crook needs a bit of a boost at the moment. One of the main aspects of the bid is to look at the feasibility of connecting the towns of Crook and Howden-le-Wear to the line as well. At the moment, the terminus is in Bishop Auckland. We want to ensure we have a proper through-running service so that we can capture all that opportunity further up the dale. The third aspect of the bid is looking at a possible extension further up the dale. If that looks viable and a goer, I will certainly be backing that.
The bid is about employment and ensuring that people up in Weardale can access those great jobs, particularly down in Teesside, where we are seeing massive investment in a freeport. We have the Darlington jobs hub and the Treasury. It is all coming to Teesside. I want my constituents to be able to share in that, whether they are in Crook or any of the towns and villages up in Weardale. I also want to see them able to access the best education opportunities. At the moment, that is just not possible with the transport infrastructure we have.
The bid is also more broadly about providing that opportunity for people in both directions. That means we can help drive the economy of Weardale in heritage and tourism. We are seeing real local efforts going into places such as the Weardale museum, the Weardale Adventure Centre or the fantastic pubs around Stanhope or in the smaller villages further up the line. I want to see those jobs thriving in the long term, but it cannot just be about transport connectivity; it is also about buses, broadband and enabling people to work locally, but also to stay local, and that is part of the real drive from this side of the House on connectivity.
Earlier in the Budget debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington said, “Shy bairns get nowt.” We in County Durham from the Conservative side are always arguing for our communities. The Economist in an article recently said that I was proving expensive, but the truth is that for too long, when the north-east was represented by Mandelson, Blair and co, they took the north-east—in fact, the entire north of England, the midlands, Wales and Scotland—for granted. I do not think we are prepared to do that. We are fighting every step of the way and every day for investment in our communities. I am incredibly proud to do that, and we are going to keep pushing for that. I am delighted to be fighting for it, but as part of a package, because this railway is part of many more bids—I have already referenced what is happening in Teesside—across the north.
I have already put in another bid, also accepted, for a connection from Consett to the Tyne. That is important, because we can do stuff to improve cycling and walking on that route, as well as on the Weardale line, but I also want to look at public transport options, and there will be a report later this year.
I thank Ministers for the extra £10 million provided for Shotley Bridge Hospital, which will help us double beds in that community hospital from eight to 16. That is far higher than the zero beds planned before I was elected. I have also fought on the motorhomes tax, which was particularly helpful for my increasingly tourist-focused community, and on the draught beer duty to help those wet pubs that are still part of thriving communities in the north.
The Government are really delivering for the north, including for my community in North West Durham and for County Durham. I am so glad to see the announcement that the feasibility study will happen and delighted that the Minister can support it. I am proud to represent my constituency and hope to do so for many years to come. However, the Government must deliver on the levelling up that we promised at the election. Therefore, although I am glad about the feasibility study and hopeful for the line’s future, I encourage the Minister to keep thinking of more ways to help us deliver for the people who voted for us in 2019.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Mr Paul Howell and Mr Peter Gibson have sought permission from the mover of the motion, Richard Holden, to make a short contribution in the Adjournment debate. They also requested the same permission from the Minister. It has been agreed to, and I have been informed.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) said, I worked for a number of years up at Eastgate at what was the thriving cement works industry. Unfortunately, that was lost as part of the squeeze between Scotland and the midlands. Part of the reason for that was probably the economics of getting trucks of cement out of that valley—it did not help that there was not a railway line.
The Minister will be surprised to see me talking about anything other than the Ferryhill railway station bid, on which I wholeheartedly support our progress. As he knows, a feasibility study has progressed on that. There are many parallels between the necessity of that bid and this one. They would both connect communities, ensuring that people can reach the centres of employment and that those centres can reach back into the countryside and leisure activities that go with that.
Having worked in Weardale, I can say that it is not a flat part of the world, and we do have weather up there, so any additional contributions from rail—as opposed to road—to get down to the metropolis of Darlington, as it is called, would be welcome at certain times of the year. The Weardale line connects to the Bishop line, which is the connection into Darlington. That will be severed when the big works are done at Darlington station to improve the economics of that argument. I am really pleased to see both feasibility studies happening.
That section of the Bishop line is part of the old Stockton to Darlington line. That is where things started back on 27 September 1825—before me, even—when the locomotion engine was reassembled and steamed prior to the opening of the railway on the Aycliffe levels in the Sedgefield constituency at Newton Aycliffe. The whole thrust of the 2025 celebrations come from that. At that site is a pub called, of all things, Locomotion No. 1, although sadly it is decrepit and in real need of repair and rebuilding. I hope that as part of the reimagining of the line and these connections, we can rebuild with reference to places such as the Locomotion No. 1 pub, with their historical significance. I will touch briefly on Ferryhill again and the connection to Newton Aycliffe, which had the munitions factory. Munitions in the war drove Ferryhill station, which was at that time the busiest station in Europe—bizarre, but it was. I would like to see that reconnection to history and the reconnection of our communities. It is why I am here to support our efforts with the Darlington to Dales railway line.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on securing the debate and on his tireless campaigning on the issue.
The potential restoration of the Darlington to Weardale line was a very welcome announcement last week as we reopen connectivity in the north-east, levelling up and unlocking its potential. I look forward to the Government’s feasibility study, which will examine the scheme’s potential for improving local connections and boosting business, employment, educational and leisure opportunities for my constituents as we look at expanding services from Darlington to Stanhope.
Ahead of the bicentenary of the Stockton and Darlington railway, we know that the Weardale line, which is steeped in local history, is an important step in our levelling-up agenda. I am proud of my regional colleagues—my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), whom we have heard from this evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham—for their collective dedication to the work. I thank Ministers for being receptive and supporting the project into its next phase.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
Last evening, there was a terrible train accident near Salisbury. Earlier today, two people were still in hospital, one of whom is a member of the railway family. I thought it would be appropriate for the House to send our best wishes to those who are injured and affected by what happened. I am sure that plenty of lessons will be learnt, but we are at the very early stages of the investigation. I am sure I will get the opportunity to inform the House about that later, but it would have been remiss of me not to say something at this point.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on securing the debate on an issue that I know is of great importance to him and his constituents. When I visited him a few months ago to see the line for myself, I could detect the huge community pride in the railway and what it could be, and just the sense of community itself. I know that his constituents would be proud of him for what he has managed to achieve so far. I also thank for their kind words my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell). I often jest with my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield about his wisdom—I call it age, but he calls it wisdom—but it is not a joke to say that he has done more for Sedgefield in less than two years than many previous incumbents of that seat did in a generation. He is to be commended for that. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) who cannot be here tonight. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) for her interest in these matters and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is omnipresent in these debates when he does not have to be. That shows in a very good light the seriousness with which he takes these matters and I appreciate his scrutiny.
I was pleased that last week the Budget confirmed the importance of this amazing local commitment, which has secured initial funding from the restoring your railway fund to develop the proposal and see if it stacks up for potential future delivery. I have heard the phrase “shy bairns get nowt”—I spent some time in the European Parliament and my then flatmate was Lord Callanan of Low Fell, as he is now, who used the phrase quite a lot. He indoctrinated me into terms that, as a midlander or someone from further south than him, I might not have known. I know that a number of not-so-shy bairns have been doing a huge amount of work to try to get more than nowt out of the Government, and I think it is paying off for them. I look forward to working with all the hon. Members concerned, Durham County Council and the Auckland Project, which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham mentioned, as this proposal develops.
The Government are committed to levelling up the country, and reconnecting communities to the railway is central to that ambition. As part of our levelling up agenda, in January 2020, the Government pledged £500 million for the restoring your railway programme to deliver on our manifesto commitment to start reopening lines and stations. That investment is reconnecting communities across the country, regenerating local economies and improving access to jobs, homes and education—all things that my hon. Friend knows and campaigns on.
More than five decades ago, the Beeching report led to the closure of one third of our railway network, with 2,363 stations and 5,000 miles of track identified for closure. Many places lost their railway connection and really have not recovered since. It is sometimes easy to forget, however, that some communities, rather than being cut off as a result of the Beeching axe, were the victims of decisions taken even earlier. Those communities, which include those that are the subject of today’s debate, feel the difficulties of being cut off from the rail network just as keenly as those that lost their lines and stations in Dr Beeching’s infamous “reshaping” of Britain’s railways.
For the towns and villages left isolated, no matter when they were cut off, restoring a railway line or station has the potential to revitalise the community. It breathes new life into high streets, drives investment in businesses and housing, and opens up new opportunities for work and education. That is why we set up the restoring your railway fund, and that is why the Government are investing across the country right now to progress work on restoring those connections. The Dartmoor line will be the first to reopen, later this month.
Part of the restoring your railway programme is the ideas fund, which provides development funding for early-stage proposals to help communities to develop strategic outline business cases. In three rounds of bidding, the fund has received 199 applications, including a successful application in the most recent round for the Weardale railway. Every bid has been sponsored by at least one Member of Parliament, and often several. In fact, 320 Members of Parliament have supported one or more bids to the fund.
I pay tribute to all hon. and right hon. Members from across the House who have sponsored bids to restore rail lines and stations in their constituencies. They have given us an amazing choice. It is a rich mix of choices; a rich tagine, if you will—a proper dish from which I can sample and choose wisely how to spend taxpayers’ money in the best and most appropriate way. I really do appreciate the amount of work that goes into formulating a bid, and I am aware of just how much these proposals mean for local communities. Those Members who have taken the time to work with their local communities and put forward a proposal are great advocates for their constituencies, as demonstrated here this evening.
I was pleased that as part of the Budget last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to announce 13 more schemes from the third round of the ideas fund that have been successful in their bids for funding. Of course, one of those schemes was the proposal to reopen the Weardale line to passenger services. That scheme and 12 others from the third round join the 25 projects already being supported to develop their own proposals in order to get a step closer to reopening lines and stations.
During the assessment process, I had the pleasure of reviewing all the proposals and of seeing what a difference reopening those stations and lines could make to those communities. Obviously, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham, the Weardale line is no different. Seeking to join the existing 18-mile heritage railway in the Weardale area of outstanding natural beauty, which closed to passenger services in 1953, to the Bishop line and create one continuous travel corridor connecting to the east coast main line, the proposal has the potential to transform the region. An individual in Eastgate would be able to get a direct train into Darlington, accessing all the opportunities available there, and go further to all the places up and down the east coast main line. It would allow isolated communities to access employment and educational opportunities and encourage inward investment and economic regeneration across the area.
I am well aware that, for the past nine years, the Auckland Project, a local regeneration charity, has sought to create opportunities and investment in Bishop Auckland and the surrounding area, and this project has the potential to bring tourists into the area to appreciate the many attractions on offer. If someone wants to know what a difference restoring a lost rail connection will make, and what it will look like, they really do not have to go much further than speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham.
The restoring your railway programme is already connecting communities, and not all that far from Weardale, £34 million for detailed development and early construction activity has already been funded to rapidly progress plans to reopen the Northumberland line between Ashington and Blyth, which closed to passengers in 1964 as part of the Beeching cuts.
Slightly further afield—as I have mentioned—but displaying our commitment to level up communities across the country, the Dartmoor line, between Okehampton and Exeter in the south-west, will officially reopen for year-round services on 20 November this year, thanks to £40 million of investment. This will mark the first reopening under the restoring your railway manifesto commitment. We are getting our manifesto delivered. The route will connect Exeter St Davids, Crediton and Okehampton, providing a hub for visitors to explore Dartmoor and regional links for local commuters. It has been very well received by local people.
Based on what my hon. Friend said, I should take a moment to recognise this country’s heritage railways. The UK is a true pioneer in the history of railway development, nurturing and benefiting from the talents of Brunel and Stephenson, among others. Heritage railways are major contributors to the UK’s visitor economy, attracting about 13 million visitors pre-pandemic and bringing in an estimated £400 million to the economy annually.
There are over 150 operational heritage railways, running trains over 600 miles of track between 460 stations. They perform a variety of important functions across the country, from transportation to leisure and entertainment, tourism, education and community projects, and as symbols of our country’s rich industrial heritage. This Government, led by my colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, are working to ensure the continued success and growth of this important component of the heritage sector.
I can assure the House that a tremendous amount of work is being done in this area—in restoring your railway—to reconnect smaller communities, larger communities, towns with cities and villages with towns, and to regenerate local economies and improve access to jobs, homes and education. I really look forward to seeing the proposal to reinstate passenger services on the Weardale railway develop through the ideas fund.
Finally, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who took part in the first three rounds. I say to those who were not successful: please keep the faith, because this is a very popular policy, and I expect to see it rear its head again.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
Home Department
(3 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Howell
Anyone can be a victim of domestic abuse, regardless of their gender, age, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, sexuality or background, but how many men have been subjected to domestic abuse and what is offered to them that is different from what is offered to women?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that men and boys can be victims of domestic abuse and, indeed, the other crimes that fall under the umbrella of what we call violence against women and girls. For the year ending March 2020, the crime survey of England and Wales estimated that 757,000 men experienced domestic abuse—that is approximately seven men in every 100.
[Official Report, 18 October 2021, Vol. 701, c. 539.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean).
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell).
The correct response should have been:
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that men and boys can be victims of domestic abuse and, indeed, the other crimes that fall under the umbrella of what we call violence against women and girls. For the year ending March 2020, the crime survey of England and Wales estimated that 757,000 men experienced domestic abuse—that is approximately 3.6 men in every 100.
NHS pay
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Endometriosis and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
(3 years 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
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking. This is in line with the current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. 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 also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
I am sure that most Members will be aware that this debate was originally scheduled to take place on 18 October. It was delayed so that Members could pay tribute to our colleague and friend, Sir David Amess. His loss was felt acutely across the House, but it is a testament to him that his loss will have touched many well beyond these walls. I know it will have been particularly felt by many of those watching or with an interest in today’s debate, as Sir David was a champion of those living with endometriosis, having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis since its inception in 2018. He was a crusader for the cause long before that, after a constituent contacted him about their struggles with the condition. His signature passion, charm and humour will be sorely missed from today’s debate, but I am confident that Members here will make contributions that do justice to a cause he cared so much about and, in so doing, pay tribute to him.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 328570, relating to research into endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to remember and pay tribute to our friend and colleague, Sir David Amess. Among the many worthy campaigns he fought for, Sir David was a vocal champion of women suffering from endometriosis. He launched the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis in 2018, and he chaired it with the intention of raising awareness of the condition and the need to investigate how those who suffer from endometriosis can get support. I am certain that Sir David, ever the advocate, would have spoken in this debate. By continuing to speak out on this issue, we honour his memory.
For convenience, I will read the petition into Hansard:
“Endometriosis and PCOS are two gynaecological conditions which both affect 10% of women worldwide, but both are, in terms of research and funding, incredibly under prioritised. This petition is calling for more funding, to enable for new, extensive and thorough research into female health issues.”
The petition was open for six months and gained over 100,000 signatures, 200 of which were from my own wonderful constituency of Coventry North West. This is not the first time we have had a debate on endometriosis, nor is it the first time that polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS, has been brought up in Parliament. The Government’s lack of action in response to previous debates has compelled over 100,000 people to bring the lack of funding for research into these diseases to our attention.
The opening speaker in a debate does not have to speak in favour of or in opposition to a petition. They can choose to outline arguments dispassionately and open up the debate. I will not be doing that. I want to throw my full support behind this important issue. As a healthcare professional in the NHS myself, who has worked with endometriosis and PCOS patients, it is heartbreaking that we still need to plead for research money for two diseases that affect one in 10 women in the United Kingdom. That is over 3 million women.
To advocate for the petition, I will first try to clear up some crucial misconceptions about both diseases. I will also outline the specific actions that the Government must take to support women who suffer from them. Before I do that, I want to briefly explain what endometriosis and PCOS are. PCOS is the most common endocrine disorder in women, affecting one in 10, although it disproportionately impacts black and south Asian women. It is characterised by abnormal hormone production in the ovaries and can, in many but not all cases, cause women to develop cysts. Endometriosis is a condition where cells similar to those in the lining of the uterus are found elsewhere in the body. It affects one in 10 women, although, again, it disproportionately impacts black and south Asian women. Medical jargon aside, both diseases can affect women’s reproductive organs and can, if severe enough, cause fertility issues as one of many side effects.
However, after spending the last few weeks speaking with women suffering from one or both diseases, it has become clear that one of the greatest misconceptions surrounding endometriosis and PCOS is that they are often considered only to be fertility diseases. Thinking of the diseases primarily as barriers to pregnancy or simply as making women’s periods more painful is a gross oversimplification and is, in many cases, totally inaccurate. Both diseases vary widely in severity and in the way they manifest. For example, 12% of endometriosis cases target women’s lungs. Both conditions cause symptoms other than chronic pain. PCOS can cause obesity, excess facial hair and chronic acne—deeply stigmatising symptoms that can shatter a young woman’s confidence and have a debilitating effect on her mental health.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that this medical gaslighting is arguably the biggest issue? Patients go to their GP—the medical practitioner they trust the most—and are told it is just a bad period. That is what we really need to change. Funding is a separate argument. That is the main problem we need to overcome before we can truly tackle the issues.
Taiwo Owatemi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making an important point, but I think what that highlights is the need to ensure that endometriosis and PCOS are included on the medical curriculum for GPs and healthcare professionals. That is why funding is so important: to make that difference.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to support the petition as well. My constituents have also written heartfelt letters about their experiences; it took one constituent 11 years to receive a diagnosis. Is not the crux of the issue that we need a diagnostic framework to get on top of the conditions quickly so that they do not reach the severity that many women experience?
Taiwo Owatemi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. I agree, and I will come on to that issue in my speech.
To add insult to injury, funding for symptoms such as excess facial hair and chronic acne has decreased over the years. Endometriosis can cause chronic bowel and bladder-related symptoms and depression, yet I have heard from countless women that, after finally being diagnosed with endometriosis or PCOS, they are told by their GP to come back when they want to get pregnant and are then sent on their way, without targeted treatments.
It is extraordinary to think that there are the same number of women in the UK who have endometriosis as there are people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Nobody would suggest that a person suffering from diabetes come back when they decide to get married, so that they can manage swelling in their fingers before buying a wedding ring—that would be absurd. One in 10 people in the UK suffers from asthma, yet it would be completely unthinkable to tell someone with asthma to come back when they decide they want to run a marathon. Endometriosis and PCOS are about so much more than having difficulty conceiving.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Both endometriosis and PCOS can have a massive impact on mental health for a variety of reasons, whether related to pain or fertility. Mental health services have been chronically underfunded for years. Does the hon. Lady agree that the psychological symptoms of the conditions should be prioritised as much as the physical ones?
Taiwo Owatemi
I thank the hon. Lady for raising an important point. We absolutely need funding for holistic care for both endometriosis and PCOS, especially for mental health support.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
The hon. Lady is articulating the case extremely well. Does she share my opinion that one reason the conditions are looked at only from the perspective of their impact on fertility is that the medical establishment too often views women’s biology purely from the perspective of incubating babies, and does not think enough about the impact on general wellbeing?
Taiwo Owatemi
I thank the hon. Member for raising such an important point, which I will come to later. I know from speaking to many healthcare professionals that some are passionate about endometriosis and PCOS but would like more funding and support, so that their colleagues and all within the medical profession get the necessary medical education in their curriculum.
Endometriosis and PCOS are about so much more than having difficulty conceiving, but funding decisions made by Whitehall treat them as though they are not. That is why it is so upsetting, but unsurprising, that the Government response to the petition discussed funding for fertility treatments. In fact, when most young women start to see symptoms at puberty, pregnancy is the furthest thing from their mind.
With that in mind, I will talk about a constituent of mine, a 14-year-old girl who was ostracised and relentlessly bullied by her peers for her excessive facial hair and acne and for weight-related reasons. She experienced such debilitating pain in her lungs and lower abdomen that she was hospitalised during a GCSE exam. After five years of calling hospitals, three painful exploratory surgeries, countless GP appointments and several specialist referrals, she was finally diagnosed with endometriosis and PCOS. The only treatment her GP could offer her was generic birth control pills, which no evidence-based studies confirm as definitive treatment for either disease.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I have experience of young women being given contraceptive pills to deal with what the GP regards as period pain, only to then suffer mental health impacts because of the contraceptive pill. They then find themselves in the difficult position of having to choose between what the GP thinks is a treatment for period pain and the impact of the contraceptive pill on their mental health. Does she agree that that is simply unacceptable?
Taiwo Owatemi
I thank the hon. Member for raising that important point. I agree that it is simply unacceptable.
Before my constituent left, the GP told her to come back when she wanted to get pregnant, leaving her to figure out how to cope on her own in the meantime. Her story of feeling shamed by her peers and gaslit when trying to get a diagnosis is not unique, as many Members have raised. On average, it takes eight years to diagnose a woman with endometriosis, and years to diagnose PCOS, which brings me to my next point.
The Government need to increase funding to study both conditions. We still do not know what causes endometriosis, effective ways of preventing it from spreading to other organs or effective non-surgical ways of managing symptoms. Some 58% of women with endometriosis had to visit a GP more than 10 times to get a diagnosis, while 21% had 10 or more hospital appointments and 53% went to A&E, with 27% going more than three times, before diagnosis. That is deeply distressing for the patient and a terrible use of NHS resources.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The hon. Lady makes an excellent case and I absolutely support everything she says. I was horrified to hear from a constituent, a qualified nurse, whom it took six years diagnose to diagnose. After two and a half years of daily bleeding and pain, she was finally offered laparoscopic surgery, but was then told by healthcare professionals that the only cure for her was to actually conceive and have a baby, while at the same time being told that she could have fertility problems. Does that not highlight that there needs to be a lot more awareness and education among GPs and healthcare professionals, and adherence to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines?
Taiwo Owatemi
I thank the hon. Member for raising that important point, which absolutely highlights that need.
The Government urgently need to invest in research projects and create more streamlined diagnostic practice. That must start with better GP training, as hon. Members have highlighted, so that GPs no longer inadvertently gaslight or misdiagnose anyone with endometriosis or PCOS. It must extend to more accurate and less invasive screening technology to confirm the diagnosis. Once women are finally diagnosed, there is currently no targeted treatment for endometriosis—none at all. Similarly, there is no drug or treatment on the UK market that has evidence-based approval to treat PCOS. We need funding for this research, as well as facilities to carry it out.
There is only one dedicated PCOS clinic in the whole of the UK, and I am proud to say that the clinic is in my own city of Coventry. I visited the clinic recently and spoke with the head researcher, Professor Harpal Randeva, and their specialist nurse, Danielle Bate. They stressed the importance of treating PCOS as a disease in need of its own funding body. Currently, the limited funding for PCOS and endometriosis alike is attached to funding bundles for several other diseases, as is clear from the Government’s response to the petition. We should not be attaching research funding for these conditions as addendums to general funds for fertility diseases or other endocrine diseases. Endometriosis and PCOS impact millions of women in the UK. They are not afterthoughts, and we cannot continue to treat them as such in funding discourse. We should encourage funding charities to set up independent boards for PCOS and endometriosis.
Earlier this year, a Department of Health and Social Care consultation acknowledged the importance of improving research into women’s health. The strategy for that improvement is, according to the Government, now in development, and it would be great to hear from the Minister what progress is being made. I also ask the Minister whether the strategy will commit to establishing independent well-supported funding bodies for research into both endometriosis and PCOS, which are so desperately and deservingly needed.
I will end my remarks by thanking all the brave women suffering from endometriosis or PCOS who continue to fight for increased resources. Without their remarkable self-advocacy and will to advocate for each other, I am certain that we would not be here today. I hope the debate will provide an opportunity for the Government to listen and act.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
As a lot of Members want to speak, I ask Members to stick to about three and a half minutes so that everybody who wants to speak gets the opportunity to do so. I call Emma Hardy, and then Jackie Doyle-Price.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I would like to add my thoughts and recollections of working with Sir David. As he was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis and I was vice-chair, we worked very closely together, and I really enjoyed working with him. I found him to be a funny, engaging and generous man. He will be very missed.
As much as I am pleased to be sharing the new role of chair with the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), I do not think that any member of the group will quite get over the loss of Sir David. The last conversation that we had was when we caught each other near the lifts in 1 Parliament Street, if Members know it. He said, “Oh, Emma, Emma! Let’s find out who the new Minister is. We must get them to come to our APPG.”—this was during the reshuffle—“We must tell them about our report. Let’s do this together.” I said, “Brilliant!” He said, “I’ll find out. I’ll get hold of them,” and I said, “That’s great news.” I am very pleased to say that before the debate began, the Minister agreed to meet the APPG, so I thank her for that.
I would like to mention our APPG and the work we did—I can see members of the group here now—and some of the points that we came up with. It was a really detailed piece of work. We listened to thousands of women. Sir David chaired some of the events, as did I and other Members. We were both passionate about following up on the report’s recommendations. The point he made to me was, “It must not be left to gather dust, Emma,” and I said, “No, it must not be left to gather dust,” so we will push on with the recommendations.
One of the things we talked about was highlighting the unacceptable delays in diagnosis and the need for research into diagnostic methods. One of the recommendations was that Government should commission research to discover the cause of the disease. No one really understands why some women have it and some do not, and there is no research on that. Research needs to be done on better treatment and management options, and—the dream for everyone—one day finding a cure.
We need increased awareness. It feels as though we are becoming more aware of the condition, but I still find myself having conversations with people who ask, “How do you say that? What is endometriosis? I have not heard of that before.” We should do anything we can to raise awareness and increase understanding among health professionals of the severity of the condition.
We need to recognise endometriosis in statutory support as a source of chronic disability, and we have talked before about having a debate about that. Sir David and I, along with other members of the group, wrote to the Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions about personal independence payments, disability benefits and women’s difficulty in accessing them for conditions such as endometriosis. The definition and criteria for statutory sick pay do not recognise long-term conditions such as endometriosis. Everybody who needs it should have access to the appropriate care.
I would like to mention the women that I met during my recent Big Conversation event. I pay tribute to Mr Phillips, who is an incredible consultant and an expert in endometriosis, for all the work he does in my local area. The women at the event reported the same things as we have heard from the women here: this is a condition that takes seven and a half years to diagnose, it is not taken seriously and they are left in extreme pain for long periods of time. However, I want to offer some hope to everybody. I am really pleased that Dr Barbara Guinn and Leah Cooksey, a PhD student at the University of Hull, have just been given £10,000—a pitifully small amount, one could argue—to look into researching biomarkers for endometriosis. That would be revolutionary if it came through. The idea is that someone could give a urine sample to identify the biomarkers that mean they are likely to have the disease, without the need for the current invasive medical procedures.
My final, specific ask for the Government concerns the Health and Care Bill. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is asking that it be made mandatory for integrated care systems to ensure that NHS organisations for which they are responsible conduct and resource clinical research. Can measures about mandatory research into this condition be included in the new Health and Care Bill? I am very sorry that Sir David is not here with us, but we will continue to push for all the recommendations and points that he stood for so proudly in our all-party group.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
May I associate myself with your words, Mr Mundell, and with the words of the two previous speakers in regard to Sir David Amess, who was a great personal friend of mine? I was so happy to be able to work with him on this cause. He brought to it his characteristic passion and commitment, and frankly, he was good at keeping us all on the ball. We will miss his leadership, but we will endeavour to make sure that the points he campaigned for are delivered. As has been mentioned, he took up this issue when he was visited by his constituent, Carla Cressy. The cause is one of the main beneficiaries from the sales of his book, “Ayes & Ears”, which is available in all good bookshops; I encourage everyone to make their donation there.
As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) has outlined, Sir David led an inquiry for the all-party group on endometriosis. As many as 11,000 members of the public got involved in it, and that is quite an achievement for an all-party group. It is a testament to the fact that he always used good publicity to draw attention to the issues that he really cared about.
For a condition that affects 10% of women, there has been staggeringly little focus on endometriosis. If something affected 10% of men, would we be having this kind of debate? I think not. We really owe it to all the women who suffer for years with the most debilitating and chronic pain and disability because of this condition. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) for mentioning the obsessive focus on fertility, because the truth of the matter is that women who suffer from endometriosis start to suffer from it the moment they start their periods.
We could do so much if we had a greater understanding of what a healthy period is. We are all brought up to think, “This is your lot in life; it’s all quite normal.” We might be struggling with the most debilitating pain and thinking that everybody else is going through the same thing, when in fact they are not and we are suffering from very unhealthy periods. We need much more understanding not just in the medical profession, but among girls, so they can be more alive to problems and not wait eight years for a diagnosis. As the hon. Lady said, endometriosis is often diagnosed only when women are trying to get pregnant, by which time so much damage might have been done. If the condition had been diagnosed earlier, treatment could have been given to alleviate it.
We often talk about funding, and one of the biggest challenges in the NHS is not so much the quantum of funding but whether we spend it wisely. If we gave people tools to look after their conditions and enable them to know when they are suffering from ill health, we would reduce the amount that the NHS has to spend on the condition. It is a no-brainer. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. She has had to listen to me bang on about these issues many times—I never miss an opportunity to beat Ministers over the head when it comes to women’s health—but I know she gets it.
We need to think properly about the wellbeing of women, and the impact that their biology and gynaecology have on wellbeing, and we must think beyond childbirth and pregnancy. Only last year Baroness Cumberlege produced her report “First Do No Harm”, one of the headline conclusions of which was that women are not heard. When women seek medical advice, they are belittled, diminished, shunted along and told, “This is all very normal.” That must stop, because women are important. Women will have healthy pregnancies if they get support earlier. We will all be better off, because we will have less work absence, a more productive economy and less demand on the NHS. It is a no-brainer. I ask the Minister for more research into endometriosis and more awareness so that people can be diagnosed earlier.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I will now impose a formal time limit of three and a half minutes on speeches.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a pleasure and an honour to speak in this debate. As Members before me have done, I pay huge tribute to and give thanks for the work of Sir David Amess. He worked tirelessly to raise awareness and improve services for those affected by endometriosis. His loss is felt keenly across the House and among those involved in the causes that he fought so hard for, such as endometriosis. It will be a true honour and a privilege to follow in his footsteps with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). We decided that it was important to make a cross-party effort to take on Sir David’s role, because that was the spirit in which he approached the issue. In fact, the last conversation I ever had with him was about how we could ensure that the report did not sit and gather dust, and how we could include and encourage local groups in our constituencies. I know we all have many of them in our constituencies.
I want to take a moment to mention and pay tribute to Endo Warriors in West Lothian, where Candice and Claire are tireless campaigners—that is why the fourth largest number of signatures to this petition came from my constituency. I also pay tribute to Endo Bonds, which works tirelessly across Scotland, and to Andrew Horne and Emma Cox at Endometriosis UK. There are many people in this space and a lot of sufferers, many of whom I have met. When we did that report, I took evidence from sufferers in Scotland. The stories were truly heartbreaking. That was in the middle of the pandemic, when those who suffer from endometriosis were having to wait longer than ever to get treatment and diagnosis. The number of Members who have taken an interest and want to speak in this debate shows that so much more time, effort, money and research must be dedicated to both endometriosis and PCOS, which devastates and blights the lives of women and sufferers across the UK.
As we know, endometriosis is a gynaecological condition, but many do not know that it is as common as diabetes. It affects one in 10 women and those assigned female at birth, thus affecting millions across the UK. It is a condition with a wide spectrum of symptoms. I have friends who suffer from it, and it has such a profound impact on their lives. As other hon. Members have said, the response of some medical professionals simply needs to change. We need ongoing medical intervention and research to improve sufferers’ lives.
From an economic perspective, endometriosis costs the UK £8.2 billion per year through treatment, healthcare costs and the impact on work and employment. This is not necessarily about the financial impact, however; it is about the impact on the lives of those who suffer. Despite the prevalence and impact of endometriosis, there is very little research funding for it or widespread awareness about it, unlike with cancer or diabetes. Yet it is ranked by the NHS as one of the top 20 conditions involving pain so disabling that it can prevent sufferers from doing daily tasks. That list includes well-researched and well-funded conditions such as heart attacks, kidney stones, appendicitis and arthritis, to name a few.
Men have held positions of power for centuries and, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said, if the sufferers were men, we would probably have a solution and a cure by now. The fact that Sir David was so determined to fight, in such an inclusive way, for the women who suffer from the condition is a reminder to us all of the need to take that work forward.
In 2018, only 2.1% of publicly funded research in the UK went on reproductive and menstrual health, down from 4.5% in 2014. In Scotland, we have committed to reducing the time taken to obtain a diagnosis from eight and a half years to 12 months during the life of the next Parliament—that is an ambitious target. So often, the nations of the UK are played off against each other. Of course, this is an area where we should compete, but we also need to work together so that we can share ideas, fresh thinking and opportunities. That is what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and I will do in the all-party parliamentary group. We look forward to working with Members and having many more debates on endometriosis and PCOS so that sufferers do not continue to suffer, as they have done for so long.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
We really need to stick to the time if everyone is to have an opportunity to speak. I call Robert Largan.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I pay tribute to the late Sir David Amess for all his work to establish the APPG on endometriosis, and I am very grateful to him for his efforts.
Like Sir David, I was visited at my constituency surgery by a constituent who has campaigned tirelessly to raise awareness of endometriosis to ensure that other women do not have to go through the pain that she has endured. That constituent, Maddy Howarth, first began to suffer severe stomach cramps aged just 13. By the age of 17, she was visiting A&E practically every month because of the pain she was in and the effects of the drugs that she was taking to manage it, and still the condition went undiagnosed.
Eventually, after several years had passed, Maddy was referred to a gynaecologist for investigative surgery. While waiting to see a specialist for diagnosis, she was forced to give up her home and her job, as she was unable to work through the unbearable pain or access the support that she needed. Then, at the age of just 22, Maddy made the difficult decision to have a hysterectomy to finally stop the pain. I am pleased to say that her health has since improved, but not all women are so lucky.
An inquiry by the APPG last year found that the average waiting time from the onset of symptoms to diagnosis was eight years, and that although nearly all of those with the condition felt that their mental health had suffered as a result, the vast majority have never received any psychological support. That cannot be allowed to continue. Several years ago my partner, Beth, was diagnosed with endometriosis. She has had to suffer intense pain, but she is still on the waiting list for surgery. Needless to say, this issue is very close to my heart.
We all know about the impact that the pandemic has had on NHS waiting lists. Countless constituents have contacted me about how difficult they have found it to access a GP appointment, and about the repeated delays to routine operations. Women with endometriosis have lived through that experience for decades. To stop more women and young girls going through the life-altering pain felt by those such as Maddy and Beth, and if we are serious about building a more resilient and preventive healthcare system, we have to change. That means cutting waiting lists for diagnosis, improving our clinical understanding of the condition, creating a dedicated care pathway and providing stronger mental health and physical support for those currently living with stage 4 chronic endometriosis. This will not be an easy task, but it is a necessary one.
Now is the time for these difficult conversations about how we view and treat women’s health, and now is the time for us to end once and for all the unacceptable situation in which women are left living in fear with unbearable, undiagnosed and untreated pain. We must change that now.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I also want to pay tribute to Sir David Amess because, on coming into Parliament, I found it very impressive that for once a man was taking up an issue that affected so many women. I know it is usually the women in the House who put these issues forward, so we definitely have to pay tribute to Sir David Amess for the feminist that he was in that respect.
Even though the condition is so common and the impacts are so devastating, we have heard time and again that research is woefully lacking. PCOS is definitely one of the leading causes of fertility problems in women, and endometriosis can be as well. It can also have a devastating impact on someone’s self-esteem, and if not properly managed, it can lead to additional health problems later on.
I know this because I have endometriosis. My own experience began when I was young, and I did not think it was a particular issue. I always had extremely painful periods, and that was just life. With all these things that have to do with women, we are told, “Once you have a baby, you’ll be fine,” and on being diagnosed with endometriosis or potentially having it, I was told, “Once you have a baby, you’ll be fine.”
I remember that when things began to get bad one night in 2017, I was sitting up in the office of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for whom I worked. I began to feel twinges while I was working late, and things got so bad—the piercing pain got so bad in my side—that I had hobble over the river to St Thomas’s Hospital. I was in so much pain that I was kept in for the next couple of days.
I then began waiting for an appointment from my GP. I had to wait so long for it that I called up and asked, and they were confused about what they were meant to do next. It was only after many months that I was able to get that appointment, and I then had to wait for the next appointment time, as we often do. That was a longer process, which went on for another two years.
Throughout that time, I would have pain every day, as I do now, and I would have to wake up quite late, because I would have pain mostly in the night-time. For the majority of women, their bosses are not so understanding. However, thanks to my right hon. Friend, I was able to make it work with my times by coming into work slightly later and working slightly later to work around my pain. How many employers would be that understanding?
Eventually, I was given a date for a laparoscopy in May 2019—I will not mention the hospital, because it will be hearing from me—and it went so badly it was unbelievable. I was in and out of there so quickly: I had the procedure, those involved woke me up and told me they had not found anything, and they said I would come to soon and would go home. I was in so much pain that I could not walk, and instead of treating me any further, they said there was nothing they could do for me, put me in a wheelchair—still in the gown I had had on for the operation, with blood on—and wheeled me round to A&E.
Obviously, those in A&E were absolutely fuming, because the staff are not meant to do that, and they sent me back up to the gynaecological ward. Again, I was gaslighted there, as somebody told me that I would have to think about what I was doing because I clearly just had some sort of muscle pain. I tell this story today, with not much time, because I cannot tell you how many women have experienced that.
My diagnosis took five years. Thankfully, I went to King’s College Hospital, where I was born. I probably should have gone there first; I turned out okay, which shows that it is a good hospital. It was able to treat my condition, and I instantaneously felt the relief of having the endometriosis removed, as much as that is possible. But it grows back, so I am now on the list, with other women, waiting for further treatment. We cannot keep women waiting this long.
I can say from experience that the amount of pain you go through really does affect you every day, so I say to Members right across the House that if they ever see me looking at them slightly strangely, unless they have said anything particularly obnoxious, it may just be because I am in a lot of pain. Thank you very much, Mr Mundell, for allowing me—oh no, I still have some more time.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Mundell. I associate myself with your remarks and those of others during this debate about our colleague Sir David Amess, and my thoughts and prayers are with his wife and kids at this very difficult time.
I am pleased to participate in this debate today in order to recognise publicly the great work that Endo Borders, set up by Tao McCready—who lives in my constituency—is doing on behalf of women who suffer from this terrible condition. Mr Mundell, as the other Member of Parliament for the Scottish borders, I know that you are familiar with that group and the important work it is doing in our area. Tao was diagnosed with endometriosis in 2017, following multiple misdiagnoses, and went on to set up Endo Borders in 2019, giving up a career to focus on supporting the local community and raising awareness of the condition. Not only is it a fantastic group for women in the Scottish borders; it also reaches out to women across the country who are suffering from endometriosis. I had the privilege of attending a recent meeting of Endo Borders, and was really impressed by the courage of the women who were sharing their stories.
Endo affects one in 10 women in the United Kingdom, but despite its prevalence not much is known about it and relatively few people have heard of it—I certainly had not until I met that group. There is currently no cure for endo, and its exact cause is unknown. In Scotland, the average diagnosis time is eight years. The difficulty is that there is not a specific list of symptoms for endo, as the condition presents differently in different women. Research by Endometriosis UK found that 54% of the UK population were unaware of the condition, and 45% of women were unaware of its symptoms. To put that in perspective, a far greater proportion of the population has heard of diabetes, and endometriosis affects a similar number of people.
What can be done to help women suffering from this condition, particularly those who live in my constituency in Scotland? First, clearly awareness about endometriosis needs to be raised, and it is crucial to ensure that Scotland comes into line with England by providing menstrual health education at school. Without learning about the menstrual cycle at a young age, conditions such as endo will continue to go unrecognised, marginalised and misunderstood.
Secondly, although there are three specialist centres for endo in Scotland, the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis found that because those services have been commissioned at a local level, it can sometimes be difficult to get referrals to the different health board areas in which those services are based. It cannot just be a postcode lottery. My colleague Rachael Hamilton MSP recently called on the Scottish Government to present a credible plan for how to reduce their own waiting time target for diagnosing endometriosis from eight years to less than one year, and I eagerly await the publication of that plan.
Finally, I am absolutely clear that more can and should be done to improve research into this condition that affects so many women and the way they live their daily lives. I therefore support calls to ensure that funding is directed towards new research into the diagnosis and treatment of this terrible illness, ultimately focusing on a cure.
To conclude, I thank the petitioners for securing this important debate, and the team at Endo Borders for the invaluable work they do to support women suffering from this terrible condition.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I share your praise for Tao McCready and the work of Endo Borders.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) on opening the debate so ably. As she noted, on average, it takes eight years for a diagnosis of endometriosis to be made. Unfortunately, in Wales it now takes nine years on average, compounding the suffering of people who suffer from marginalisation and poverty in their communities in many parts of Wales. It is essential that that be addressed as soon as possible by the Welsh Government.
I also thank my constituent Kate Laska, who for a number of years has been a tireless campaigner for greater support for those who suffer from this condition in Wales. She has shown remarkable determination and has been working essentially alone on this matter. As part of her campaign, Kate has pushed for menstrual products to include labels that list their ingredients. Men and women—everyone—deserve to be empowered with vital information about the products they use, and to be assured of their safety; menstrual products are no different. Is the Minister aware of any ongoing discussions on that issue with the Office for Product Safety and Standards? I am not drawing attention to the issue to raise undue concerns, but my constituents would certainly be glad to be reassured that it is receiving proper attention.
Caseworkers also highlighted the lack of specialist support available in north Wales, which means that lots of patients have to travel across the border, to the excellent Liverpool Women’s Hospital, to have attention. The long distance to travel is, of course, a further burden. There is also, I am afraid, an almost complete lack of service through the medium of Welsh. The ability to discuss a condition of this nature in the patient’s language of choice is a particular issue, and not only in Wales but throughout the UK. I do not know how much attention that matter has had, but I draw it to the attention of the Minister.
Endometriosis is not just a health issue for those with the condition. It is debilitating, there is a lack of support and, as hon. Members have mentioned, statutory sick pay is available to an employee for a maximum of only three years. That penalises those with chronic long-term conditions such as endometriosis and others. Many of those severely affected have struggled to access personal independence payment and universal credit. Clearly, we need more understanding and education—specifically, more research. I end by quoting Kate Laska, who told me:
“Women with endometriosis suffer in silence and very often alone because no one around them can imagine their pain.”
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) for securing and leading this important debate. More importantly, I also thank the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for her own personal story, which I found very moving. In common with everyone else in the Chamber, it would be remiss of me not to mention Sir David Amess and the very important work that he did as chair of the all-party parliamentary group.
As we have heard, endo affects one in 10 women in the UK. It is a common, chronic, complex and fluctuating condition that brings about unimaginable pain. Like many Members here, I first found out about endo shortly after I was elected; I had never heard of it before. It was in a constituency surgery, where Katie came to meet me. She talked about her debilitating pain, the impact on her mental health and her endo sisters who were taking their own lives because of the pain while awaiting treatment. She described the gaslighting she had to go through—“It’s just a bad period.” That is just the norm for anyone suffering from endo, and we should all be ashamed of that.
It is clear from today’s debate, from previous debates and from constituents across the UK that, despite the severity of the condition, it is still taboo to talk about women’s health and gynaecological conditions. I remember speaking in last year’s debate on the Cumberlege report. It is a damning and concerning fact that we talk about and listen to women’s health issues only when men talk about them. Many in this Chamber have been giving their own personal stories, and I fear that we are at risk of still not truly understanding the issue because men are not talking about it. We spend so much more money on erectile dysfunction than on endometriosis—that shows where our priorities are.
Workplace attitudes often do not help. We have heard the stories over and over again in the House when it comes to endo: women are often not believed or supported by doctors, employers or even loved ones. It is shocking that in 21st-century Britain women are still being dismissed as lazy, unreliable, dishonest and a nuisance in the workplace. In the 2020 BBC survey on endo, almost all the women responded by saying that they felt that their careers had been hampered by having the disease.
If appropriate workplace support for employees suffering from endo and polycystic ovary syndrome is to be obtained, we need business leaders and managers to be equipped with the necessary information and knowledge to be compassionate when dealing with these cases. We should begin by encouraging employers to become endo-friendly, making sure that there is access to support for all those who suffer from it.
The current definition has been highlighted by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). Unfortunately, endo sisters do not qualify for statutory sick pay because the condition is long-lasting and chronic. That is something we can quite easily and quickly fix. We have already heard that before covid it took, on average, eight years to be diagnosed with endometriosis. That backlog will only have become worse. We need to factor in GPs’ ability to understand the condition better. We can do so much more, and we have a duty to do so.
In conclusion, endometriosis costs the UK £8.2 billion per year through treatment, healthcare costs and the impact on work and employment. We need to deal with this, and not just from a financial perspective but from a moral one.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I am going to call Barbara Keeley and then I will ask Alex Davies-Jones to make the final Back-Bench contribution.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) for the way she opened this important debate.
Endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome affect one in 10 women and those assigned female at birth in the UK. As we have discussed, that means that over 1.5 million individuals are enduring a painful condition that can affect every aspect of their life. It is staggering that these conditions are so under-recognised. Common symptoms for a diagnosis include severe pain and heavy bleeding, but for those who have these conditions, that description barely scratches the surface of the reality of living with such a severe gynaecological disease.
One constituent wrote to me with a powerful testimony about her experience of living with polycystic ovary syndrome. She told me of the wide range of debilitating symptoms of her condition. She felt lacking in confidence and scared for her health and future. She felt that no one understood her, and she felt alone and overwhelmed by the condition. Constituents who have contacted me about endometriosis or PCOS report significant diagnosis times of between four and 14 years. This is an unacceptable amount of time for patients to wait while not getting the right care or even having a name for the condition that is causing their symptoms.
I had endometriosis and it had a big impact on my life. I was not diagnosed until the age of 32. I had multiple surgical interventions over more than 10 years. Surgery, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), does not cure endometriosis; it just comes back and back. Delays in diagnosing and managing endometriosis and PCOS can affect quality of life. Worse than the impact on quality of life, they result in a dangerous progression of the disease.
We have all touched on the work of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, and I join Members in paying tribute to the work of Sir David Amess as its chair. There was an excellent report produced following an inquiry. I recommend that report and its 34 recommendations to the Minister, particularly those on investment in further research into gynaecological diseases, so that the waiting time for diagnosis can be reduced.
To these recommendations, we must now add the need to address the gynaecology backlog made worse by the pandemic. NHS England data indicate that the waiting list for gynaecology services has seen the largest increase of all the specialties since the pandemic began. Endometriosis UK’s recent survey showed that four fifths of patients with confirmed or suspected endometriosis had had NHS appointments for their condition postponed or cancelled due to the pandemic, and a third had not been given a new appointment date.
Sarah Lambrechts told the Health and Social Care Committee about her experience of having surgery for endometriosis delayed due to the backlog caused by the pandemic. The delay is, in her case, going to be for 18 months to two years. She said:
“I am 25 years old. For the next 18 months or two years—however long—I cannot plan my life. I cannot plan my career progression. I cannot plan to have a family. I cannot take care of myself some days.”
It is very sad that Sarah and thousands of others have experienced such an impact from the disease. We need urgent action so that those who have lived with the debilitating symptoms of endometriosis and PCOS for so long are not suffering because of a long wait for treatment caused by the backlog in NHS care. We owe it to those who have lived with these symptoms, often for many years, as I did, to reduce diagnosis time, improve treatments and, eventually, find a cure.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I now call Alex Davies-Jones, who will not be our last Back-Bench contributor. I did not realise that Gavin Robinson wanted to speak. We will be able to squeeze him in, I think.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I associate myself with your comments about Sir David, Mr Mundell, and those of other hon. Members present. Sir David and I shared a passion for animal welfare and for women’s health, so I put on the record my thanks for all his incredible work to raise awareness of endometriosis. Among many other things, that is Sir David’s legacy and a testament to him as a fantastic campaigner.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) rightly said, endo and PCOS are two gynaecological conditions that affect roughly one in 10 women—10% of all women or all those assigned female at birth in the UK today. Some 1.5 million people live with endometriosis and deal with symptoms ranging from chronic pain and fatigue to infertility.
Yet our research and awareness of these conditions still lags behind. We have already heard at length that the average diagnosis time for endometriosis in the UK is almost eight years. For women dealing with those symptoms and living with that pain, that is simply not good enough. In the worse cases, I am aware of women who have been told that the symptoms that they are experiencing and the debilitating pain that they are living with—like my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy)—are a normal part of life or that they are somehow imagined or exaggerated.
Women with endometriosis have double the risk of infertility of other women, yet many report receiving little information from their doctor about the impact of their diagnosis on their future ability to have children. They are just told, “Try and have a baby; it might help.”
It is clear that the debate comes at a fortunate time, given that today marks the start of National Fertility Awareness Week. Sadly, many women with endometriosis and PCOS have been left under the impression that they will struggle with their fertility, even though research from Endometriosis UK suggests that 60% to 70% of people with the condition can get pregnant spontaneously. As someone who has experienced infertility, I know at first hand how difficult, challenging and upsetting such news can be.
Many women have struggled to get access to the care they need to understand and manage their fertility, and have been baffled to find out that, due to a lack of research, the link between endometriosis and fertility is not properly understood. National Fertility Awareness Week is an important opportunity to raise the issue and I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what steps her Department will take to ensure that people with PCOS and endometriosis understand the impact of their condition on their fertility.
The petition rightly calls for greater research into cures and treatments for endometriosis and PCOS, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what actions her Department will take to support that work. I know of women who do not want children who have felt that their pain and symptoms were not being treated seriously by medical professions simply because they were not directly related to fertility.
Not only can the symptoms have a major impact on people’s quality of life, but there is also evidence that they have a major impact on women’s ability to get on in the workplace. As we have heard, women experience a lack of understanding from employers, from an outright dismissal of their illness as “women’s problems” to losing their jobs for taking too much sick leave. Greater research and understanding of endometriosis are vital, as is education on the condition and its impact.
For too long, women’s health has not been taken seriously. Although I am glad that progress has been made in Wales and across the UK, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West, we still have a long way to go to ensure that conditions such as endometriosis and PCOS are taken seriously and understood not just by medical professions but by everyone from employers to teachers. For the 1.5 million women living with these conditions, we cannot afford to wait.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I appreciate your fitting me in, Mr Mundell, and I apologise for being unable to bob throughout the proceedings. Two hon. Members—the hon. Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Livingston (Hannah Bardell)—have asked, “If 10% of men were in this situation, would it be the same?” It is a fair question, and the right one to ask. I am sad to say, as a man, that the answer is not one that we in this House should be proud of.
I say that honestly and honourably because I knew little of endometriosis or polycystic ovary syndrome, like the hon. Members for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). Like other hon. Members, I have learned an awful lot through the strength and courage of the individual constituents who have come to see me and share personal and intimate information, around which there is a taboo.
One lady, whom I have known for more than 10 years, only told me in the last two weeks that, at 16 years old, she found herself before the GP with a suspected diagnosis of endometriosis and was advised that it would be a great help if she were to have a baby. No GP should look a 16-year-old in the eye and suggest that pregnancy is the answer to a medical condition, yet that was the experience she had. One constituent was put on an urgent waiting list in 2017; she is still awaiting surgery for her condition. She was a care worker. Care work is a physically demanding job, so she had to stop. She applied for universal credit, but was turned down and advised to find work in a more manageable setting. That is not good enough.
I am therefore encouraged to hear about the work of the APPG on endometriosis. I would be keen to get more involved. I am here because of the stories that have been shared with me. What is happening is harrowing and wrong. The Minister is not responsible for our devolved nations, but I like to think that here at Westminster there is that convening authority across our United Kingdom. None of our trusts in Northern Ireland is accredited for surgery in this respect—none of them. The Western Health and Social Care Trust was—that is Londonderry, the second largest city in Northern Ireland—but it has lost its accreditation. The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust was on its way to getting accreditation, but because of coronavirus and no surgery, it cannot get accredited; it has no plans to do so. I asked the question, “What are you doing with patients who need help?” And the answer was, “We are not referring individuals on at this time.” I therefore ask the Minister: across Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, if there are services available and our constituents could use them from Northern Ireland, please make them available. Please find out the exact state of play across the trusts and across the four nations and provide the assistance that these ladies so desperately need.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) for leading this important debate so powerfully, and to all the women—so many women—who signed the petition, including the 241 in my constituency of East Renfrewshire.
Endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome affect so many women, yet we hear so little about these conditions day to day, so this debate is really important, because it allows us to focus on areas such as research, where I will be seeking assurances from the Minister. It is really important, too, that this afternoon we are shining a light on these conditions and helping a bit by letting people know about the reality and the challenges of daily life for women who are affected.
I will not speak a great deal about endometriosis today, not because it is not important—it absolutely is—but because colleagues from across the Chamber have spoken so knowledgeably and eloquently. But I would first like to echo what others have said about Sir David Amess and the huge contribution he made. And I would like to reflect on a few things that we have heard that bear further examination.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) spoke so eloquently about the support of women campaigners. I really take my hat off to women like that. They are amazing people. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) noted the importance of recognising the mental health impact of both these conditions. And we have heard from hon. Members across the Chamber about the impact on people’s working lives. But I think the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) spoke most powerfully. She spoke so well about her own experience—a really hard experience—as a woman with endometriosis. I hope that the Minister is able to reflect on that in the context of her response and the need for research.
I want to concentrate today on PCOS. I have been contacted by several constituents who have PCOS, and I have PCOS myself. Like many women with PCOS, I have not really spoken it a great deal—and to be perfectly honest, I had not intended to speak about it in the context of my work. It is a personal thing, but I decided that I would speak today because the silence around this condition really has to change. So many women are affected by PCOS, but so little is said about it, written about it and, frankly, known about it. We really need to shine a light on this condition and to push for far greater understanding and a far greater commitment to the research that can make a difference.
I was diagnosed with PCOS about 20 years ago, but to be honest, even though I initially spent quite a lot of time trying to research it myself, that was difficult, because much of the information that women would want to find and anticipate being able to find does not actually exist, because of the glaring lack of research. Like so many other women with PCOS, I have been in the dark most of the time, just because there is not enough understanding out there of this condition, which has certainly impacted on my day-to-day life.
I see that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has helpfully put this in a nutshell for us all. It has established that less than 3% of the overall medical research funding in the UK is focused on women-specific diseases, such as endometriosis and PCOS. They are holding back women’s health outcomes and experiences and holding back our lives, yet that is the kind of priority—less than 3% for women-specific diseases—that these conditions are given. I reflect again on what the hon. Member for Streatham described.
I am pleased that the new Scottish Government have in their first 100 days published a new women’s health plan that includes several actions to improve access to appropriate support, speedy diagnosis and the best treatment for endometriosis. That is practical progress, and I hope it will have a knock-on effect for PCOS. That kind of practical action is really important and will make a difference to people’s daily lives, but we are working with one hand tied behind our backs if we do not focus on the dearth of research on, and lack of conversation around, both these conditions.
That is one call from Verity, the national PCOS charity, which does a fantastic job despite being volunteer-run. Those volunteers deserve our grateful thanks for their work and focus. We might want to take a wee minute to wonder why this condition, which affects up to 10% of women, has to rely on volunteers, however professional, influential and brilliant they are—they are all that. That is not illustrative of a collective appreciation of the harm PCOS causes daily to women throughout their lives.
The fact is that, like endometriosis, the cause of PCOS is unknown, and there is no cure. That can be quite devastating to hear, because as we have heard, some of the symptoms can have a significant impact on daily life—on what we would call normal life—and in a variety of ways. Bear in mind that some women will experience multiple issues once, including irregular periods, or a complete lack of periods. Again, that is not a topic I ever thought I would touch on at my work.
Hannah Bardell
Does my hon. Friend agree that her speech and that of the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) show the very reason why diversity in our Parliament, including women who will come forward and be so brave as to share their personal experiences, is absolutely crucial?
Kirsten Oswald
My hon. Friend is right: we have to listen to women’s experiences, and I think the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) referenced that too. That really matters here. I never imagined talking about my experience of menstrual irregularity, ranging from nothing at all to a full, continuous six months of periods, which was both debilitating and, frankly, somewhat concerning.
It is fair to say that these are the kind of challenges that women would really rather do without. We heard about the irregular nature of fertility, including irregular ovulation, or no ovulation, which is an issue for women with PCOS, who of course probably do not know that until they find out that they are not pregnant when they are trying to be; reduced fertility—difficulty becoming pregnant—can be the reason why many women become aware that they have PCOS. That was certainly my experience, and it explained many other things. I may have a wee glimmer of light in what is possibly a quite depressing contribution: I have two amazing sons thanks to just a wee bit of PCOS-related medical assistance.
I can tell hon. Members, as we heard so eloquently from others, that women with PCOS can have a difficult time in many ways, particularly with issues such as hirsutism—unwanted facial or bodily hair. I cannot emphasise strongly enough how women are influenced by this. Again, there is no solution. Imagine the impact on the self-esteem of young women in particular. However, PCOS does not only affect young women, and young women are not alone in facing a severe impact on their life from these kinds of issues. None of us wants to sprout a beard, feel unable to go swimming or have to cover up from head to toe. Noting symptoms as oily skin and acne do not really cover the magnitude of those either.
PCOS is often assumed to related only to fertility, and that is a big issue, but all these other issues affect how the world sees us and how we present ourselves to the world. Thinning hair—male pattern baldness, basically —2014 is crushing to have to deal with. Being overweight is so common among PCOS-affected women because our bodies metabolise differently. For some women, that has a significant impact on both their health and on how they interact with the world. There are also depressions and mood changes. If I went through everything, we would be here all day. So many things have a connection to PCOS but, again, we cannot say exactly what or why because the research is not there.
As a younger woman with no idea of where to go for support, it was heartening to hear of women, such as the hon. Member for Streatham, speak about communities supporting one another. That is really helpful when diagnosis is not straightforward or where the issues are not resolvable, but we need to do better than that DIY approach. For young women and teenagers, it is rubbish in the age of Instagram to have to deal with unexplained weight gain or hair growing where it should not, and worries about the future. As for menopause, I have no idea what it will mean, but I would certainly like to know. When I looked into aging women, the best I could establish is that it is thought to be a medical black hole. That is simply not good enough, and that is why research is needed.
To conclude, I thank all the women who have been in touch with me about this matter—so many of them. I thank Verity PCOS and my constituent Anji Sandhu, who is in the process of setting up a group to raise awareness of PCOS and its challenges so that we can talk about it more. That will help because so many women are affected and rely on us here to take it seriously. At the moment it feels to them like a big, dirty secret, and that is what needs to stop. That is why we need research, and I hope that the Minister has something positive to say on that.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Before I call the shadow Minister, Alex Norris, I will say that I am sure he and the Minister will want to help me allow the hon. Member for Coventry North West a couple of minutes to wind up at the end of the debate.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Mundell, you talked about doing justice to Sir David’s memory. Like possibly everybody in this place, my friendship with David was one that was funny and light. I loved how serious and passionate he was about the issues that he cared about, so I think we have done justice to his memory today. Everybody can be proud of that, none more so than my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who, as she said, could have talked dispassionately about this issue, but it was much better for her not having done so.
Similarly, I always have pride and admiration for anybody who goes down the petitions route to secure a debate in this place, because it is very hard to do. The fact that they have been successful demonstrates the strength of feeling. If that petition came from a place of frustration that these two conditions, endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome, lack public prominence, I hope this debate is a part of tackling that and that they take pride in that.
There were too many contributions to cover individually, but in aggregate colleagues have written for the Minister a manifesto for where to go next. There were common themes—a desire for better diagnosis and better understanding in primary care—and strong themes around the desire for more research and better support at work or through the welfare system. I hope the Minister will take from that four very concrete things that can be done quickly and can be focused on.
There were contributions that I did not want to miss, particularly from my hon. Friends the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), and from the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), who talked about their personal experiences. I hope that the many people watching this, either in the Public Gallery or online, who are themselves experiencing these conditions, took some comfort from hearing about the lives of their representatives and how brave and willing they are to tell their own stories, which really enriched the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) are the new co-chairs of the all-party group on endometriosis. We can have a lot of confidence in their leadership of that important parliamentary group. They brought hope in their contributions, so that gives us optimism for the future.
Before I make a couple of points of my own, I want to reflect on the points made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) about the gendering of healthcare in this country. Once again we saw great parallels from the debates following the Cumberlege review and the same messages coming back. To be clear, Mr Mundell, there is a one in 10 chance that either of us might present to our GP with erectile dysfunction. I know for certain that the GP would not say to either of us to come back when we wanted to have a child, and they certainly would not suggest removing the offending organ. Just as we would not tolerate that attitude, we should not tolerate it for anybody in this country.
Turning to endometriosis, Sarah Harris is a 23-year-old freelance journalist from my city of Nottingham, who has written about her experience. I will read a couple of paragraphs because they explain powerfully about life with endometriosis. She wrote:
“It’s hard to remember a time in my life where I wasn’t in pain. Memories of my youth are intertwined with flashbacks; hiding in toilets as blood soaked through my primary school uniform, curled up on the floor of the nurse’s office during secondary school whilst clenching my stomach in agony, skipping lectures in the first few weeks of university as I changed my sanitary pad for the third time that hour.
For a long time, I thought this life was normal. After all, from the age of 12 onwards doctors had been telling me that this was all just a ‘part of being a girl’ and I had to ‘deal with it’. By the time I realised this life was in fact far from normal, it was too late.”
Sarah’s story is not unusual. We have heard that the average diagnosis takes about eight years. Last year’s parliamentary inquiry found that nearly 60% of those with symptoms who were later diagnosed with endometriosis had visited the GP more than 10 times; one in five had had 10 or more hospital appointments; more than half had gone to accident and emergency, and one in four had gone more than three times—all of that happening before diagnosis. That is a real system failure. To put it in pounds and pence—if we really have to—that is more than £8 billion a year, through treatment, healthcare and the impact at work. It is a very significant challenge which behoves action.
Similarly, PCOS affects one in 10 women. We know that while there is no cure, there is treatment. PCOS can exacerbate long-term health conditions such as cancer and type 2 diabetes and, similarly to endometriosis, diagnosis can take many years. There is evidence of a genetic link and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West said, a higher prevalence in certain ethnic groups, such as black and south Asian women. Again, it is something that Parliament ought to get a grip on. Those significant challenges are happening at a population level. As I said, the common theme is that it happens to women and those assigned female at birth.
We are currently debating the Health and Care Bill in Committee, which resumes for the final day tomorrow. We have discussed issues such as women’s health, reproductive health and the Cumberlege report on multiple occasions. There is nothing in the Bill on those issues and, I am sad to say, our amendments have not been accepted. What I have heard consistently from Ministers is that the women’s health strategy is coming and that action will be taken through that. I hope that the Minister in closing will make that commitment herself, because an awful lot of people are putting an awful lot of stock in that strategy.
I particularly hope that we will hear a commitment on research, because women’s health is under-researched. The “UK Health Research Analysis 2018” report showed that only 2.1% of publicly funded research in the UK was on reproductive and menstrual health, which is less than half of what it was in 2014. Of the more than 8,000 research projects funded by the National Institute for Health Research—an outstanding body—10 were on endometriosis and one was on PCOS. There is clearly significant space to do much better on research in this country. Only last year, the Australian Government committed $9.5 million to that research—we need that sort of ambition in this country as well.
I want to leave the Minister plenty of time to come back on all the important points that have been raised, so I conclude by saying that I think colleagues have written a really good manifesto for her. We want better diagnosis, better understanding in primary care, more research and better support at work or through the welfare system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) for securing the debate, as well as all the petitioners who made it happen. I join everyone in paying tribute to Sir David Amess; I know he would have been here, holding my feet to the fire on what I was going to do about the important issues that have been raised.
Members on all sides of the House have spoken about the challenges faced by women suffering from endometriosis and PCOS. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who could not have put it better on not only the struggle for diagnosis, but the trauma of going through treatment. That is not an uncommon experience, unfortunately. There are serious issues to address. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said, the conditions affect a significant number of women across the country. We are not talking about a small problem; its effects are on a wide scale.
Members have spoken about the pain, the heavy periods or lack of periods, and the facial hair or hair loss. However, it is about not only the symptoms, but the long-term implications. Fertility is an issue for both conditions, but they also affect relationships, the quality of life and mental health. The effects are wide-ranging.
It is unacceptable that the average diagnosis time for endometriosis is seven to eight years and that 40% of women take 10 or more appointments even to get to the stage of getting tests done and being diagnosed. It is imperative to have a greater focus on women’s health and to address some of those inequalities.
Although hon. Members have rightly said that this is not just about fertility, if it is about fertility for some women, those seven to eight years may be the only chance they have. That is seven to eight years too long. That is why we are embarking on England’s first women’s health strategy, which will set out a new agenda. I can confirm that it will include a section on gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome, and it will look at the research element. In the short time I have, I cannot expand too much, but I will announce more details shortly, because we hope to publish that before the end of the year.
I know that many, many women, men and families will be listening to this debate, and I want to put it on the record that I hear the concerns and issues that are being faced. I have my listening ears on and we will be taking steps to deal with some of the issues. The NICE guidelines on endometriosis are really clear. They list the symptoms that should be picked up and addressed, and that should alert healthcare professionals to the need to refer women, not gaslight them. It is concerning that, despite the NICE guidelines, many women are struggling in the way that they are. For PCOS, the clinical knowledge summary highlights symptoms that should be picked up and that should be flags for referral and care.
I take the point of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). We heard from the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) that, when there are issues in Wales, women can access services in Liverpool. I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Belfast East to see what options are available for women in Northern Ireland.
In the short time I have, I want to turn to research—the subject of today’s debate. We have a world-class research system, as the vaccine rollout has shown, but we know that women are under-represented generally in research, whether that is older women, women from ethnic minority groups, women of childbearing age or women with disabilities. There is evidence that research is not addressing women’s issues. It is crucial that we have an evidence-based approach to dealing with endometriosis and PCOS because that is how we will ensure that the gold standard of treatment is being followed and that women know what they should expect. That is half the problem: women are in the dark about how they should be treated and their condition managed.
Funding is available. Over the past five years, the National Institute for Health Research has funded £8.52 million of endometriosis research. There is a £2 million trial on peritoneal endometriosis, looking at surgery versus non-surgical interventions to manage chronic pain. There is a study of endometriosis in primary care and the experience of both GPs and patients to see what is going wrong at the diagnosis stage. A practical toolkit has been put together to help patients and clinicians. We are also funding a study interviewing up to 80 women about what it is like to have a urogynaecological condition and the experiences they go through. There is £6.65 million of research into PCOS, including a £2 million randomised control trial looking at fertility options for women whose eggs are not being released from their ovaries.
Research is happening. My plea to researchers is that funding is not the barrier. There is a really robust system whereby research is presented, whether from clinicians, researchers, charities or other organisations, and judged on its merits in terms of what it is trying to achieve. The funding envelope is not the barrier. I encourage those who want to do research to come forward. If that is not happening, I am very happy to work with the APPG to find out where the gaps are and, if the research is not being accepted or funded, where we can do better.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister has not yet covered the serious point I made earlier about the backlog in gynaecology. Some 80% of women who are confirmed or suspected to have endometriosis have had their NHS appointments postponed or cancelled because of the pandemic. In my remarks, I quoted somebody who will now have to wait 18 months to two years for her surgery. That is not acceptable.
Maria Caulfield
I absolutely take the hon. Lady’s point. In the spending review, money for elective procedures was allocated to clear some of that backlog. People are waiting a long time, and every effort will be made to clear the backlog as soon as possible.
I reassure colleagues that we want to ensure not just that there is an evidence-based pathway for both endometriosis and PCOS in the NICE guidelines, but that it is followed in clinical settings, so that women know what to expect; in clinical education, to improve both undergraduate and postgraduate training, so that clinicians have the knowledge that they need on both conditions; and in primary care, to ensure good robust knowledge among GPs about both conditions, which are not just about bad periods or abdominal pain, and about the referral pathways that should be followed. On school education, it is so important that young women know what is and is not acceptable in relation to both conditions, so that they are pushing GPs rather than waiting seven to eight years for diagnosis or 10 to 12 appointments for an answer.
Research can make a real difference in a number of areas. Before I hand back to the hon. Member for Coventry North West, I reassure colleagues that funding is available. I urge all researchers who want to conduct research in this area to submit applications and bids, because there is no way that we will deal with many of the issues that have been raised today without them.
Maria Caulfield
I will not because the hon. Member for Coventry North West needs time to wind up.
I reassure people that funding is available, and that I am committed to working with the APPG to ensure that it reaches the places it needs to reach.
Taiwo Owatemi
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken so passionately in this important debate. I look forward to hearing from the Government about their strategy to make funding for endometriosis and PCOS more readily available, and about how their strategy to improve research on women’s health will establish well-supported and dedicated funding bodies for both endometriosis and PCOS research.
I will highlight some of the many important remarks made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) underlined the fact that we do not know what causes endometriosis and that we need dedicated funding to determine the cause of the condition. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on the crucial point about the need to destigmatise and demystify many of the symptoms associated with endometriosis and PCOS.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), as well as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), for their powerful stories, which illustrated better than statistics or figures ever could the need to support women who suffer from these conditions. Simply put, we need more funding for research into endometriosis and PCOS so that we can combat both. I thank every Member who participated in the debate.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Although I am sure that Mr Norris was correct in saying that Sir David would have been pleased with the terms of the debate, as the Minister said, I am sure that Sir David would also have been holding her feet to the fire afterwards.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 328570, relating to research into endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome.
Carbon Emission Charges
(3 years 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
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with the current guidance from the Government and the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that the House asks that they have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming to the parliamentary estate, either at the testing centre in the House or at home. I also remind Members to give one another and staff plenty of space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 574678, relating to charges on carbon emissions.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
The world’s eyes are on the UK for the COP26 climate change conference. Indeed, many Members wanted to contribute to this debate but are at the COP26 climate change conference, making these arguments directly, I am sure. Tackling climate change can sometimes feel like such an enormous and challenging task that we just do not know where to start. It can also feel a little too abstract to cut through people’s day-to-day concerns about their jobs and the cost of living.
I want to start with a reminder that while meeting our climate goals is certainly challenging, it is very achievable. Thanks to the Climate Change Committee, we can put concrete figures on the cost of the transition. The committee estimates that we must raise investment in low-carbon technology by around £50 billion per year over the next 10 years. Most of that will come from the private sector, and will go towards meeting the Government’s 2050 target. It sounds like a lot, and the Government will need to take the lead on it, but it works out at less than 1% of GDP over the next 30 years —around an eighth of the current annual investment.
As the Government’s net zero review consistently points out, the upfront cost of meeting the net zero target is dwarfed by the cost of not acting. Government and Parliament have committed to that transition. It has been legislated for and it must happen. We know the cost of achieving net zero is manageable with the right support. We also know, however, that the impact of the transition will not be felt equally across the economy or society. Because of the confusing array of climate policies currently in place in this country, it can be difficult to determine where the impact will be felt and to what extent. There is a great deal of uncertainty around not just the development and impact of low-carbon technologies, but how to design policies and the unequal effect that they will have on sectors and households.
Carbon emissions and the climate change they cause are a classic example of market failure. Individuals and businesses do not face the full cost of the emissions that they create; all else being equal, we would expect them to emit more than is optimal for society. For some time, economists have argued that the answer is to put a price on emitting greenhouse gases, so that individual firms face the full cost of their choices.
In its simplest terms, the petition calls for the Government to work towards a single carbon price across almost all sectors. The campaign argues that a single carbon price would amalgamate the many existing price instruments, including the carbon price support and the UK emissions trading scheme—a different form of carbon charging—into a simple, transparent carbon charge. Zero Carbon points out that our current policies cover emissions across only about a third of the economy, giving the biggest polluters free allowances while the consumers are left to pay. I pay tribute to the petition’s creator, Isabella Goldstein, who is the senior campaign manager at the Zero Carbon campaign.
The theory behind this form of carbon charging is straightforward. If we had, for example, a single carbon price of £75 per tonne of CO2, it would incentivise people and businesses to pursue any methods of emission reduction that cost less than £75. Hon. Members will be aware that we are far from having a single carbon price across sectors. Instead, we have a patchwork of policies that incentivise or disincentivise emissions in ways that are often unclear. While overall they have the effect of, for example, discouraging the burning of fossil fuels, the cost varies hugely depending on the source of the emissions. It is argued that the key benefit of working towards a uniform carbon price is that it avoids a situation where some sectors face higher carbon prices, and must therefore make more expensive carbon reductions, while others could more easily and cheaply reduce their emissions but do not.
To be successful, a carbon charge must be accompanied by extensive investment in low-carbon technologies. The state—the Government—would have to lead on that. It would, by and large, leave businesses and households to decide how best to reduce their emissions in the most efficient way possible. It would not affect everyone equally.
However, I know that the petitioners do not advocate a purely market-based approach. When I spoke to Hannah Dillon, the head of campaigns at Zero Carbon, one of her biggest concerns was that we design policies to tackle climate change in a fair and equitable way. However, it is not just about the principled argument for fairness; ensuring that the most adversely affected are supported is crucial in maintaining public and political support for net zero. An obvious answer is that charges aimed at tackling climate change would also raise revenue, and the revenues could be used to compensate the groups that are most adversely affected.
However we address this issue, it is essential that the Government set a clear path for policy, and introduce support through our social welfare system to give households and businesses time to adjust. This is a complex and difficult policy area, and it will have a huge impact on our living standards for decades to come. Therefore, decisions must be taken with care and be subject to proper scrutiny. We must all accept the urgency of the climate crisis, and the need to take action as soon as possible.
Another key challenge relates to the emissions embedded in imports. In line with international practice, emissions in imported products are simply ignored for the purposes of our climate targets. Research from the World Wildlife Fund suggests that almost half of the UK’s emissions come from this source. In theory, we could reach net zero on paper even if our consumption of imported goods led to a higher level of global emissions. The lead petitioners have called on the Government to address this issue with carbon border adjustments, which ensure that there is a price to pay for carbon-intensive imports and shield UK competitors who do not face equivalent charges. I know that this is something that the EU is working on. It will take some years to implement, but without some form of carbon adjustment at the border, there is a danger that UK climate policy could simply drive industry to locations with fewer restrictions, increase carbon-intensive imports to the UK and, ultimately, increase global emissions.
Before I conclude, I want to ask the Minister a specific question on the UK emissions trading scheme. The Government previously said that they would consult on the implementation of a net-zero-consistent cap for the UK emissions trading scheme. We know that it is supposed to happen this year, and it was referenced in the Government’s net zero strategy, but details on the timescales have been vague. When the Minister responds, will she tell us when that review is going to happen?
To conclude, all eyes are on the UK for the COP26 conference. The planet cannot wait, and this petition has underlined the need for action in three key areas. First, we need to facilitate the shift to low-carbon alternatives within households and ensure businesses take responsibility for the emissions they produce. Secondly, we must protect those who are most vulnerable to the unequal impact of climate policies. If we do not do so, not only will the outcome be regressive; it will undermine public support for the transition to net zero. Finally, we must take measures to stop carbon leakage. It would be catastrophic if we were to achieve net zero domestically at the expense of triggering a carbon-intensive import boom. This is our time to show that this country will lead, not lag, in the global fight against climate change, and I for one—joined, today, by over 100,000 petitioners—hope that we take it.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), the contents of which I very substantially agree with. One of the wonderful things about this debate is that it stretches across the divide that so often separates the views of people in this House.
However, I approach this matter from a slightly different perspective—albeit arriving at similar conclusions—because I see this as the role of the free market. As a former businessman and entrepreneur, I want to unleash the power of the free market to help solve some of the problems that its historical performance has helped create. Too often, the market has been seen as the villain. We talk about business profiteering at the expense of the environment, or businesses trashing the world’s resources, and that applies not just to carbon net zero but to biodiversity. As Professor Dasgupta noted in his report earlier this year, in terms of the biosphere our current practices are using the resources of 1.6 worlds.
It is true that historically, the market has been almost totally blind to the cost of carbon in its economic transactions. When I buy a product—such as this glass—I pay for the raw materials, the design process, the manufacturing, the marketing, the transport and the profit, but I do not pay for the cost of the carbon emission, because that is described as an externality: it dissipates into the atmosphere and there is no significant cost attached to it. The result of that misallocation of resources is that the transaction is incomplete. As a purchaser, I am not having a true economic exchange with the supplier, because I am paying for only part of the product, not all of it. As a result, there is no signal for consumers to look at two separate products and identify the differential cost between the manufacturing process of a high-carbon glass and that of a low-carbon glass. As consumers we are blind, so all those myriad consumer decisions that we take in our economy every day are ineffective in helping give a signal to manufacturers. The process does not provide a signal to consumers; and consumers, in turn, do not provide a clear market signal to entrepreneurs and businesses.
What are we left with? At governmental level, we all know that the climate change crisis is a huge problem, so we have plans from Government, who are picking technology winners by investing in hydrogen, for instance. I hope that hydrogen will be a key part of the solution in our progress towards net zero by 2050, but it might not be. The real problem is that we are currently relying on the Government to take those kinds of decisions because the market is substantially blind. We need to unleash its power through a price for carbon.
We know that markets are without question the most efficient decider that man has ever come up with for the use of resources. They do so not for moral but for wholly personal reasons: they wish to maximise profits, and the way to maximise profits is to minimise inputs. Properly directed by market signals, the market is the most efficient resource user we can come up with. It informs millions of decisions. Crucially, the market and its myriad transactions create the individual wealth that can go on to fund the additional Government action that the market alone is unable to provide. Although I am a free marketeer, I am not a free marketeer red in tooth and claw. There is absolutely a role for Government to set the structures and give the long-term signals for the free market, and to provide assistance and support for those left-behind parts of our community that otherwise would be disadvantaged by that process.
Our biggest challenge in creating a price for carbon is that the United Kingdom economy is not self-contained; we are part of a global economy. If we increase the price of carbon in this country, which is really another name for increasing the price of energy, that will have a very direct and immediate risk to our domestic economy, particularly our manufacturing base. Increasing the price of energy in our domestic economy would result in an increase in the costs of our manufacturing base, which would then either go offshore and relocate to a lower-cost environment abroad, or it would stay and get undermined by the sucking in of lower-cost, higher-carbon imports. That would result in the worst of all worlds: the destruction of our own economic base and an actual increase in greenhouse gas emissions as transport costs are added to the costs of production.
As an economy, we have been very timid in our approach to applying a cost of carbon. We do apply it in some sectors—about a third of our manufacturing base is affected in some way by carbon pricing through the emissions trading scheme. But that is only a third: two thirds of our manufacturing base has no carbon pricing attached to it at all, and none of this country’s imports are assessed or priced for their carbon content.
How do we address this seemingly impossible conundrum? The answer is, in principle, quite simple: a carbon border adjustment mechanism. That means that, at the edge of the economy, when imports reach the border, we assess those products for their carbon content and take a similar approach to that taken in the domestic market by applying a tariff. That is not protectionist in principle, because it would apply the same price and create a level playing field, as opposed to disadvantaging exports in favour of domestic manufacturing. It must also be transparent and within the permissible exceptions of the World Trade Organisation, which allows for tariffs in environmental cases.
This approach allows, in principle, for the increasing of the price of carbon for the domestic market, safe in the knowledge that imports will have a similar price attached. A lot of work has been done by think-tanks and others—and, I hope, by the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy —on how we can start applying this approach in practice. Conceptually, it is a very simple process, but it has the potential to be fiendishly difficult to apply. If we can apply it, the benefits would be enormous. The market signals would incentivise the reduction in carbon manufacturing processes that this country seeks to achieve.
The benefits would also expand beyond our borders. If a manufacturer in a third country—let us say, for example, in China—exports its product to the United Kingdom, they will not want to receive a significant tariff addition to the price of the product. The Chinese Government—or any other third-party Government—have a choice. They can think to themselves, “Well, we can either have a tariff applied to our exports, which then gets paid to the UK Treasury, or we can apply a similar process ourselves and keep the money here in China.” The third option is that they reduce their 70% to 80% reliance on coal for their energy, and reduce the differential between their carbon production and our own. All these are very positive international signals that we can spread beyond our borders through the imposition of a CBAM.
There is evidence that this is already working. On 15 July the European Union published a draft Bill to implement a carbon border adjustment mechanism throughout the European Union. Even before that has come to fruition—it is just at draft stage—there is evidence that automobile manufacturers in South Africa are already seeking to decrease the carbon content of their manufacturing process, because they are concerned that they will be adversely affected by the imposition of a CBAM in the European Union. Even the publishing of a Bill—a draft Bill—is already having real-world positive impacts on the reduction of carbon.
Another advantage is the potential for reshoring manufacturing production to the United Kingdom. It removes one of the current disincentives for high-energy or relatively high-energy production in this country because we do have a price for carbon through the ETS. That is not sufficiently significant to change consumer behaviour on a more widespread basis, which we wanted to do, but it is enough to provide a minor disincentive to have manufacturing in this country. If we can remove that disincentive, it will encourage reshoring. Research undertaken, I think by Capital Economics, into the steel industry in the United Kingdom has concluded that steel manufacturing’s international competitiveness would actually be increased through the imposition of a carbon border adjustment mechanism by between £50 and £75 per tonne through the 2020s.
In my submission, we have a political opportunity now not just with the advent of COP26, but, more significantly perhaps, with the publication of a draft Bill by the European Union. This gives us an opportunity to address one of the key challenges to a CBAM, which is how we deal with the concern or disapproval of large exporting countries that have a high carbon input—for instance, China. We have an opportunity to join forces with the European Union and have a more internationalist approach to the introduction of a CBAM now. It would not hurt given that, dipping into another language, we have a certain froideur across the channel currently, and sticking to the same approach, what about a bit of rapprochement?
There is a joint objective here. With Brexit, we are allowed to be nimble of foot. We can come up with these policies ourselves, and we are not held back by a pan-European approach. Equally, it does not prevent us from agreeing and co-operating with the European Union when it is in our national interests. I think this is a great example of where our national interests and those of the European Union coincide very neatly, and it gives us an opportunity to build bridges should we wish to do so. It also helps us with the potential approach to China, in that it is the entire European market that is taking—or potentially taking—this approach, as well as with the United States of America, which has expressed an increasing interest in the concept of some form of carbon border adjustment mechanism.
I mentioned earlier that CBAMs are simple in principle and hard to apply in practice. I am agnostic as to how we do it, and many different approaches have been suggested. We could expand on the current ETS. We could, as Mr Carney has suggested, take the key products that are internationally traded—steel, cement, aluminium, chemicals and so forth—and start on that basis, but then build out into the wider economy as we gain confidence and competence in the process of a CBAM. We could apply it by sector assessment by country, which would be more of a purist approach, but much more complex to apply. I suspect that the answer is to start small and to grow as we learn; but the sooner we start, the better. I conclude my speech by challenging anyone to come up with a way in which we can impose a price for carbon without some form of carbon border adjustment mechanism.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the petitioners on bringing forward the petition and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on presenting the debate and making some key points. It is a worthwhile time to debate this subject, given that COP26 is taking place in Glasgow as we speak, and how we achieve net zero in the fairest way is something that needs serious discussion. It is a slight disappointment that there were not more Back-Bench contributions, but so be it.
I completely agree with the three key points made by the hon. Lady. Obviously, we need to generate the shift to low-carbon technologies, but it is critical that we protect the most vulnerable and stop carbon leakage. The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) also made that point. He made an interesting contribution, and I will try to summarise it. I think he said that although he is a proud free marketeer, he is not really a free marketeer because interventions need to be taken. That is quite an interesting dynamic. He also seems very much to be a protectionist when it comes to imported goods—but again for the right reasons, because we are talking about carbon border adjustments.
Jerome Mayhew
I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not a protectionist. If a CBAM is to be successful, it is important that we ban the P-word. The tariff has to be applied at exactly the same level as that used in the domestic economy.
Alan Brown
It is possible that I was being slightly flippant when I used the word “protectionist”. I take his point that if we are going to do this correctly, it will have to be in collaboration with other countries. I agree with that.
If we believe in the basic principle that the polluter pays, a carbon tax makes sense. If we are serious about achieving net zero, we need to give serious consideration to carbon taxes. However, as has already been said, any such taxation needs to be fair. It cannot be structured in such a way that companies feel obliged or rewarded for relocating to other countries, therefore defeating the purpose. Critically, it must also not lead to the poorer in society paying a bigger burden, especially if a tax is levied on gas bills. The reality is that the more affluent will be able to switch to heat pumps, but those struggling to pay their energy bills will have no chance of doing so. We cannot leave the most vulnerable to pick up the carbon tab for others as the energy sector transitions to net zero.
The recent Government policy of £5,000 grants for heat pumps is still insufficient for most people to be able to afford the installation of a heat pump. The unit cost of a heat pump is still in the price range of £6,000 to £10,000. A £5,000 grant goes only part of the way, but it does not make up for all the additional work that is also required. We need to have proper energy efficiency measures, which are welcome but cost money, such as a new water tank, possibly new radiators, decommissioning boilers, and then there is decoration works that need to be done to a property once all that work is completed. That £5,000 grant is clearly not the pathway to increasing the number of heat pump installations from current figures of 30,000 per year to the Government target of 600,000 a year. Going forward, we need to look at that in the mix. Before a carbon tax is introduced, we need to ensure that it does not create more people who are fuel poor, and also look at how we use the revenues from the carbon tax to help get heat pumps and energy efficiency measures for those who need them most.
At the moment, decarbonisation of the power sector is being paid for by levies from our electricity bills. The UK Government have acknowledged that that is unsustainable, because roughly a quarter of electricity bills are made up of those levies. That needs to change; there needs to be a fairer system. That is where carbon taxes could be looked at, but—I am repeating myself—it is important that the most vulnerable are protected.
In wider industry, cost-effective decarbonisation solutions need to be available to industry when a carbon tax is introduced, and taxation must be structured so that it is fair and equitable across the UK. Recently, the UK Government opted to fast-track two carbon capture and storage clusters in the north of England but, disgracefully, they have made the Scottish cluster a reserve cluster. That means that, despite the Scottish cluster being the most advanced in project development and deliverability, it is estimated that the two other clusters will proceed at a faster rate.
It would be inherently unfair for the Government to support, either via direct taxation or consumer levies, some industries in some areas of the country while potentially slapping a carbon tax on another area just because they have not been progressed at the same rate. These things have to be looked at in the round. The Scottish cluster takes in the two biggest carbon dioxide emitters in Scotland—Peterhead gas station and the INEOS facilities at Grangemouth. As the biggest polluters, they have to pay to remedy that—that is where we are right—but will they make that investment? They need that assistance, and they must not be disadvantaged when others are getting support.
Revenues from a carbon tax must be reinvested in green initiatives targeted at the most vulnerable and the hardest sectors to decarbonise. They must also be completely transparent. We have had a carbon tax in the airline industry for years: air passenger duty, which is supposed to follow that basic principle of polluter pays, in relation to aircraft emissions. The actual reality is that, over the years, APD has become nothing more than a Government revenue stream. It is not ring-fenced or reinvested; it becomes part of the “money in” column and is added to the mix of Government expenditure.
It is outrageous that over the years, so-called environmental taxes have been levied and never ring-fenced and reinvested in the way they should have been to reduce emissions. Last week, the Chancellor made the crazy announcement of lowering APD on domestic legs of return journeys. We need a serious debate about support for the airline industry and the wider travel industry, but a reduction in air passenger duty should apply only to airlines that use sustainable aviation fuel, which costs more money. At least companies would be incentivised to lower their emissions, with the offset reward of reduced APD. It makes no sense in the current climate to do a blanket APD cut.
In the aviation industry as a whole, for years consecutive Governments of different colours have maintained a policy that aviation fuel is duty free. We pay our petrol duties at the petrol pump for domestic use in our cars, but all these years, aviation fuel has been duty free. That makes no sense. It needs to be looked at in the round. I do not want to kick the airline industry when they are down and make it harder for them, but we need a system that is fair for everyone on carbon taxes, emissions and incentivising behaviour to drive change. The Government need to look at that.
In the oil and gas sector, £350 billion of revenue has come from Scotland over the years. Those were carbon taxes, but that money has never been ring-fenced or reinvested. A sovereign wealth fund has never been created. Most countries across the world have created sovereign wealth funds, which they are using now, in these tough times, either to help their economy, stimulate their economy, or do green initiatives on the path to net zero. But the UK Government have never done that. It is to their shame that we do not have that money, as a legacy, to go forward.
Today, I actually managed to attend a COP26 panel event before I got on the train to come down to Westminster. There was a representative at the event from Louisiana; he was explaining how for years it has used its offshore revenues to pay for climate adaptation measures along its coastline. Obviously, Louisiana is one of the areas most affected by coastal erosion. That shows us what can be done with long-term thinking, but it needs the initiative to look at revenues that are coming in and how to use them wisely. That is what I am calling for. If there is carbon taxation coming in, it must be transparent and it must be available to be reused to fight climate change.
In a similar vein, I represent a former coalfield area. Carbon taxes had been applied to the extraction of coal over the years, but a few years ago, when the open-cast coal industry collapsed in my constituency, it left massive craters that needed reinstatement work at a cost of millions of pounds. Carbon taxes came from my constituency to the Treasury, but they just went into the black hole. When we asked for assistance for restoration work on those abandoned coalmines, the answer that came was, “No. Too bad. That money came in and it has been used. There is no money coming back to your constituency. It doesn’t work that way.” That shows the folly of not ring-fencing a tax for the purpose that it should be ring-fenced for. Again, transparency is utterly critical if we are to go forward.
I would also say on transparency that the Treasury will have to develop these taxes following open consultation with industry, non-governmental organisations and charities. I also suggest that it would be worth the UK Government’s following the lead of the Scottish Government and having a just transition commission that is able to advise the Government on fairness, look at policies across the board and advise the Government accordingly. Equally, the Treasury cannot be left with the power to introduce exemptions from carbon taxes without robust and transparent procedures, or else it is a lobbying exercise and it becomes open season for donors and cronies to lobby the Government and possibly get exemptions. Again, anything that comes forward needs to be transparent.
I have just one further warning about the money not becoming a Treasury income, because that nearly happened post Brexit. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy had devised an emissions trading scheme, which was agreed with all the devolved nations, but at the eleventh hour the Treasury wanted to throw away all that work and replace it with the introduction of a carbon tax. That was clearly just because the Treasury saw it as an income stream. That cannot be allowed to happen; the Treasury cannot have carte blanche to do what it wants. It also shows us that carbon taxes have to be developed in conjunction and consultation with the devolved nations.
In Scotland, we have our own net zero by 2045 target. We have, as I said, the Just Transition Commission. We are working with our own policies, so it is only right that carbon taxes be introduced in such a way that they do not adversely impact our direction of travel.
I am getting near my conclusion, Mr Robertson. I have some concerns about a carbon tax, but largely I do favour the concept. I pay tribute to the work done by the Zero Carbon campaign, which has illustrated and highlighted the fact that surveys prove that such a tax is generally popular with the wider public. They understand the need for net zero; they understand the benefits of a carbon tax being introduced, but again, the critical question is whether that is being done fairly. Scotland’s Climate Assembly has had similar findings with the delegates who have participated in the assembly.
Things can be done to resolve the concerns. Again, that is about transparency. It is about targeted reinvestment. Ireland is already doing that: it targets top-up social welfare payments. That is something that this Government could look at, especially with the cost of living and the fuel and energy cost crisis at the moment. They could put more money into supporting electric vehicles as we try to transfer away from the internal combustion engine.
Something that the Scottish Government are doing is interest-free loans. They have extended interest-free loans to the second-hand market to try to extend affordability, but the UK Government are cutting the grants available. If we are going to have carbon taxes, we need to further stimulate the electric vehicle market and ensure that some people are not left behind.
The decarbonisation of our heating systems is absolutely critical. It would be good to step up energy efficiency installations, treat energy efficiency as a capital infrastructure programme and speed up the upgrading of all properties to EPC––energy performance certificate––band C. That would reduce emissions and fuel costs. What could be a fairer way of using the carbon taxes that are levied?
I agree with the two contributions so far about introducing a broader carbon adjustment to minimise leakage or offshoring. We know that carbon taxes can be successful in changing behaviour. We know that they seem to have wider support if they are introduced fairly and transparently, so let us continue with this serious discussion. Let us find a way to introduce them but ensure that it is done in a way that helps us get to net zero and is part of a just transition.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for introducing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. May I welcome the Minister to her place? This is the first time that we have faced each other and I look forward to debating with her on many issues. I also thank the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who spoke passionately about the climate crisis and made recommendations for changes. I found that really insightful.
I want to begin with some general points about the Government’s approach to net zero, the Treasury’s role and what Labour believes we should be doing differently. I will then make some specific points about carbon pricing and the emissions trading scheme.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, the debate comes while COP26 is taking place in Glasgow, which I think has affected attendance at this debate. I want to state clearly that Labour hopes that COP26 is a success. We do not believe that the Government have done enough in the run-up, but for the sake of our planet and our future, we hope that it is a success.
A couple of weeks ago, the Government published their long-awaited net zero strategy and the accompanying Treasury review. We welcome the fact that the Government have published a detailed strategy for reaching net zero, but we are concerned that there are serious flaws in the strategy and the Government’s overall approach. The strategy does not go far enough to close the gap between the Government’s promises and delivery. First, in too many areas, there are issues: heat pumps, hydrogen, electric vehicle infrastructure, heavy industry and carbon capture and storage. We are not seeing credible plans from the Government that match the scale of ambition that is needed.
Secondly, the strategy underlines the total failure to provide the investment that is needed. The blame for that falls squarely on the Treasury and the Chancellor. The Treasury’s net zero review argued against borrowing to invest in the net zero transition because it would deviate from the polluter pays principles and would not be consistent with inter-generational fairness. That is extraordinary––an extremely worrying statement. It is precisely future generations who will benefit from the green transition, cleaner air and the jobs of the future. There is a failure to act and it would be an unfair legacy to leave this to future generations. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that statement.
It is also staggering that, in last week’s Budget, the Chancellor did not use the word “climate” once: on the single biggest issue facing the planet, the Chancellor has said nothing. When we look in detail at the Budget, we can see why, because it failed to take the decisive action needed on climate change. The Budget had no plans for economic growth, and certainly no plan to invest, at scale, in the transition to a zero carbon economy.
In contrast, the shadow Chancellor has set out Labour’s climate investment pledge: £28 billion of green capital investment each and every year for the rest of the decade. That would go towards critical sectors, such as retrofitting and insulating 90 million homes, bringing down energy bills in the process, and helping industries, such as steel, to transition and keep the good jobs that so many communities rely on.
Unlike the Government, we will not leave households and businesses to face the costs of net zero transition on their own. That has been welcomed by a number of environmental and business groups as a serious offer that meets the scale of the challenge. Business groups and others know that the cost of inaction is far greater than that of action. Just last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the Government’s failure to set out a clear plan for apportioning net zero costs between businesses, households and Government is a source of long-term fiasco risk.
We feel that a responsible Chancellor must be a green Chancellor, and I am afraid that our current Chancellor is simply not either. In fact, one of the major announcements in the Budget was to cut domestic air passenger duty, as has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). We are talking today about the price of carbon, and yet the Chancellor is cutting duty on domestic air travel, which produces significant emissions, while failing to invest properly in rail travel. That is not a choice that Labour would have made, and it is baffling that the Government did.
I will now make a few points about the UK’s emissions trading scheme. In the Government’s response to the petition we are considering, they say,
“The UK has now launched its own Emissions Trading System (ETS) to replace membership of the EU ETS. This will be the world’s first net zero cap and trade market, delivering a robust carbon price signal and promoting cost-effective decarbonisation by allowing businesses to cut carbon where it is cheapest to do so.”
We support that in principle, but I have questions for the Minister on how the ETS is operating and what plans the Government have for its development.
First, the Minister will know that two thirds of emissions are not currently covered by the UK ETS. Will she update us on what plans the Government have to expand it into more sectors? Secondly, the Government have previously stated that they are open to linking the UK ETS to other international schemes. Have they made any progress on that? Are the Government in discussion with the EU about linking it with the EU ETS? Thirdly, there have also been concerns about the stability of the UK ETS, given its relatively small size. Can the Minister tell us how the market is functioning in this regard, and whether the Government consider any changes are required?
Finally, can the Government tell us what further plans they have for carbon pricing policy? The Treasury’s net zero review leaves us with many big questions unanswered, such as how costs will be rebalanced from electricity to gas, the future of vehicle and fuel taxes, and where new sources of revenue will come from.
To conclude, we need the Treasury and the Chancellor to get serious about our net zero transition. We need to end the delays and insufficient investment. We need a plan backed by funding to help us meet our moral obligations to the planet and to future generations. Anything less is simply not good enough.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. As many other Members have, I begin by recognising that today is a significant day for international efforts to tackle climate change. Like other hon. Members, I suspect that that is why the Chamber, which I would have expected to be extremely full, is a little sparser than we expected. I am sure that all those who would have wanted to attend are debating this very issue in Glasgow. I thank, recognise and congratulate the more than 100,000 petitioners on securing a debate on this important subject. I do not think that there is any disagreement among the Members present, from both sides of the House, that this is a fundamental issue that we in the UK, as well as others across the world, need to address. As the Prime Minister said at the G20 meeting yesterday,
“If we don’t act now, the Paris agreement will be looked at in the future not as the moment that humanity opened its eyes to the problem but the moment we flinched and turned away.”
I cannot, of course, pre-empt the outcome of the discussions in Glasgow, but I repeat for the record that the Government are absolutely focused on tackling climate change, and we are taking action on a number of different fronts. As the hosts of COP26, we have been determined to promote ambitious action to deliver the urgent transformational changes required by the Paris agreement. We are also seeking to play our own part, as any responsible nation should. As I am sure hon. Members know, between 1990 and 2019 the UK reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 44%, compared with 5% for the G7 as a whole. Since 2000, the UK has reduced emissions faster than any other country in the G20.
Turning to the specifics of the petition, and some of the points that hon. Members raised, I was grateful to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) for recognising the importance of the Government’s net zero strategy, which sets out the plan to reduce our emissions, and outlines measures to transition to a green and sustainable future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) recognised, we cannot reach net zero by Government action alone. The plan leverages up to £90 billion of private investment by 2030 and confirms £26 billion of public capital investment since the 10-point plan. That investment, and the package of policies in the net zero strategy, will keep the UK on track to meet its carbon budgets and our 2030 nationally determined contribution and to reach net zero by 2050. In doing that, we will lay the foundations for a clean and resilient energy supply by investing in wind, nuclear and carbon capture and storage, as well as accelerating decarbonisation in sectors such as transport and buildings.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead suggested that the funding was not enough. I reiterate the commitment to a total of £30 billion of domestic investment for the green industrial revolution from 2021-22. She also suggested that the Chancellor was not doing enough, but he is leading on COP26 in liaising with other Finance Ministers on this subject. We will see $100 billion investment by a variety of countries to support developing countries to reduce carbon emissions in their own countries by 2023. We expect to exceed that investment of $100 billion between 2023 and 2025. The Prime Minister is obviously also leading the work at COP26.
A key part of the debate has been about carbon pricing, which most hon. Members talked about. The petition specifically calls for a carbon charge to
“encourage industries and organisations to reduce their carbon emissions”.
The 2020 energy White Paper set out our aspirations to continue to lead the world on carbon pricing in the run-up to COP26 and beyond. The Government believe that carbon pricing is indeed one of the most efficient tools of decarbonisation and has a key role to play in helping the UK to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. That is why we have committed to maintaining an ambitious carbon price to ensure in turn that those who pollute with their emissions pay for them.
The UK already has two carbon pricing policies: the carbon price support and the UK emissions trading scheme. Hon. Members will know that the carbon price support rate is a tax on the fossil fuels used in electricity generation. Since the CPS rates were introduced in 2013, they have contributed to a fall in coal use for electricity generation. The amount of electricity generated from coal fell from 40% in 2012, prior to the CPS, to just 5% in 2018.
At the beginning of the year, the UK launched its own emissions trading scheme, which covers a third of UK emissions and applies a carbon price to the power, industrial and aviation sectors. We have committed to exploring expanding the UK ETS to other sectors. It works on the cap and trade principle by setting a cap on the total amount of certain greenhouse gases that can be emitted by covered sectors. Companies in covered sectors must obtain and surrender sufficient carbon allowances to cover their emissions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Erith and Thamesmead highlighted that, at the moment, the scheme covers only a third of those emissions and asked what more we would do. I reiterate that we have committed to exploring expanding that scheme to the two thirds of emissions that are not currently covered. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North also asked when we will review the carbon price trajectory in the ETS. I reassure her that we remain committed and intend to bring forward a consultation in the coming months. That commitment was reiterated in our net zero strategy.
Several hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North and my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland, recommended that the Government introduce a carbon border adjustment. I reassure them that we are following developments on the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism closely. As COP and G7 president, our instinct is, obviously, that we need to work together with our international partners on how to tackle climate change. We are continually assessing a range of options on that issue.
Catherine McKinnell
I apologise to the Minister for pushing the issue, because I can see that she does not have a clearer response. “In the coming months” is as vague as the timings that we have already been notified of. Can she give either a clearer picture of the timescale that we are talking about or a reason why there is no clear timescale for the consultation?
Lucy Frazer
I do not expect anything other than for the hon. Member to push me on the timing. At the moment, however, all I can say is that we will bring it forward in the coming months. I am happy to keep her updated about the timing as we progress.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I will not push her again on that point, as I can see that she does not have a clearer timeframe. Obviously, it is of keen interest to those who are following the debate.
The other issue that I will flag is that she has so far made no reference to ensuring that this is a just and equitable transition so that polluters pay and we do not expect consumers to continue paying more to enable the net zero transition. I wonder whether the Minister just has not got to those comments yet or whether she can say something to assure us that the Government are looking to spread the cost, as well as the responsibility, of meeting our net zero targets.
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. The two schemes that we already have in place are obviously ones through which the polluter pays; they are about industry recognising that when it pollutes, it must pay for that.
The hon. Lady, as well as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), talked about what the Government could do to support individuals. The issue of heat pumps, and the importance of such measures not being too burdensome on those who need to implement them, has been raised on two occasions. A number of Ministers have made this point clearly, but I reiterate that we are not forcing people to take measures such as installing heat pumps: we are saying that if they wish to do so, a grant is available to them. Regarding heat pumps in particular, I would like to make it clear that we expect the price to come down. I suspect that that will happen when we have a requirement for all new homes to be net zero by 2025. When there is the volume of supply of heat pumps that we need, I suspect that their price will come down, as we have seen in relation to electric cars, for example.
Jerome Mayhew
My understanding is that it is not the price of the product that will go down, because France is already installing 400,000 heat pumps, so there is volume in product. Interestingly, it is about the mechanism of installation: when the big electricity suppliers begin to install heat pumps, rather like British Gas does with boilers today, that is when the prices will really come down.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that interesting intervention. I hope that the prices of installation will fall as well.
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister is being very generous with her time. I am sure she appreciates that it is important that the polluter pays, but many polluting businesses will pass that cost on to consumers, and we need to be really transparent about where those costs are going to land. I hope the Government are going to take steps to ensure that we do not push people further into fuel poverty and that, if we are installing fuel pumps, we help people to insulate their homes. There is a lot that the Government can do to make sure the poorest do not pay, even if it is by the back door.
Lucy Frazer
I assure the hon. Member that as we bring in policies—I am responsible for tax, and I know this is the case for my area—we are always very conscious of whether the prices are going to be passed down to consumers. As she knows, we already have a number of mechanisms through which we protect those on the lowest incomes: for energy costs, for example, we have the warm home discount and the energy price cap. Of course, we are conscious that we do not want costs to just be passed down.
Lucy Frazer
I will make a little bit of progress, because I am about to address a point that the hon. Member himself mentioned, which was about aviation duty. The point about a domestic increase in air passenger duty has been made over the past few days, but I would like to highlight some other work that is being done in this industry to try to ensure that it is compliant with our net zero targets and ambitions. We have the Jet Zero Council, which is looking at how we revolutionise this industry and make it more carbon neutral.
Alan Brown
I know about the work of the Jet Zero Council, but what measures were in the Budget to help the airline industry decarbonise?
Lucy Frazer
The Budget set out a number of measures to ensure decarbonisation. There was a significant amount of spending in relation to decarbonisation in various transport areas, including the electrification of cars. We have already talked about heat pumps, and in relation to the airline industry, the hon. Member will remember that as well as reducing the tax on domestic airlines, we increased the tax on long-haul flights, recognising that it is not particularly carbon friendly for people to travel further.
I would like to address two important points that were not really raised in the debate but which were in the petition. The petition makes the link between air quality and subsidies to fossil fuel companies. I want to highlight that the UK has been a long-standing supporter of the multilateral efforts to promote fossil fuel subsidy reform since they were first proposed in 2009, including through the G7 and the G20. In December 2020, the UK announced its support for the statement on global fossil fuel subsidy reform. Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, reduce our energy security, impede investment in clean energy resources and undermine efforts to deal with the threat of climate change. In March of this year, the Government went further, confirming that the UK
“will no longer provide any new direct financial or promotional support for the fossil fuel energy sector overseas”
other than in tightly defined and limited circumstances, such as technical or regulatory assistance that supports health and safety or to support decommissioning.
The other important matter raised in the petition was air quality. I want to underline that the Government are taking significant steps to improve air quality in the UK. It is not just tax measures, but non-tax measures, that achieve our aims, which is why we have a strong and proportionate regulatory framework that requires industry to reduce emissions, including of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. The industry has responded with investment and innovation to meet those standards.
I would like to conclude by saying that it is a pleasure for the Government to answer on this extremely important topic. The petitioners’ success in securing this debate should not come as a surprise to any of us—it is simply evidence of the widespread recognition of the challenge we face, the importance of the issue and the cross-party support for tackling climate change. As the Prime Minister said yesterday,
“The UK has proved it can be done—we have lowered our greenhouse gas emissions by 44%... And we’re cutting our contribution to climate change more and more every day.”
I reassure hon. Members and the thousands of petitioners that the Government take the issue extremely seriously. We will continue to act on many fronts, both nationally and internationally.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for her response and for being very generous in taking interventions.
The debate has highlighted the need to be up front and transparent about the costs and benefits and the trade-offs that will need to be made on the road to net zero. The Prime Minister said that we are at “one minute to midnight” on climate change. We all know we have to change the way we live and the way we do business, but that process is made so much harder by the confusing and opaque nature of much of what is happening. It is very difficult to work out the right thing to do, particularly for consumers, although the landscape is also very confusing for businesses.
We need much more transparency on the sources of carbon emissions. We need to ensure that polluters pay, but we need to ensure that that does not become just words—we need to see action. We also need to end the absurd situation where choosing to be climate-conscious consumers ends up costing us more, which drives the poor decision making and more carbon-intensive behaviour that all of us would rather avoid and that we need to avoid.
The net zero review recognises that the impact will not fall equally. That is where the Government really need to step up and be up front about who the winners and losers will be in the transition. We need now to put in place steps to mitigate that impact, to ensure not only that the transition is fair and equitable, but that it has buy-in from everybody, because we will all benefit from and contribute to it.
We know that the world is watching and waiting for this historic agreement in Glasgow. Leaders at home and abroad know that it is time to turn meaningful words into real action.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 574678, relating to charges on carbon emissions.
Written Statements
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: UK National Report
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
Today the UK published its national report ahead of the 10th review conference of the parties to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT). This report reviews the progress that the UK has made against the NPT’s three pillars: disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It will be submitted to the UN before the 10th review conference that will take place in New York in January 2022.
The UK’s commitment to the treaty and to fulfilling our NPT obligations remains undiminished. As an original signatory of the NPT, and a nuclear weapon state that takes its responsibilities seriously, the UK remains committed to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons where all states share in the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies.
The NPT has been an unmitigated success for over 50 years. It is the centre of international efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, to create a nuclear weapon-free world, and to enable access to the peaceful use of nuclear technology.
Despite its successes, we should not underestimate the challenges facing the global nuclear order. We have previously identified risks to the UK from major nuclear armed states, emerging nuclear states and state-sponsored nuclear terrorism. Those risks have not gone away; some have increased. We face a deteriorating nuclear security environment. The increase in global competition, challenges to the international order, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons pose a significant challenge to strategic stability. We must work to reverse this trend. The NPT will be central to this and we must continue to work with others to reinforce the parts of the international architecture that are under threat. We must also shape the international order of the future so that it can respond effectively.
We are proud of our contributions to the NPT and the steps we have taken since the last review conference in 2015.
We have played a leading role by pioneering work in nuclear disarmament verification, championing transparency and advancing risk reduction. We continue to work closely with international partners, civil society and academia to enhance mutual trust and confidence and create the environment for further progress on disarmament. We continue to press for significant steps towards multilateral disarmament. This includes the entry into force of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, and successful negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty in the conference on disarmament. We possess the smallest stockpile of any of the nuclear weapon states recognised by the NPT and are the only one to maintain a single delivery system. Maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent capability at a minimum credible level, taking into account the international environment, is fully consistent with our international legal obligations, including those under article VI of the NPT.
The UK continues to be a strong supporter of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which underpins non-proliferation under the NPT. We have sought to strengthen the international nuclear safeguards system, through our diplomatic efforts and through direct assistance from our nuclear safeguards programme. The review conference offers opportunities to encourage all states that have not yet done so to sign, ratify and implement safeguards agreements. We seek new opportunities to enhance the security of nuclear materials, ensuring these arrangements remain robust and evolve to meet new threats. We will promote the ratification of security conventions at the review conference and continue to provide direct assistance to other states through our global nuclear security programme.
Finally yet importantly, we want to highlight the sometimes overlooked part of the NPT: the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies. The UK has encouraged and will continue to encourage the development and exchange of peaceful nuclear technologies enabled by the NPT. This has a positive impact on people’s lives through nuclear medicine, food safety and pest control. Nuclear technologies have a critical part to play in tackling climate change—not only in helping to achieve net zero, but also through nuclear applications that can help countries to adapt and become more resilient to climate change.
Looking towards the 10th review conference, the UK seeks an outcome that strengthens the NPT as the irreplaceable foundation and framework for our common efforts on nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. The UK is ready to work with all countries to strengthen the regime and to promote international stability, peace and security.
A copy of the report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the www.gov.uk website.
[HCWS362]
Domestic Abuse Commissioner: Framework Document
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
Tackling domestic abuse remains a key priority for this Government. Our landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 received Royal Assent in April of this year, setting the legal framework to provide further protections to the millions of people who experience domestic abuse, and strengthen measures to tackle perpetrators.
A number of provisions of the Act have already come into force, including for the first time in history a wide-ranging legal definition of domestic abuse which incorporates a range of abuses beyond physical violence, including coercive or controlling behaviour, emotional and economic abuse.
Today, further provisions have been implemented as we establish the domestic abuse commissioner as a statutory office holder. As part of this, there is a requirement that the Secretary of State issue a statutory framework document that deals with matters relating to the commissioner such as the functions, powers, governance, funding and staffing linked to the role. The document sets out in detail how the Home Office will work with the commissioner, and outlines the relationship between the independent commissioner and Government.
The UK Government have worked closely with the Welsh Government to consider and develop the arrangements set out in the document. The framework document has been laid before Parliament today and is also available on www.gov.uk.
Background
The designate domestic abuse commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, was appointed on 18 September 2019 to ensure that the crucial work of the commissioner could begin.
The office of the domestic abuse commissioner will provide public leadership on domestic abuse issues and play a key role in overseeing and monitoring the provision of domestic abuse services.
The commissioner will be responsible for encouraging good practice in preventing domestic abuse; in identifying victims and survivors, including children, and perpetrators; and in the protection and provision of support to people affected by domestic abuse.
The commissioner will have the power and the duty to publish reports and must lay them before Parliament. Within the next year she must publish a report on the need and provision for certain domestic abuse services in England. These reports will hold local commissioners, statutory agencies and national Government to account and make recommendations on how they can improve their response.
Specified public authorities will be under a duty to co-operate with the commissioner, and they and Government Ministers will be required to respond to each recommendation made to them within 56 days.
The commissioner will operate in England and Wales but will consider only reserved matters in Wales, such as criminal justice. They will, however, be expected to work closely with the national advisers for violence against women, gender-based violence, domestic abuse and sexual violence in Wales. The statutory framework document also covers the commissioner’s relationship with the UK Parliament and Senedd Cymru in so far as the activities of the commissioner relate to devolved matters in Wales.
The Domestic Abuse Act forms part of the action this Government are taking to transform our response to domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. In July we published a new cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy, which commits to driving a step change in the response to these crimes, with a whole system approach focusing on prioritising prevention, supporting victims and pursuing perpetrators, underpinned by a stronger system. Later this year we will publish a complementary domestic abuse strategy, which will further shift the dial towards preventing domestic abuse from happening in the first place through early intervention, increasing our focus on tackling perpetrators of abuse to reduce reoffending and reaffirming our commitment to supporting victims.
[HCWS365]
Istanbul Convention Ratification: 2021 Report on Progress
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
The Government have today laid before Parliament and published the fifth annual report on the United Kingdom’s progress toward the ratification of the Council of Europe convention on combating violence against women and domestic violence (the “Istanbul convention”). The UK signed the Istanbul convention in 2012, signalling our strong commitment to tackling violence against women and girls (VAWG), and this Government remain committed to ratifying it. The report sets out the work undertaken by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to tackle VAWG since the 2020 report on progress, as well as the last remaining barriers to ratification.
Our measures to protect women and girls from violence are already some of the most robust in the world, and in most respects, we comply with, or go further than the convention requires. Since signing the convention in 2012, we have significantly strengthened our legislative framework, introduced a range of new protective tools and issued new guidance for professionals to better protect victims. In July, we published our cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy to help ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere—at home, at work, online and on the streets. This strategy will be followed by a complementary domestic abuse strategy later this year.
On 29 April 2021 we passed the landmark Domestic Abuse Act, which includes a package of measures to transform our response to domestic abuse. The Act includes the necessary legislative measures to ensure all parts of the UK are compliant with article 44 of the convention, which requires that criminal courts in the UK have extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain violent and sexual offences. On 29 June 2021 these provisions automatically came into force in England and Wales, and the corresponding provisions for Scotland were brought into force on the same day. Therefore, we have recorded these parts of the UK as compliant with article 44 for the first time in this year’s report. In addition, on 1 March 2021 the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 became law. The Act creates a new domestic abuse offence which criminalises psychological violence in Northern Ireland, as required by article 33 of the convention, and contains provisions for extraterritorial jurisdiction for the new offence. I have received confirmation from Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive that they expect to implement this new offence and the extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 by late February 2022.
The issue of support for migrant victims of domestic abuse was raised by the Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill in 2019 and we committed to undertake a review into the Government’s overall response to migrant victims of domestic abuse. On 3 July 2020 the findings from this review were published on www.gov.uk and found that a more detailed evidence base was needed to demonstrate which cohorts of migrant victims are likely to be most in need of support, the numbers involved and how well existing arrangements may address their needs. That is why the Government launched a £1.5 million support for migrant victims (SMV) pilot scheme to address these evidence gaps, which will then enable us to take evidence-based decisions on how best to protect these victims in the long term. The scheme launched in April and is intended to run until 31 March 2022. We have therefore continued to record articles 4(3) —to the extent that it relates to non-discrimination on the grounds of migrant or refugee status—and 59 as “under review” this year pending the evaluation and findings from the SMV scheme.
The publication of this report fulfils the requirement of section 2 of the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017. I will lay before Parliament the report required by section 1 of that Act when our timescale for ratification is clear.
Copies of the report will be published on the Government’s website at: www.gov.uk.
[HCWS364]
Shooting in Plymouth: Review of Police Licensing Processes
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
On 12 August in Plymouth, Jake Davison shot and killed five people, wounded two others, and took his own life. In the debate on 18 August on these tragic events the Home Secretary announced that she had written to every police force in England, Wales, and Scotland asking them to review their firearms licensing processes. In particular, police forces were asked to review the processes followed for returning a firearms certificate, ensuring they are appropriate as set against the non-statutory Home Office guidance and firearms legislation, which asks chief officers to ensure high-risk decisions are approved at a sufficiently senior level. Number of certificates Number of which subsequently returned Total 6,434 908 Seized 1,563 410 Refused 293 9 Revoked 1,146 27 Surrendered 3,432 462
While Devon and Cornwall’s compliance with firearms licensing guidance is currently subject to both an independent peer review and a review by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, all other police forces confirmed that their procedures were in line with Home Office guidance. In addition, all police forces in England, Wales and Scotland provided data in relation to firearms and shotgun licensing decisions over the last 12 months.
Collectively, a total of 6,434 firearms and shotgun licences were surrendered, seized, revoked or refused over the previous 12-month period across England, Wales and Scotland. Of these, a total of 908 licences were subsequently returned or issued following further checks or appeals decided by the courts. Further details are set out in the table below. Returns were also scrutinised by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) firearms licensing lead.
Source: Data submitted by 43 England and Wales police forces and Police Scotland.
Note: Some police forces were unable to report separately on numbers of seizures and surrenders and grouped these categories together. Where this happened, the figures have been recorded in the category in which they were reported.
As a result of this review of returned licences, in eight cases the original decision was overturned and licences have been re-surrendered or revoked.
The findings set out above provide reassurance that the police have in place robust processes for issuing and reviewing firearms and shotgun licences.
The new statutory guidance to chief officers of police on firearms licensing, which was published on 20 October and comes into force today, will help to further enhance safety checks and ensure greater consistency in licensing decisions taken by police forces.
The guidance has been developed following extensive consultation with, and co-operation from, the British Medical Association (BMA) and the police, and both the BMA and NPCC have welcomed the new guidance.
The statutory guidance makes it a requirement for information to be provided to the police about any relevant medical conditions, including mental health conditions. It also makes explicit that firearms applicants may be subject to open source social media checks as part of the licensing process, as well as interviews with associates, and checking to see if they have any previous record of domestic violence. The police will have a legal duty to have regard to the new statutory guidance.
Ensuring that public safety is prioritised remains foremost in our approach to the processes for considering applications for legitimate firearms possession. The statutory guidance, and its implementation, will be kept under close review and further updated as necessary, including in the light of any lessons or recommendations arising from ongoing reviews of the terrible events in Plymouth.
[HCWS363]
Cold Weather Payments Scheme
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
We are today announcing the outcome of this year’s Met Office review of the cold weather payments scheme. The Department for Work and Pensions asks the Met Office to provide advice annually on whether the linkages between postcode areas and weather stations remain the best available. The postcode linkages take account of topography, the extent of built-up areas and the distance from available weather stations. Each postcode area is assigned to a station with the most similar climate in terms of mean winter temperature. Therefore, the assigned station is not necessarily the nearest one. Where necessary, we make changes annually to ensure that postcodes are linked to the most appropriate weather station for the purposes of administering cold weather payments.
For the 2021-22 season, the changes to weather station and postcode linkages are as follows:
The PH12 postcode will move from Leuchars to Strathallan weather station.
Due to the closure of the weather station at South Farnborough, the following postcodes will move to Odiham: GU1-4, GU7-12, GU14-35, GU46-47, GU51-52, RG1-2, RG4-8, RG10, RG12, RG14, RG18-27, RG29-31, RG40-42, RG45, SL1-2, SL4-6 and SO24.
Due to the closure of Bedford weather station, the following postcodes will move to Wittering: NN14-16; and the following postcodes will move to Stowe weather station: NN1-7, NN11-13 and MK18.
[HCWS361]
Arrangement of Business
Announcement
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Monetary Penalties) (Turnover of a Business) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Monetary Penalties) (Turnover of a Business) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, in moving that the draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Monetary Penalties) (Turnover of a Business) Regulations 2021 be approved, I will speak also to the draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021, which were laid before the House on 6 September this year. The commencement date for both SIs is 4 January, which is the same date as the full commencement of the National Security and Investment Act 2021.
Before I turn to the detail of the SIs, I will say a few words to remind the Committee of the purpose of the National Security and Investment Act and why it is vital for the UK’s security. The UK economy thrives as a result of foreign direct investment. Over the past 10 years, more than 665,000 new jobs have been created as a result of more than 18,000 foreign direct investment projects. However, as I am sure your Lordships will agree—and indeed as the House demonstrated through its agreement to the Act—an open approach to investment must include appropriate safeguards to protect our national security and the safety of our citizens.
The NSI Act therefore provides the Government with updated powers to scrutinise and intervene in acquisitions to protect national security, as well as to provide businesses and investors with the certainty and transparency they need to do business in the United Kingdom. The Act establishes a call-in power for the Secretary of State to scrutinise qualifying acquisitions, a voluntary notification option for firms which wish to gain clarity on whether the Secretary of State will call in their acquisition, and—the subject of these regulations—creates mandatory notification requirements in 17 sensitive sectors of the economy where it is considered that national security risks are more likely to arise.
Starting with the draft maximum monetary penalties regulations, this SI sets out how the Secretary of State will calculate a business’s turnover when calculating monetary penalties resulting from non-compliance. We generally expect compliance with the Act to be high and the need for the Secretary of State to issue penalties to therefore be rare, but it is important that the Act comes with sufficient deterrents to non-compliance.
This SI is laid under the delegated powers pursuant to Section 41 of the Act. Sections 32 and 33 create offences of completing a notifiable acquisition without approval and failing to comply with an interim or final order. Both these offences can result in the imposition of a monetary penalty.
The maximum fixed penalty that can be imposed on a business for an offence under Section 32 or 33 is the higher of 5% of the total value of the turnover of the business and £10 million. The maximum amount per day for a daily rate penalty that can be imposed on a business for an offence under Section 33 is the higher of 0.1% of the total turnover of the business and £200,000.
With these regulations, we have ensured that global turnover is taken into account when calculating the total turnover, so that no efforts to get round the penalties—for example, through changing accounting approaches—will be successful. These are important and well-balanced regulations, necessary for the effective functioning of the NSI Act.
Turning to the notifiable acquisition SI, which was of some interest to your Lordships during the passage of the Act, the SI has also been noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee as an “instrument of interest”. These regulations specify descriptions and activities of qualifying entities, the acquisition of which must be notified to the Secretary of State—a notifiable acquisition. Acquisitions in scope of mandatory notification that complete without the approval of the Secretary of State will be void and therefore have no effect in law. These are important changes to the UK’s investment screening system and sectoral expertise has been vital to ensure that mandatory notification is proportionate and targeted. The Government have therefore taken great care and time to get these regulations right.
Alongside the introduction of the NSI Bill in November 2020, the Government ran an eight-week public consultation on the proposed descriptions of the 17 areas of the economy referred to in the draft regulations, after which the Government published revised definitions in March. The Government then undertook further targeted engagement with stakeholders in these key sectors—such as communications, data infrastructure and synthetic biology—to refine and narrow the proposed descriptions to provide businesses and investors with further clarity.
As the Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets did in the other place, I place on record the Government’s appreciation of the extensive input we have had from across sector organisations in helping to develop these regulations. They strike a careful and appropriate balance between ensuring that our national security is safeguarded and keeping the number of businesses caught by the mandatory notification requirements to a necessary and proportionate level. In addition, these regulations allow parties themselves to identify objectively whether they are in scope of mandatory notification or not.
In addition, to monitor the impacts on businesses and investors, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, the Government have chosen to include a shorter three-year post-implementation review within the SI, instead of the more standard five-year period. The Government engage on a daily basis with a wide range of businesses to help them understand the requirements of the Act, and we will of course continue to do so. Furthermore, extensive guidance across all 17 areas of the economy specified in these regulations will shortly be published to further assist parties in understanding the effect of the requirements on their planned activities.
In conclusion, these are detailed and technical statutory instruments which give effect to the purposes of the NSI Act. They have been carefully developed and tested to ensure that they give maximum clarity to businesses, while allowing us to protect the UK’s national security. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these statutory instruments. As has been said, they follow on from the National Security and Investment Act 2021 that we concluded earlier this year. Indeed, most of the things that could be said were said during those proceedings. The basics of what is covered by these instruments, such as the level of fines, was set out in the Act, but how turnover is calculated for the purposes of the fines is now laid out in more detail. As has already been explained, the maximum fixed penalties for offences are the higher of 5% of the total value of the turnover and £10 million, or a daily amount that is the higher of 0.1% of the total turnover and a cap of £200,000.
Clearly, it is important to define how turnover will be calculated for the purposes of fines, and I am glad to see that it is globally based—indeed, I think we were told that that was the intention. Whether the formulations actually laid out are right remains to be seen. I hope that, if they do not work, they will be adjusted, and that the Secretary of State will be prepared to intervene and overrule—as he can—on the companies’ turnover calculations, should they be unrealistic or if there have been manoeuvres to minimise exposures, which can be different from just accounting measures and moving things around globally if it covers the creation of special companies, subsidiaries and a whole gamut of things that will probably be beyond everything that we could list now.
I also have a reservation, which I think I expressed during the Bill proceedings, concerning whether the maximum fines have been set too low. As they are presently fixed, the percentages will bear down in totality more heavily on SMEs, which will tend to fall under the percentage calculations, than on large, international businesses, which will hit the maximum and be able to enjoy—if that is the way to phrase it—a cap. I am sure all noble Lords hope that the penalties do not need to be used all that often and that, as the Minister said, it is rare. Nevertheless, there must be a strong deterrent; it cannot be seen as a risk worth taking. The fact is that I can think of some deals where £10 million is not a lot in the scale of things and given the charges that are levied by advisers. In my view, the cap, if there is one, should be proportionate. I hope that the Government will hold on to that thought, and perhaps the Minister can say what thinking there has been in the Government and the department around that.
Obviously, it is unrealistic to expect the Government to revise figures that have only just been passed in the Act, but under Section 41, it is possible to vary them. Could the Minister explain how such adjustment possibility is viewed, looking forward? Will it be used simply to adapt to inflation or, as I have suggested, will it be used if the deterrent is, as it turns out, not quite strong enough for the largest multinationals?
I turn to the second SI and the specification of qualifying entities. The definitions contained in the schedules have been refined in response to stakeholder feedback following the consultations which took place as the Bill was proceeding and subsequently—all of them have been refined, which is good to see. The outcome seems to have been broadly welcomed, with more focus and narrowing but also some occasional broadening. However, I gather there are still some industries with concerns about them being too broad. Perhaps it is a case of saying that not every possibility is covered. The challenge there is the make the reserve call-in power both functional and reasonable, without making it look like it has become protectionist.
It is in fact difficult to understand the legislative detail, how and why the various changes have been selected, and who has been listened to, as the contributions are not available for scrutiny; we cannot really scrutinise that aspect of the job. It is almost certain that large companies and their advisers will have been the most active. I am not criticising that involvement in any way; they have both the resources and the expertise to keep on top of the job and their input is valuable. However, can the Minister inform me how suggested changes are then back-tested, in particular for small businesses, and whether what fits the larger businesses and comes as advice from lawyers and other advisers fits across the piece?
Overall, the situation is that we must accept the assurances that efforts have and are being made to get things right and that the Government and the department will do their best to issue advice and assist companies. It is of some comfort that the review period has been shortened, as the Minister said, to three years, rather than the usual five.
In the debate in the Commons, the Minister said that the investment security unit in the department will be able to offer advice and give forewarning, and the Minister here has said similar things. I would like to know a little more about how that works, especially for SMEs. Is there helpline advice, separate from guidance, and can it be relied upon, or is it the case that there will inevitably end up being a larger number of precautionary notifications than are really needed, because that is the point at which you can get some definitive feedback? Will the Government be able to publish what has been positively cleared and other advice given once it is no longer time sensitive to a prospective deal? I recognise that it cannot be done in real time, but will something of that nature happen retrospectively?
Finally, as I have already referenced, the Secretary of State is given powers to call in other transactions not covered by the 17 sectors. I am conscious, as I said, that it is necessary to demonstrate that the UK is an open economy, but on the other hand, recent experience with Covid, Brexit and other geopolitical issues has drawn more attention to security of supply. Will there be a capacity and appetite to monitor transactions generally and take action where needed? What other measures are being taken around issues of greater security of supply?
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the regulations. I say at the outset that the Labour Party also supports these necessary instruments. Taken together, they provide for the operation and running of the NSI Act and the provision of a safeguard for the UK. The SIs identify, as we have heard, 17 sectors in which national security could be at risk—the so-called sensitive sectors—and establish how the Secretary of State would establish the worth of each business when calculating the value of monetary returns it would be required to make. The offences cover both completing an acquisition without approval and failing to comply with a final order when required to do so, with resultant penalties, as we have heard, of £10 million or 5% of turnover, whichever is the greater, or a daily rate of 0.1% or £200,000.
However, there appears to be no effective early warning system or method to forewarn businesses considering acquiring a business that they may be in breach of these regulations. Have the Government considered putting such a system in place to alert businesses that they may risk putting themselves in breach by continuing with an acquisition?
The current thinking about the destination of the funds raised by this instrument is that they will go to the consolidation fund. Surely more creative thinking is possible, such as using them for the specific purpose of funding start-ups and innovators to help build up UK resilience. Is this set in stone, or could the Government reconsider the destination of the funds and ally them to the problem that the instruments are designed to prevent?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said, there is also some concern about the breadth of what is captured by this legislation; in particular, the biodiversity sector believes that the definition is cast too wide and covers industries not associated with security matters. Could the Minister look at the concerns raised by the biodiversity sector to be sure that the reach of the regulations is only as broad as is necessary and not more widespread than it needs to be?
Some concerns have been raised about how the Government engaged to build these better regulations. For instance, when considering issuing guidance to particular sectors, which the Minister said would happen shortly, he should be aware that SMEs do not have access to large legal firms to advise them on these matters and therefore require straight, clear guidance rather than obscure, legalistic wording. Can he explain this process to the Government when they are issuing such guidance?
Finally, do the Government believe that food security forms part of national security? I ask because they have shown little interest in the recent takeover of Morrisons, which will in turn undoubtedly act as an encouragement to others to consider similar purchases in this country.
While we support the regulations, they require a more muscular approach in some areas while in others a lighter touch is required. Getting this balance right is tricky but important to the UK’s inward investment programme and opportunities.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. I will endeavour to respond to the points that were made; first, to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and then to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie.
In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about the maximum monetary penalties, some businesses may argue for the lowest possible turnover, for obvious reasons, and it is important that the Secretary of State retains the flexibility to set what would be a reasonable and effective fine. Of course, in all decisions the Secretary of State must act reasonably under public law duties, so it does not exactly give him a free pass. However, I am very happy to provide the noble Baroness with reassurance that, if there is any disagreement between the Secretary of State and the business that would be subject to the penalty, it will be for the Secretary of State to determine the relevant turnover in question.
In regard to the noble Baroness’s point about whether penalties are set too low—I do not often get to hear that criticism—the largest penalties are up to £10 million or 5% of turnover, whichever of those is the higher amount. I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate that, to any business, £10 million is a substantial amount of money. However, as a civil financial penalty, it is only one of the possible forms of punishment. The noble Baroness will be aware that criminal sanctions are also available, and those criminal penalties may well include a prison sentence of up to five years, so we are satisfied that the appropriate disincentives exist to flouting the regulations.
The noble Baroness referred also to some of the sector definitions. I am happy to reassure her that we have engaged extensively on them in a number of different ways. We have changed the descriptions and amended them in communications with regard to qualifying entities carrying on activities in the UK. For critical suppliers to government, two of the five limbs of the definition set out in the government response were amended, and we made some changes in data infrastructure. We clarified some of the infrastructure activities with regard to energy, and, on suppliers to the emergency services, some of the limbs of that definition were amended and narrowed to provide an objective list of activities, as well as in the field of synthetic biology.
On points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, with regard to the funds, as was discussed—these points were also raised in the other place on 20 October—any funds received will go to the consolidated fund, as is standard practice. However, the noble Lord will be aware that we have a wide range of support schemes for businesses in other areas, particularly for establishing new technology.
On publishing the details of clear cases, we are of course required under the Act to publish an annual report setting out the numbers and sectors of cases that are notified and cleared. To ensure that mandatory notification works proportionately and that the Act is future-proof, the Secretary of State will of course keep this under constant review and will seek to amend the list of acquisitions that would be in scope in the future through additional secondary legislation to reflect evolving national security risks and technological changes. The noble Lord will be aware that, following the practice of previous Governments, we have never defined what national security is, and he will also be aware that of course I cannot comment on the additional case that he mentioned.
Both these SIs are essential for the effective operation and running of the NSI Act and for the provision of a safeguard for the United Kingdom. The Government have ensured that the proposed descriptions within the notifiable acquisition regulations will enable potential acquirers to self-identify for the purposes of the mandatory notification requirement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, also raised the point about communication and the possibility of a helpline. We do not think that that is necessary; officials remain available in the investment screening unit within BEIS for consultations, if necessary, on a confidential basis with businesses both large and small, if anybody is unclear about a particular acquisition. Advice is being provided at the moment and will be provided in future to any business that wants to call or email the team responsible for leading this. Sectoral expertise has been a vital part of the development of these regulations, and we have taken great care and time to get it right.
In response to the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, made about available support for SMEs, as I said, we continue to engage directly with businesses around the NSI Act. I have done a number of consultation meetings, and I know that officials have done a lot as well. The first tranche of detailed guidance has already been published to assist businesses, investors and advisers in understanding the Act to comply with its requirements. We have established an expert panel, which I have met with on a couple of occasions, as well as officials, which includes business representative organisations, higher education bodies, investment associations and law societies, all of which will have an interest in having these provisions correctly interpreted. They are giving us constant and detailed feedback on the draft guidance and ensuring that the guidance is fit for purpose.
Our second tranche of guidance will be published ahead of regime commencement—as I mentioned, the regime will commence on 4 January—to continue to aid the interaction of parties with the new investment security unit and to ensure compliance, including on how to submit a notification form and guidance around notifiable acquisitions. We are also holding a communications campaign, which will focus on delivering teach-ins and guidance to a wide cross-section of businesses and organisations to build understanding of the Act in the United Kingdom and internationally. The Government have conducted targeted and extensive engagement with organisations which are most likely to be affected by the Act, including companies that invest or acquire entities in the 17 mandatory sectors.
Tailored explanatory materials have been sent to around 100 industry bodies and mandated areas of the economy, 70 major law and financial services firms, 36 international investors and 550,000 businesses via Companies House. We have taken great care to reach small and medium enterprises through associations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI, which, taken together, have networks of something like 580,000 businesses.
I hope that I have been able to provide sufficient clarification and assurance to both noble Lords who spoke on this, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
The Earl of Courtown
That the Grand Committee do consider the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the instrument before us was laid on 14 October, under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, also known as the sanctions Act. It amends the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to introduce new measures to the financial, trade and aviation sectors.
The regulations we are debating today revoke and replace the Belarus sanctions regulations laid in August 2021. These contained an error that had the effect of deleting a prohibition on the transfer of restricted technology to Belarus; this means military and interception or monitoring technology, and technology used for internal repression. The regulations we are debating today correct this error. I can assure noble Lords that there was no continuity gap between the effects of the two regulations.
The Government, along with international partners, decided to increase targeted sanctions because the situation in Belarus continued to deteriorate. On numerous occasions, Lukashenko and his regime have violated democratic principles and the rule of law, and violently oppressed civil society, democratic opposition leaders and independent media. This includes the forced diversion of Ryanair flight FR4978 on 23 May in order to arrest a journalist, Roman Protasevich, and his partner Sofia Sapega. Lukashenko sent a MiG fighter jet to force the Ryanair plane to land, endangering not only Protasevich and Sapega but everyone on board. This also showed a flagrant disregard for international aviation law. The couple remain in the custody of the Belarusian authorities. The UK Government reiterate our call on the Belarusian regime to release them, and to release all those held on political grounds.
The regime has enforced the arbitrary detention of more than 35,000 people and imprisoned more than 800 people on political charges. The United Nations and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe have recorded many credible reports of physical mistreatment, including torture, by the penal and security forces in Belarus. Opposition figures have been harassed and forcefully expelled, and, this year, Belarus introduced new legislation to further suppress media freedoms and peaceful assembly.
The United Kingdom supports all those working for a more democratic future for Belarus. As such, we were delighted to welcome Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, leader of the Belarusian democratic opposition, to the UK on 3 August. During her visit, Ms Tsikhanouskaya met the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Minister for Europe, who reiterated our support. Ms Tsikhanouskaya emphasised the need for further sanctions on the Belarusian regime and commended the UK for taking action.
The instrument we are debating today enshrines in law our increased sanctions measures on the Belarusian regime, showing that we stand with the people of Belarus. Our sanctions are carefully targeted to build pressure on Lukashenko, state institutions and those around him while minimising any unintended consequences for the ordinary people of Belarus, who are suffering under authoritarian rule.
The measures introduced by this instrument are as follows. They prevent any UK business from trading goods and services with Belarus in sectors that are key sources of revenue for the Lukashenko regime. They also limit the regime’s access to items that could enable the internal repression of the Belarusian population. The measures cover potash, petroleum products, interception and monitoring goods and technology. They also cover goods used in cigarette manufacturing and dual-use goods and technology for military use. We have also imposed a prohibition on the provision of technical assistance to aircraft where this would benefit persons designated for that purpose. This ensures that UK companies cannot provide services in relation to President Lukashenko’s fleet of luxury aircraft.
Financial measures prohibit dealing with transferable securities and money market instruments issued by the Belarusian state and public bodies, as well as those issued by state-owned banks, and the provision of loans. This measure puts additional pressure on the Belarusian regime, including by preventing future Belarusian government bonds being listed on the London Stock Exchange.
This comprehensive response also includes prohibitions on the provision of insurance and reinsurance to Belarusian state bodies, and it removes a licensing ground under the arms embargo that permitted the export of biathlon rifles.
The aviation measures prohibit Belarusian air carriers from overflying or landing in the UK. This continues the temporary measures that we put in place after the events of 23 May.
Finally, the measures also give us the power to designate persons for providing support for, or obtaining an economic benefit from, the Government of Belarus. Since this came into force in August, we have made a further designation under the Belarus sanctions regime under this criterion.
UK sanctions actions, together with our allies, aims to encourage the Belarusian regime to respect democratic principles and institutions, the separation of powers and the rule of law in Belarus. The sanctions aim to discourage the regime from actions, policies or activities that repress civil society in Belarus, and encourage it to comply with international human rights law.
I should note that we regularly review sanctions and would consider lifting them if we saw significant progress. However, in the case of Belarus, we have seen no progress; in fact, the situation continues to deteriorate.
Sanctions are most effective when implemented in co-ordination with international partners. Our measures were co-ordinated in June with the EU, the US and Canada, and we will continue to work closely with them on Belarus. Similarly, sanctions work best when combined with other diplomatic and economic measures. The UK has assisted independent media and civil society in Belarus, which continue to face unparalleled levels of pressure from the regime. By the end of this financial year, our programme of support to Belarus will have almost tripled since 2019.
The UK unequivocally condemns the appalling campaign of repression waged by the Belarusian regime against the rights and freedoms of the Belarusian people. The regime has oppressed civil society, rejected democratic principles and violated the rule of law. These regulations expand our sanctions in response to the situation on the ground. They demonstrate that we will not accept such egregious violations of human rights. They enable us to stand with our international partners and, most importantly, with the people of Belarus, in working towards a peaceful, prosperous and democratic future. I welcome this opportunity to hear the views of noble Lords on these regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I welcome these sanctions. In part, I welcome them because I speak both as a Member of this House and as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In that capacity, I had the great privilege, in November 2019, of going to Belarus as part of a team monitoring the parliamentary elections—although to describe them as either “parliamentary” or “elections” is stretching the definitions rather a long way. At the end of a rather interesting day, we were, on the one hand, watching ballot box stuffing, but, on the other hand, being kept as far away as possible from where the counting was going on—so we could not actually see anything.
In the last polling station that I and my Armenian colleague went to, at the end of a very long day, I witnessed five candidates on the ballot paper. They had a photograph of each candidate and a brief description. There were four males of indeterminate age, all looking rather similar, and a much younger, very attractive woman. Who came top of the ballot for that constituency? Surprise, surprise—the young woman. The young lady in question turned out to be the—at that time—22 year-old Maria Vasilevich, an ex-Miss Belarus, which was one of her qualifications for being elected. The second qualification—and perhaps the clincher—is that she was the current mistress of the then 64 year-old President Lukashenko. Our Prime Minister has a way of putting his friends into this House; President Lukashenko has his own way of putting his friends into their Parliament.
I should say in addition that the UK delegation to the parliamentary assembly is very concerned about the situation in Belarus and is committed to trying to help. Quite a few of us have adopted prisoners in Belarus who are currently suffering; we write letters and hope that they get through to them and their families. Just this morning, the leader of the UK delegation to the parliamentary assembly, John Howell, Conservative MP for Henley, sent me a WhatsApp message saying that he has just adopted a lady called Iryna Zlobina, who is in prison because she was guilty of collecting money to go towards paying the legal expenses of those who had been arrested for taking part in what the Government regard as illegal demonstrations. She is now serving time in prison.
On these sanctions, I welcome the fact that this has resulted from working closely with the EU. Her Majesty’s Government, for various reasons we will not go into, seem to have a slightly tortured, love-hate relationship with the European Union at the moment—clearly, something fishy is going on. It is incredibly important that we work in lockstep with the EU; President Lukashenko is hoping above all that the unity among those appalled by what he is doing will fracture over time because we have not got our act together and are not acting as one. Please remember that.
There is an opportunity to take further action against the families of some individuals who have vast sums of money, some of which is domiciled in the UK, usually through offshore companies. The son of a gentleman called Mikhail Gutseriyev—a Russian oligarch who is very involved in Belarus—who is a UK citizen and, even worse, I am ashamed to say, an old Harrovian, for some strange reason happens to own a £40 million office block in London. It is not immediately obvious why, but I suppose that is the sort of thing one happens to have if one has a very rich father and access, through the Panama papers, to all sorts of offshore trusts. We could and should do more to demonstrate that that sort of egregious behaviour by extended families of clearly corrupt people will not be tolerated by this country.
I also ask that we continue to support the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights as much as possible to make sure that she has the support and funding to carry out her important work in Belarus and that human rights observer groups are supported. Every time we hear of arrests, intimidation and egregious events such as that, we must not stay silent but must say something. It will get noticed.
Finally, the impossible-to-pronounce leader of Free Belarus—I have written it out phonetically; I might let the noble Earl borrow it next time—Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, is the wife of the opposition leader who was going to run in the election, as noble Lords will know, until President Lukashenko decided the easiest way to win was to put his main opposition rival in prison, which is quite a neat way of doing it. It is very important that we formally recognise her as the effective leader of Free Belarus and assist her, invite her over here, and engage with and listen to her as much as possible. That is all I have to say.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, with his direct experience of his visits to Belarus; it was fascinating to hear about that. I have not been to Belarus but am active in the All-Party Group on the Abolition of the Death Penalty; we have sought to engage with those brave individuals, including former parliamentarians, who have sought to work with us for the abolition of the death penalty there. Belarus is the only country in wider Europe which retains it. I understand that four people were executed in 2018.
That is one element of a whole range that the noble Earl indicated in justification of these measures, which I and my party support. The justification is not only in the high-profile events we have seen in recent months but, as the noble Lord alluded to, in a pattern of practice which is diminishing democracy, reducing people’s ability to have properly elected representatives and opening up the concern that there will be internal repression of its own people.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister said, the regulations before the Committee maintain the current sanctions on Belarus but extend the measures and amend a series of errors in the previous regulations. I reiterate that these measures, and certainly this SI, have the full support of the Opposition.
As I told the House during a debate in July, the Government’s policy towards Belarus should be to stand with the incredible defiance shown by activists and opposition leaders. I not only hope that these instruments are a signal of that but echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that it is important that our voices in this Parliament are heard by those people in Belarus. It certainly has an impact, and we need to make sure that that is the case.
As the Minister highlighted, the situation in Belarus has deteriorated. It took a sinister turn in May when a Ryanair flight was forcibly diverted to Minsk so that pro-democracy activists could be arrested. Obviously, as is pointed out in the explanatory note to the instrument, human rights in general have deteriorated even further in the country. I was therefore pleased that last week the United Kingdom’s representatives at the United Nations signed a joint statement calling on the Lukashenko regime to end its repressive practices. However, such statements have to be paired with co-ordinated action.
On some specific points in the regulations before the Committee today, as the Minister noted earlier, the purpose of this order is to correct previous errors while adopting additional measures in response to the deteriorating behaviour of Lukashenko and his regime. The financial sanctions under Part 3 are particularly welcome given, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, reminded us, the extensive reports of dirty money from Belarus in London. What is the Government’s assessment of that, and in particular of the Belarusian Government’s use of the London Stock Exchange for financing purposes?
On Part 5 of the regulations, which relate to Belarusian aircraft, as the Minister highlighted, can he confirm or advise the Committee what support the Government have offered to the Civil Aviation Authority, both to advise and to exercise these new responsibilities? Needless to say, as the noble Lord reminded us, these measures are effective only if implemented jointly and as widely as possible. In those circumstances, can the Minister tell us about what our response is to the ongoing disagreements between some members of the EU on this in particular? What steps are the Government taking to encourage counterparts to apply the sanctions to Belarus in full?
Given the analysis that many international sanctions on potash, Belarus’s main export, affect only a small proportion of potash products, can the Minister advise the Committee whether that assessment is correct and whether these regulations go far enough?
Global sanctions can be one of the most effective tools at our disposal to bring pressure on the regime, and I am glad that many measures are also being implemented by other national Governments but, if the UK is to stand for the people of Belarus, the Government’s policy must extend beyond these measures. We need to ensure that there is ongoing, co-ordinated international pressure at the UN and other multilateral institutions, particularly working with the European Union, to ensure that pressure is put on the Lukashenko regime and we stand by the side of the brave activists and opposition leaders.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s insightful and timely discussion, and I should like to address the important questions they have raised. The noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Purvis and Lord Russell, all mentioned in their own way how this is affecting the individuals in Belarus—whether in the Opposition or the media—and the whole of civil society, and how important it is that we give whatever help we can. As I said earlier, we have increased our funding in that area to try to improve the situation as much as we can, but as all noble Lords all said, it is a pretty dire situation that we find ourselves in.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his tales from the ballot box, which were very interesting, and enlightened us, as he gave the Committee his first-hand experience of what happened in the elections. He and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, also mentioned how important it is to have regular discussions with our partners. I can confirm to all noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned the European Union in particular—that we have continuous discussions with the European Union, the United Nations, and our partners in the sanctions, including the US and Canada, and the sanctions are continually kept under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, started his speech by talking about the death penalty, and he knows quite well the position of this country—this Government and all parties in this country—that we abhor the use of the death penalty in any circumstance. He also mentioned two particular issues relating to immigration and travel bans. The travel ban operates through the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act and regulations made under it, which allow us to make people excluded persons for the purposes of the Immigration Act. I hope that clarifies the point for him. He also considered the timeline of the orders. They did not overlap as such; one order revoked the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also mentioned dual-use goods and Northern Ireland. I have some lines on that, but if there is anything more that can be contributed, I will write to him. The regulations apply across the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland—but I will check that there is nothing more we need to add to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about the London Stock Exchange. The new regulations prohibit dealing with bonds issued by the Republic of Belarus after the sanctions came into force where they have a maturity exceeding 90 days. This includes a prohibition on assisting in issuing such a bond.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, mentioned potash imports from Belarus. He asked why the UK has only partially banned potash imports and why all potash tariff codes are not included. These measures are carefully targeted to build pressure on Lukashenko, state institutions and those around him, while minimising—this is the important thing—any unintended consequences on the wider population in Belarus and the UK economy. He also mentioned support for the CAA. The Department for Transport work closely with the CAA on sanctions implications—so there are ongoing discussions with the CAA when sanctions are imposed. If I have not answered all the questions, I will of course read Hansard and reply to any I have missed.
As I set out in my opening speech, the regulations give us the power to impose sectoral sanctions with real impact, which is magnified in co-ordination with our international partners. They ensure that we can target the sectors of the Belarusian economy and the key figures in the Belarusian regime that generate funds for the regime. This includes those who provide support for, or obtain an economic benefit from, the Government of Belarus who have not been designated previously. They demonstrate that the UK will not stand by in the face of the regime’s unacceptable behaviour; that we are ready and willing to act as part of a network of liberty and will stand with those who believe in democracy. I beg to move that the Committee has considered the regulations.
House of Lords
Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
Retirement of a Member: Lord Hunt of Chesterton
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from Saturday 30 October, of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, 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.
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, before we start Oral Questions, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the fact that, as I wrote to you last week, the Covid infection rates are rising across Parliament. Noble Lords will know that Covid is a very serious disease and in my view our behaviours in this place should be reflective of the current situation. In order to keep one another safe, and to keep staff safe, I would like to emphasise how important it is that we all wear face coverings in the Chamber, in committees and when moving around the Estate. The staff of the House are now required to wear face coverings and in my view it would be courteous if Members did the same. I would also like to remind Members of the importance of regular testing; testing services are available in the Bishops’ Bar.
Net Zero: Social Market Foundation Report
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report from the Social Market Foundation Zeroing in: Net Zero disruption and opportunity at a local level, published on 14 September.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, the Government welcome the report and its conclusions. The net-zero transition will bring many challenges at the local level, but it will also create vital opportunities to level up. The Government are already doing many of the things that the report recommends. The net-zero strategy sets out our approach to maximising the opportunities that exist and how local and devolved administrations can contribute and benefit from the transition.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
The report highlights some of the challenges that will be faced by rural areas in the transition to net zero. Does the Minister accept that solutions tailored to urban areas may very well not be appropriate in the countryside? Can he consider the recommendation that there should be a bespoke net-zero approach to rural areas to ensure that they do not get left behind?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the Government are absolutely committed to rural areas not being left behind and take the point that they are essentially very different from urban areas. However, we do not consider that we should have a separate rural strategy but consider it to be part of all our activities.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the National Housing Federation. I know from talking to housing associations over the last few months how determined and ambitious they are to make homes greener and warmer for residents and to tackle climate change, but it cannot be done alone. They are already planning to invest £70 billion in future-proofing, but our new estimates, produced by Savills, show that it will cost an extra £36 billion to reach full decarbonisation by 2050. I welcome the additional £800 million announced last week, together with the heat and buildings strategy—a great step forward—but neither addresses the long-term funding gap to 2050. Can the Government work with the sector to bridge this gap and to achieve the country’s net-zero ambitions?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that there are considerable challenges in decarbonising our homes. I made a commitment that we will work together to help housing associations address those challenges.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, by how much is it estimated that the cost of energy will increase for identified UK user groups as the result of achieving net zero?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Price and bill impact will depend on electricity market developments and consumption patterns. Policies that improve energy efficiency of homes will reduce bills and benefit fuel-poor households. My noble friend will be pleased to know that we expect wholesale prices under a renewable-based electricity system to be lower than our current one, which is based on fossil fuels.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests, as set out in the register. I will follow up on the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. Rural areas, communities and local authorities face a range of problems, such as a reliance on private cars, a lack of charging points and distance from the decarbonisation of industrial clusters. Does the noble Lord agree that the specific, unique issues of the countryside need addressing to ensure that no one is left behind? If he does—he said that the Government do not plan to have a separate strategy—what is he doing to meet this challenge?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
The Government are providing many mechanisms to support rural areas. I point to the community energy projects, through the rural community energy fund, which is a £10 million fund to support community-run projects in England that benefit the transition to net zero. Net zero is half the story; adaptation to the consequences of climate change is equally important, and the Government are committing £2.8 billion in a six-year capital investment plan to reduce flood and coastal erosion risk.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, local authorities are critical to achieving the Government’s net-zero target, but will struggle to do so without sufficient resources. Some 95% of local authorities have said that funding is a barrier to them tackling climate change. The Climate Change Committee recommended increased resourcing for local government as a priority. Can the Minister say whether and when the Government intend to give local authorities new capital-raising and revenue-raising powers to support the transition to net zero, as recommended in the SMF report?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I point out that the Government have committed £1.2 billion for local action on climate change. There are currently no plans to devolve additional tax-raising powers, but the Treasury will keep this under review.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, this follows the questions of my noble friend Lord Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, on the report that is the subject of this Question. Does the Minister agree that there is an enormous difference in the levelling-up agenda because there are problems in the north, particularly the north-east, where 90% of new-build houses are still heated by gas? Where is the policy to convert this to something more meaningful and at lower cost, whether electricity or hydrogen, and what are the Government doing about it? This will be a serious problem. London seems all right, but the rest of the country is going to suffer serious extra costs as a result.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it is right that it is easier for London to hit the target of net zero by 2050, given its starting point. But levelling up is about improving living standards and unleashing enterprise and growth across all parts of the UK, and spreading opportunity. It is important to see how the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund is allocated to deal with the noble Lord’s point, but we also need to leverage private sector funding. Our estimates are that the fund will leverage substantial private sector income to achieve the green revolution that we all want.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Trees: Ips typographus
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Colgrain
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the arrival of the tree beetle Ips typographus in spruce trees in the southeast of England on the timber industry in the United Kingdom; and what steps they are taking to prevent further damage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, swift action is being taken to eradicate Ips typographus on 13 sites in the south-east. Infested trees are being removed, a surveillance programme is in place and emergency legislation has been introduced to reduce the risk of spread. Both Norway and Sitka spruce are susceptible species, but the pest has been detected on only Norway spruce in the outbreak area. The commercial standing value of Norway spruce in this area is estimated at £16 million.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reply and to the officials from Defra and the Forestry Commission, who are being so effective in endeavouring to contain the current infestations to prevent a further catastrophe that could prove comparable to Dutch elm disease and ash Chalara. Given that this beetle is airborne and has been blown in from Europe, does he not agree that establishing a cordon sanitaire is fated to be ineffectual? Thus, does he not further agree that instruction should be given to ensure that spruce trees are not planted as part of Her Majesty’s green canopy, and that the same should be true of the Government’s own new tree-planting initiatives?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are grateful, in turn, to my noble friend for his speedy resolution of a particular problem where he lives. He is right that this is a containment problem. We have an area that goes as far as Greater London and takes in parts of East Sussex and West Sussex, all of Kent and parts of Surrey. We are working hard to remove every spruce tree in that area. We are working with landowners, using aerial assets to identify where spruce trees exist so that we can create that cordon sanitaire, which will prevent this beetle from spreading over from the continent and thereby further into the United Kingdom. I will get back to him on the Queen’s canopy. That is a very important issue. I think we are using only native species.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the eight-toothed spruce bark beetle is only 4.2 millimetres to 5.5 millimetres long and therefore very difficult to spot and identify. How can the Government be absolutely sure that it is not more widespread than the demarcated areas to the south and east of London?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very happy for the noble Baroness to have a detailed briefing on the measures we are taking, but we have an extensive trapping system, using pheromone traps to attract the beetle. We are counting it in infected sites and working in the containment area and beyond to make sure that it is not spreading. The phytosanitary measures we have put in to retain diseased timber in that region are also very important.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, the emergence of this dreadful disease affecting spruce underlines the need to encourage the development of pesticides if we are serious about combating these new diseases, particularly if biosecurity measures are not effective. Please will the Minister confirm that the Government will support research and development in this sector and resist attempts to introduce further disincentivising and unnecessary restrictions?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is aware that this is a very difficult area to get right. The beetle in question affects only mature spruce trees. It is very hard to use an insecticide on mature trees that would, first, be effective with the beetle, and secondly, not be further damaging to other species. It is part of the ongoing discussion with the Forestry Commission and its scientific experts.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, for more than 200 years trapped trees, pheromone traps, which the Minister mentioned, treated trapped trees, standing trapped trees and lure-baited fallen wood have been used to capture and reduce numbers of this beetle. Does the Minister consider this a more environmentally sound way of dealing with the beetle than spraying with insecticides? What research is being carried out to discover whether these tried and tested techniques are no longer working?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We constantly ask ourselves whether we are getting this right. As things stand, the pheromone traps are very effective in identifying the range and quantity of beetles as they move around the country, but we have this matter constantly under review.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister say what impact the restrictions put on the movement of spruce trees around the south-east of England as a result of the discovery of this pest are likely to have on the availability of spruce Christmas trees this year? Does this mean that another traditional feature of Christmas is likely to be hit by shortages?
Lord Benyon (Con)
In a word: no. The beetle does not affect trees under three metres. Some Christmas trees are higher than three metres, so I qualify what I say, but it is not expected to have any effect on Christmas or Christmas trees.
Autonomous Weapons Systems
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the calls made at the August meeting of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems at the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons for a legally-binding instrument, including both prohibitions and positive obligations, to regulate autonomous weapons systems.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is an active participant in United Nations discussions on lethal autonomous weapons systems, working with partners to build norms to ensure safe and responsible use of autonomy. The UK and our partners are unconvinced by the calls for a further binding instrument. International humanitarian law provides a robust principle-based framework for the regulation of weapons deployment and use. A focus on effects is most effective in dealing with complex systems in conflict.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister’s reply is pretty disappointing. It puts the Government, despite statements in the integrated review, at odds with nearly 70 countries and thousands of scientists in their unwillingness to rule out lethal autonomous weapons. Will the Minister commit to rethinking government policy in terms of giving our representatives at the next meeting of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons on 2 December a mandate to go ahead with negotiations for a legally binding instrument, which, after all, has been called for by the UN Secretary-General?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am sorry that the noble Lord is disappointed, because I know the extent of his interest in this issue. I have tried to facilitate engagement with the department to enable him to better understand what the department is doing and why we take the views that we do. He will be aware that international consensus on a definition of laws has so far proved impossible. At this time, the UK believes that it is actually more important to understand the characteristics of systems with autonomy that would or would not enable them to be used in compliance with IHL, using this to set our potential norms of use and positive obligations.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, nations are sleepwalking to disaster. Engineers are already making autonomous drones the size of my hand that have cameras that act completely autonomously. They can, for example, have facial recognition and carry a small shaped charge, and will kill a person that that facial recognition shows. Once you release them, you release them and off they go. The firms producing these are talking in terms of, “Yes, if we had several thousands of these, gosh how wonderful, because we could kill a great chunk of a city without damaging it at all and get rid of the people there.” I find this quite horrifying. Also, these things are AI: they learn; therefore, they will learn how to kill even more than they have been programmed to. This is extremely dangerous. Do the Government agree completely that, wherever there is a kill-chain that ends up with a dead human being, there should be a human somewhere in that kill-chain to make that decision, rather than a robot?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
All weapon systems, whether with autonomous functions or not, must fully comply with the principle-based international humanitarian law framework. A robust application of that framework, I would suggest, is the best way of ensuring the lawful and ethical use of force in all circumstances. That applies to all states that might be developing autonomy in their weapons systems.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the UK has agreed not to develop autonomous weapons? Of course, we run the risk sometimes of confusing autonomous weapons with automated weapons, where there will be a human being in that decision-making cycle. While some are concerned about the UK’s definition of autonomous weapons, I think it is quite far-sighted because it will take into account future developments. Perhaps my noble friend could offer some clarity as to where in that chain, from targeting to operating that weapon, there will be human intervention.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for acknowledging the difficulties that accompany definitions and prescriptive attempts to define. UK Armed Forces do not use systems that employ lethal force without context-appropriate human involvement. This is an important area; it is clearly an area of evolving policy and it is an area where we are absolutely clear that the best way forward is to continue our international engagement with the group of governmental experts.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Artificial intelligence is clearly an increasing part of the modern way of warfare but, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and my noble friend Lord West, it brings with it enormous moral challenges. I think what the House wants to hear is for the Minister to say unequivocally, and as a matter of principle, that there will always be human oversight when it comes to the use of artificial intelligence; in particular, that human oversight is involved whenever there is any decision about the lethal use of force.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It is not possible to transfer accountability to a machine. Human responsibility for the use of a system to achieve an effect cannot be removed, irrespective of the level of autonomy in that system or the use of enabling technologies such as AI.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I have been listening closely to the Minister and I am still not quite sure whether she has said that the Government will unequivocally state that no autonomous drone or other AI could take a life, and that every decision would have to have human engagement. Can she confirm that that is the case? I declare an interest as an officer of the APPG on Drones and Modern Conflict.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I simply repeat to the noble Baroness what I said to my noble friend Lord Lancaster: that UK Armed Forces do not use systems that employ lethal force without context-appropriate human involvement.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the National AI Strategy was published in September and promises were made that, before the end of the year,
“details of the approaches the Ministry of Defence will use when adopting and using AI”
will be published. However, on 22 October the AI strategy for NATO, which presumably we agreed to, was published and it emphasised the principles of lawfulness, responsibility and accountability. Does the Minister not agree that it is now time for the UK to publicly reaffirm our commitment to ethical AI, including international law and human rights, and to tell our public and the international community that our Government are ready, as our Governments always have been, to show global leadership on these issues, particularly on lethal autonomous weapons?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord is quite correct that the department has said that it will publish a defence AI strategy. When I was told it would be in the autumn, I pointed out that the autumn had pretty well come and gone. I am reassured that significant work has been done on the strategy and we can expect publication in early course. It will set out our vision to be the most effective, efficient, trusted and influential defence organisation of our size, and have principled components to it. I would not wish to pre-empt what the strategy will say, but I would hope that it will serve to answer many of the noble Lord’s questions.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. Does my noble friend agree that, whether in safety or security, the public good or economic growth, the UK has a unique opportunity for the development and deployment of ethical AI? Further, does she agree that we urgently need public debate and engagement if we are to achieve, not just in defence but across all potential applications, optimum outcomes?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I say to my noble friend, building on what I have already indicated to the Chamber, that AI and autonomy clearly have the potential to transform all aspects of defence, from the back office to the front line. They are a strategic priority for defence and we take that evolution of policy seriously. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, more will be disclosed when we publish our defence strategy in early course.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Farming Rules for Water
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carrington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the application of the Farming Rules for Water on the use of organic forms of nitrogen in (1) the autumn, and (2) the spring; and in particular, the implications of using organic manure, slurries and biowastes on ammonia and phosphate levels at different points of the year.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, at the same time, declare my interests as a farmer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, some agricultural activities can be harmful to the water environment, which is why it is essential that farmers follow the farming rules for water and apply only the nutrients needed to feed their crops. Cropping patterns change from year to year, so the amount of nutrients needed will vary. Provided farmers follow the rules and related best practice, manures may be used safely at any time.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. However, while his response is welcome, key areas of uncertainty remain. There is a reluctance by the Environment Agency to discuss the interpretation of rule 1. Farmers need to know what compliance with rule 1 means in practice: what soil and what the crop need is, when it can be satisfied and how pollution risk is judged. Farmers are struggling to make sense of the Environment Agency’s regulatory position statement. Please can the Minister either instruct the Environment Agency to retract the RPS or provide far greater clarity to farmers?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am sure the noble Lord will agree that there is a problem here, with watercourses and rivers affected by a variety of different pollutants, some of them from farmland. The Code of Good Agricultural Practice, going back to 1985, was the basis of the rule that now applies. We understand that it is challenging for farmers and are working closely to achieve clarity. The Minister for Agriculture, my friend Victoria Prentis, has set up a working group with the NFU, the Environment Agency and others. It is seeking to iron out these problems urgently so that, from next year, farmers will be much clearer on how to apply the rule.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
Have the Government considered using a risk-based approach to the autumn application of organic material? This would allow continued application of such organic material in the autumn on arable land where the risk to water is considered low, rather than the current blanket ban. It would also assist to reduce the requirement for artificial fertilisers and the environmental costs associated with their manufacture.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will discuss my noble friend’s suggestion with the Farming Minister. Life is quite complicated for farmers at the moment. If we start trying to map the country in terms of how we allow different levels of manures to be applied, there may be a further problem—but I take his point, which is well made.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the National Pig Association has warned that the Environment Agency’s long-awaited statement on the farming rules for water could have significant impacts on pig and arable producers. Many pig producers will not be able to comply with some of the conditions, such as preventing application on sandy or shallow soil. Discussions have taken place between the EA and the NPA, providing clarity that will resolve the issue for only some producers and for only this growing season. There is concern that the majority of producers will still not be able to use the RPS. Would the Minister care to comment?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I would. The noble Baroness makes an important point in relation to some pig farmers, but we want to make sure we are cleaning up our rivers. That means working with farmers to find a sensible system of rules that apply long-established good farming practice so that manures are applied only to crops that will take up those nutrients and none will leach through into catchments or river courses.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the advisory board of River Action. Does my noble friend agree that we have a serious problem in our rivers, and that pollution from farming is part of it? You have only to look at the River Wye and what has happened there. While we need to help farmers to comply, is there not a real urgency about cleaning up our rivers?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. We should see the fact that only a very small percentage of our rivers are fully functioning ecological systems as something of a national disgrace. We have spent many hours debating the Environment Bill here and are moving to a much better place—but we can do much more, working with the farming community and recognising that it is only part of the problem and that there are other polluters as well. We want to make sure that we are abiding by our commitments to get our rivers in good ecological state in a very short space of time.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, sorting out pollution in our rivers is absolutely critical. As the Minister said, we have talked about this time and again on the Agriculture Act and the Environment Bill. My understanding is that a statutory review of the regulations was undertaken by Defra at the turn of the year and was due to report last April, but we have not seen this yet. Can the Minister explain the delay and when we are likely to see it? He mentioned the working group. Is this something that the working group will look at and report on?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness is perhaps referring to the amount of money the Government had said they would put into the transition scheme to assist farmers in changing their system to invest in better slurry systems. After consultation with the farmers, it has been decided to do that in a different way. We have the incentive fund, which is there for farmers to access, but they have said that they want the money spent on environmental measures to be looked at much more holistically across the whole farm, and that is what we are doing.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the real emergency is giving farmers, particularly organic and livestock producers, clear and simple rules to follow? Is it not true that we simply do not know what the safe level of nutrients in the soil should be, so there should be no change to the rules or the regulatory policy statements until we have the science on which to base them?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We do have a lot of science on this. If we were to indulge in many years of further scientific investigation, it would be too late for certain rivers, which—I am using strong words here—will be ecologically dead if we do not take action. The rules are there and they have been set out in the code for good agricultural practice since 1985. We are working with farmers to make sure that we apply them proportionately and to assist them in changing their businesses to deal with what is a very real and present problem.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
When will the Government be as tough on water and sewerage companies as they are on farmers? They seem to be very firm on the rules for farmers, yet last week, in a vote in the other place, they were quite happy to turn a blind eye to the sewage discharges of water companies that have been going on for 30 years. When will the Government be tough on water companies and their sewage discharges?
Lord Benyon (Con)
If I may say so, I think the noble Baroness is being unkind to the Environment Bill. It sets out many measures that will stop the current releases, which have been going on for decades, even centuries. We have probably one of the most advanced pieces of environmental legislation anywhere in the world. Is it enough? No, because we have to work across a great many other areas, including dealing with the problem from farming and other polluters.
Fishing: France
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reassure the UK fishing industry following the seizure of a UK vessel by the French authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I cannot comment on the specifics of this case, given that legal proceedings are under way. More broadly, however, we are disappointed at the French Government’s recent actions, culminating in threats that were issued on Wednesday. We have raised our concerns with the French Government and the Commission. The Government have been clear that, if these actions were to be taken, they would put the EU in breach of the TCA. Our approach to licensing has been reasonable and fully in line with the TCA.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply and congratulate our Prime Minister on his robust approach to supporting the UK fishing industry. Fishing businesses are rightly concerned that further escalation would damage them economically. Should the situation escalate and tighter custom controls and checks be enforced, what contingency financial support will the Government consider for the UK fishing industry until a permanent solution can be found?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Government have sought to support the fishing industry through the difficult period of transition and are currently pushing roughly £100 million out of the door to support it, including, where possible, by moving it to sustainable systems of fishing. What we have here is a triangular issue between the UK, the Commission and the Channel Islands. It is a complex situation. We are sticking to the rules and we are absolutely clear about what we want to achieve to support our fishermen, and to deal with a problem that the EU has to reflect on as well.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, for some 450 years the Royal Navy Fishery Protection Squadron looked after our fishermen in UK waters and on the high seas, and generally did so keeping well below the political radar, without great spats between nations. The squadron is now down to three or four ships. Does the Minister believe that is sufficient to do the job asked of it? I do not and if he agrees, what does he think should be done about that?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am lucky to have been out with the Fishery Protection Squadron when I was at Defra. It is the oldest squadron in the Royal Navy, and I have huge admiration for the job that the Royal Navy has done. However, it is only part of our measures to protect our fisheries, which include using aerial assets and satellite information. If the noble Lord were to go to the ops room of the Marine Management Organisation in Newcastle, he would see a real-time policing operation using state-of-the-art data collection, which is also very important to resolving this issue.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, on 17 August Jacob Rees-Mogg was interviewed about the consequences of Brexit and the Government’s TCA with the EU for the fishing communities. The interviewer said:
“The fishermen are angry, really angry, and if you drove from your constituency an hour and a half, two hours, south-west to Brixham market—I recommend you don’t at the moment—they really are jolly angry about the way it’s worked out.”
The interviewer was a certain Nigel Farage. Fishing communities north, south, east and west have already felt let down because of the Government’s negotiated deal with the EU.
Last week the Minister said that the Government were seeking urgent clarification from Marine Scotland regarding whether or not fishing vessels had the appropriate licences to be fishing within those waters. Can he update the House on where the fault may lie: with Marine Scotland, the UK Government, the European Commission or the French Government?
Lord Benyon (Con)
As I said, this matter could involve a judicial process and I do not want to prejudice that. It is being dealt through very close working between my department, the Marine Management Organisation and Marine Scotland. Discussions are ongoing—indeed, they are happening today—with the commission to try to resolve this issue.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend would agree that it is essential to have harmonious relations with the French Government. Given that criteria are available for judging whether licences should be issued, is it not sensible to contemplate appointing an arbitrator to consider individual cases where there is a dispute and determine whether the criteria are met?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. Licences for UK waters are issued on the basis of five reference years, and a French vessel has to prove that it has fished at least one day a year in four of those five years. On the basis of that, I think I am right in saying that we have issued 98% of all licences applied for by French vessels to fish in our territorial waters. So, I am clear that we are doing our bit to stand by the terms of what has been agreed with the EU. It is for them to resolve the allegations they have made and the circumstances of this particular dispute.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the House would be in a better position to understand the facts of this extremely complex matter if only the Government had reported to this House and its committees what was going on—this issue has been brewing for several months now—and will he remedy that? Does he agree that this is a moment when it would be good if both Governments could put away their megaphones and do a bit of real diplomacy?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is actually longer than that. I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, who knows so much about these matters, but I can remember a dispute in the Baie de Seine long before Brexit, so this has been a disputed area of fisheries. However, I can tell him that we are in the business not of escalating this dispute but of resolving it for the benefit of the fishing industry and the sustainable harvesting of marine benefits. There is no desire for this to be escalated any more. It is for the European Commission, as part of the TCA process, to address the accusations and threats made by the French Government.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We should hear from the Front Bench; there will be time for another question afterwards.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, it is appalling how much this has escalated over the weekend. What conversations, if any, has Defra had with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, to urge him to help to resolve the situation? Exactly what urgent talks are taking place with Defra’s French counterparts to de-escalate the situation so that British and French fishers can get on with their jobs safely? Licences were mentioned; was the Minister saying that because of the judicial process he cannot clarify whether the trawler had the correct fishing licence? We need to know this and whether it was included on the list of licences given to the French. If not, why not? Is it not possible for the Government to publish the list to put an end to confusion?
Lord Benyon (Con)
On the vessel that has been seized, I cannot give the noble Baroness that assurance at the moment, but I can promise that we are working closely to find out some rather complex details that lie behind it. I can assure her that we are talking regularly across government and directly with the Commission. Madame Girardin, who is the French Minister, has the number of my ministerial colleague, Victoria Prentis, on speed dial. We will continue to talk to the Commission, which is the responsible body, to resolve this.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend join me and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in congratulating the Prime Minister on his robust stance in the interests of British fishermen? As for those in this House who seem to think that the fault lies on our side, might he reflect on the remarks by the French Prime Minister that somehow Brussels should punish us for following the democratic wishes of the British people? Will he urge the European Union to stand up for democracy and against this kind of blackmail?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Commission has a duty to abide by the trade and co-operation agreement and discussions are now taking place on that. I hope that all sides of the House have been disappointed by some of the rhetoric that has been coming our way. I am pleased that the Prime Minister had a thorough and open conversation with President Macron in Rome, and those conversations will no doubt continue in Glasgow.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the triangular relationship between Great Britain, the Channel Islands and France. Can he explain that relationship to us? Do the Channel Islands issue their licences entirely autonomously? Can they be overridden by the UK? How is the process co-ordinated between the Crown dependencies and Her Majesty’s Government?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Your Lordships will grumble if I go on too long and into too much detail but, broadly speaking, to give the noble Lord an example, Jersey has issued licences to 113 French vessels for access to Jersey waters, with 166 applications for non-vessel monitoring system vessels—the smaller ones—and further applications are being considered. That is done directly with them and the Marine Management Organisation is very much part of that conversation. There are other Channel Islands which also issue licences to French vessels.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I think we can probably understand that the Minister does not want to publicly escalate the issue, but none the less there were comments, reportedly from the French Government, that Britain should be punished for leaving the European Union. Perhaps diplomatically, in private and gently, he could point out to his French counterparts that no punishment from the European Union now could compare with the damage to our coastal communities that was caused during our membership of the European Union and the common fisheries policy.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I have been quite surprised by the attack line on this from members of the Scottish National Party in the other place. They seem to want to revert to the common fisheries policy and to find blame somewhere on our shores, which the facts—in response to the disappointing threats from certain people in France—have highlighted.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, having heard the right reverend Prelate’s supplementary question, I cannot wait for the sermon. Would it not be sensible, in an attempt to defuse this to a degree, for Victoria Prentis to use her speed dial, sit down with her opposite number and try to come to a sensible conclusion? This is being escalated out of all proportion.
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is actually for the European Union to resolve this—it is the other party. If any member state of the European Union were to try to breach the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement, that would be a matter for the European Union and its legal offices to address.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has talked about a judicial proceeding, and the Foreign Secretary has talked about taking legal action. Will the Minister tell us which courts he envisages using?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I was referring to a vessel that has been seized, against which there are allegations of fishing illegally. I do not want to comment on that, because that could be the basis of a judicial process. There is, in parallel, a mechanism within the TCA to resolve these sorts of disputes. But we hope we can deal with it as friends and neighbours rather than going to law.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could have another go.
Lord Newby (LD)
My noble friend asked the Minister which court, and I am afraid I missed the answer in the noble Lord’s reply.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I was explaining that the vessel that has been seized may be the subject of a judicial process, which I would not want to prejudice. It is in a port in France. There are other mechanisms for resolving trade disputes within the TCA, which I am sure the noble Lord is aware of.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My noble friend mentioned a judicial process. Since when did the French presidential election become a judicial process?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am sure my noble friend will understand if I do not get involved in impending elections in any other country.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 1st November 2021
(3 years 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-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (1 Nov 2021)
Lord Moylan
“Retention by the police of personal data relating to non-criminal conduct perceived to be motivated by hostility
(1) The processing of relevant data by a police authority in accordance with Article 6(1) of the GDPR and section 35 of the Data Protection Act 2018 is not lawful unless it is undertaken in accordance with regulations made by statutory instrument under this section.(2) In this section, “relevant data” means personal data relating to a data subject which is based in whole or in part on the perception by another person that the conduct of the data subject was motivated wholly or partially by hostility or prejudice towards any group of people sharing a characteristic and where the conduct in question is unlikely to constitute a criminal offence.(3) In this section, “a police authority” means—(a) a person specified or described in paragraphs 5 to 20 of Schedule 7 to the Data Protection Act 2018;(b) a person acting under the authority of such a person.(4) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the processing of information—(a) pursuant to an ongoing criminal investigation;(b) for the purposes of the internal administrative functions of the police authority.(5) Regulations under this section must—(a) identify different categories of personal data and processing of the personal data in question;(b) include provisions by reference to each of the various categories of processing and personal data as to—(i) the person or persons whose authority is required for the processing of the personal data;(ii) the notifying of the data subject of the processing of the personal data; (iii) the period for which the personal data can be retained (including provision for the granting of authority for extending that period);(iv) the disclosure of the personal data to third parties;(c) have particular regard to the importance of the right to freedom of expression and the extent to which that right is adversely affected by the processing of relevant data by any police authority.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.(7) In section 113B of the Police Act 1997, after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) An enhanced criminal record certificate must not give the details of a relevant matter to the extent that doing so would result in the disclosure of relevant data as defined at subsection (2) of section (Retention by the police of personal data relating to non-criminal conduct perceived to be motivated by hostility) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2021.”(8) In this section—(a) the terms “personal data”, “data subject”, “processing” and “the GDPR” have the same meanings as under section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018;(b) the term “characteristic” includes but is not limited to any protected characteristics under section 4 of the Equality Act 2010.”
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 106, 326 and 330 in my name. In doing so, I have been requested to offer the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who wished very much to speak on this amendment and whose name is on the list of supporters, but he was not able to be here because of professional obligations.
Amendments 326 and 330 are essentially minor consequential amendments; the meat, if you like, of the debate on these amendments is in Amendment 106. These amendments concern non-crime hate incidents. They are a subject of controversy and much debated, but I hope to persuade your Lordships’ House that this amendment is largely not controversial because it is essentially procedural in character and does not change current practice for recording those crimes.
With so many distinguished lawyers having indicated that they wish to speak in this debate, I hesitate to start by giving a brief summary of the legal background, but I shall do so tentatively and subject to their correction. A hate crime is a crime—it may, in principle, be any crime—that is conjoined with a motivation, on the part of the perpetrator, of hatred towards a particular or specified group. That hatred needs to be perceived either by the victim or by one of a number of other groups of people acting reasonably—for example, a witness, such as a police constable or whatever. It is an alloy, if you like, of a crime and a motivation.
But what happens if one part of that alloy is missing—if there is evidence of a motivation of hate but there is actually no crime or no action that constitutes a crime or meets the threshold for bringing a prosecution? That is the essence of the non-crime hate incident: a hate incident that occurs without being conjoined with a crime. Such non-crime hate incidents are often recorded by the police, and, if the perpetrator is known, they are recorded against their name, so to speak: they go to a record in the name of that person. At the moment, all this happens under guidance issued by the College of Policing. This guidance is quite extensive and elaborate, if you choose to look it up, but it has no statutory force or democratic supervision, and it is inconsistently applied between police forces.
I think that most noble Lords would agree that this is not a satisfactory position. The bulk of this amendment—all of it, apart from one subsection that I will come to shortly—effectively obliges the Home Secretary to issue guidance within six months of the passage of the Bill and to take account of certain matters in doing so, one of which is the human right to freedom of expression. It does not tell her what the guidance that she issues should contain or prevent her from adopting the existing guidance wholesale, should she wish to do so, but it brings the whole matter under political oversight for the first time. Because it is proposed that this should be done through a statutory instrument made under the affirmative procedure, it brings it to the attention, and makes it available for the comment, of both Houses of Parliament. So democratic accountability will be brought to this process for the first time, and I think that that can only be widely welcomed by Members of this House.
This amendment does not explicitly affect police practice in relation to any current police investigation. It does not apply to any police action in relation to hatred expressed towards an individual as opposed to that motivated by hatred of a group. Cases of stalking and things of that character directed at an individual would not be caught by the amendment.
That deals with the bulk of the amendment—all the parts of it—except subsection (7) of the proposed new clause. I am going to come to that separately because it is slightly different. Subsection (7) prohibits the police from including this data, if they have recorded it, when responding to requests for an enhanced criminal record check. As I say, it has a slightly different character to the rest of the amendment, but it addresses what I—and many others—perceive as an injustice.
Other noble Lords may speak later, giving instances of that injustice by referring to particular cases. I would like to address what I regard as the principle of the injustice. If you are accused of a crime, you have the opportunity to state your case and protest your innocence in an open court in front of an impartial judge and a jury. That is not the case if you have a non-crime hate incident recorded against your name. There is no process that those who believe themselves to be innocent of that allegation can pursue to clear their name apart from judicial review which, as we know, is an expensive and arduous process and not available to most people.
This can attach a stigma to a person’s name that will potentially last for the rest of their life. They will be stigmatised for many years for not committing a crime. That seems to be a real and serious injustice, but it is not merely abstract and, as other noble Lords may explain, particular cases illustrate it. Given that this is a largely procedural amendment that adds democratic accountability to a process, I hope it will find support on all sides of the Committee and, indeed, from the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow and support my noble friend Lord Moylan. If this speech is a little bit longer than I originally intended, it is to cover some of the ground that I understand would have been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven.
Making non-crime hate records has real-life consequences for an individual that are too important to be left unregulated. As we have heard, non-crime hate records are kept when no crime has been committed but the police decide that they have grounds for concern about how that person might behave in the future. Once such a record is made, it can remain for ever, without review. It will be disclosed in an enhanced criminal record request. It does not take George Orwell to show where that can lead. I suggest Sir Robert Peel would have been astonished.
I turn to the real-life case of Harry Miller of Lincolnshire. In 2018 and 2019, he posted tweets about transgender issues on Twitter. He holds gender-critical views but denies being prejudiced against transgender people. To quote from the judgment in the subsequent judicial review:
“He regards himself as taking part in the ongoing debate about reform of the law”.
Mrs B, a transgender woman, read the tweets and regarded them as transphobic. She reported them to Humberside Police, which recorded this as a non-crime hate incident. She was the only person to complain. A police officer visited Mr Miller at work to speak to him—in his workplace—about these tweets and left Mr Miller with the impression that he might be prosecuted if he continued such tweeting. In a subsequent press statement, an assistant chief constable raised the possibility of criminal proceedings if matters escalated. Imagine what that felt like for Mr Miller. He, however, applied for judicial review.
Mr Justice Julian Knowles, in a very fine and lengthy judgment, found that the police’s action towards Mr Miller disproportionately interfered with his right of freedom of expression. He reminded us that free speech is an essential component of democracy and of these words in the unpublished introduction to Animal Farm:
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
As the judge stressed, true free speech includes
“the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative.”
On the facts, the judge concluded that the tweets were lawful and there was not the slightest risk that Mr Miller would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet. That is the judgment in the High Court. Further, he said the police visit to the place of work, coupled with the subsequent press statement, combined to create a disproportionate interference with Mr Miller’s right of freedom of expression. He found that this had a potential chilling effect.
Therefore, the police should not continue to record non-criminal speech without proper oversight—that is what we ask. There must be clear criteria applied by all police forces uniformly. At present, the College of Policing lays down guidelines, but they are no more than guidelines: a police force is free, in principle, to depart from the guidelines. Indeed, the current guidelines state that:
“The recording system for local recording of non-crime hate incidents varies according to local force policy.”
That is not acceptable. These records, by definition, are of a non-crime; they are subject to no time limits; and the guidelines do not provide for mandatory periodic review, whether after one year, five years or 20 years. This is too important to be left to varying and uncertain police practice. Policy and practice in this field cannot properly be left to the wide discretion of different police forces. It should be for the Secretary of State, answerable to Parliament, to decide when, if at all, and in what circumstances and how such records may be made and kept.
A person’s reputation is of inestimable value. If a confidential record is made that he or she has spoken or behaved in a way that someone else has perceived to be motivated by hostility but which does not amount to a crime, that individual becomes a marked man or woman when a request is made by a current or prospective employer for an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check. As matters stand, that mark or stain can remain for ever, so what is at stake is very serious. This amendment will ensure that regulations set a definitive framework to ensure fairness; to ensure a consistent and fair process of selecting and recording personal data, identifying the different categories of personal data and its processing, identifying the persons whose authority is required for such processing, ensuring they are of suitable rank, the notification of the individual who is the data subject, how long the data may be retained and with what reviews. If someone is to be denied employment, we must be confident that the basis for this is sound and properly managed.
We have heard from my noble friend that the provisions will not apply to the processing of information pursuant to ongoing criminal investigation, nor for the purposes of administrative functions of the police authority. There will be no interference with operational policing. These amendments are needed to ensure that freedom of speech and opinion is not subjected, as the European court has said, to the heckler’s veto, and to create a proper balance between public safety, freedom of speech and protection of reputation.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Sandhurst. In the light of their comprehensive description of the purpose of these amendments, I can be brief.
Much of the data with which the amendments are concerned relates to freedom of expression. Views are expressed or opinions are stated which offend or annoy other people but do not constitute criminal offences. The views or opinions may relate to religion, transgender issues, Brexit or a whole range of other sensitive and controversial questions. Sadly, many people have lost the willingness to discuss and debate; to say, “I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it.” In today’s world a more typical reaction to opinions with which you disagree is to take offence, to demand a safe space, or to complain that your identity has been challenged or that your truth has been denied. Even though no crime has been committed, the police are asked to record the grievance and to retain the data.
I agree with the noble Lords that for the police to have an unregulated power—that is what it is—to retain and use data about such exercises of free speech deters the vigorous debate and discussion on which a free society thrives. It may be appropriate, in some circumstances, for such data to be retained and to be used. None of us is disputing that. But that should be according to law, authorised by Parliament and not just by the discretion of police authorities which choose to apply, or not to apply, guidance from the College of Policing.
I hope that the Minister will consider these amendments constructively and that she will be able to give them the Government’s support, whether in a revised version or otherwise, on Report.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the proposed new clause and I will give it all the support I can. The arguments put forward by my noble friends are, frankly, unarguable against.
There are three propositions that I think are affronted by this notification of non-crime hate incidents. The first is the chilling effect on free speech. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, illustrated that very clearly. One has to be assured of the right to express one’s views without the risk of having this notification made against one.
Secondly, one has to recognise that these are very long-standing notifications, which can have a seriously prejudicial impact on individuals. That is thoroughly undesirable, especially as the individual has no right of appeal or an effective way of challenging. Judicial review, for most people, is not an effective way of challenging.
Thirdly, there is the point made by all noble Lords who have spoken so far. There is no statutory guidance; it is local police policy which influences the way these notifications are made. That is inherently unjust, having regard to the impact that this could have.
Finally, I welcome very much that the regulations are to be made by the affirmative procedure. However, as I have said in this House and elsewhere on many occasions, while that is a good thing in the sense that the comments made by your Lordships and those in the other place can be heeded, we do not have the power to amend the statutory instrument. I have long argued that this House and Parliament in general should have the power to amend the contents of statutory instruments. This is a good example of where that would be beneficial.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I enthusiastically endorse these amendments and thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Pannick, Lord Macdonald and Lord Sandhurst, for raising this crucial issue. The issue of non-crime incidents has been of concern to a number of us for some years and it is good that it is getting some parliamentary attention at last. I particularly credit those organisations and publications that have persistently raised it in the public realm and whose research informed my remarks, especially the Free Speech Union, of which I am on the advisory council, the anti-racist campaign Don’t Divide Us, and Spiked online.
Too many avoid the issue because it is rather tricky and contentious. One of the reasons it is difficult to raise is because nobody wants to look as though they are being soft on hate incidents. However, I am concerned that this in itself has led to a degree of chilling self-censorship and allowed some confusion to arise about what is and is not a crime when the police are involved.
When the public hear the phrases “hate”, “hate crime” or “hate incident”, they instinctively think of, for example, someone being beaten up because of their skin colour or being harassed in the street because they are gay, and they are appalled and shocked. We assume the worst kind of bigotry and our instinct is that something must be done. However, it is not so clear cut. According to the hate crime operational guidance issued by the College of Policing, hate crime is often an entirely subjective category, based on the perception of the alleged victim; I will come back to this.
What is extraordinary about the guidance on hate crime is what the police consider to be successfully tackling hate crime. The guidance says:
“Targets that see success as reducing hate crime are not appropriate”.
That completely befuddled me. The guidance says instead that the measure of success for the police is
“to increase the opportunities for victims to report”.
I fear that, in this act of enthusiasm to get more people to report hate, the police have muddied any clear distinction between what is criminal and what is not.
The focus on reporting initiatives led earlier this year to rainbow-coloured hate crime police cars patrolling local areas, with the aim of giving communities the confidence to come forward and report hate crime. However well-meaning, such awareness-raising initiatives often encourage people to come forward and report things that are not crimes at all. In fact, earlier this year, a police digital ad van trawled around the Wirral, warning that
“being offensive is an offence”.
Actually, being offensive is not a criminal offence. After a backlash, local police clarified that this was an error. Why did the police get it so wrong in terms of what is a crime?
This is not an isolated incident. A few years ago, Greater Glasgow Police tweeted an ominous warning:
“Think before you post or you may receive a visit from us this weekend.”
This was posted alongside a graphic that warned social media users to consider whether their treats were true, hurtful, unkind, necessary and then, right at the end, illegal. Then there was the South Yorkshire Police Hate Hurts campaign, which asked people to report any “offensive or insulting” social media posts to police officers. None of these is a crime and, in relation to a Bill named the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, it is a concern if the police do not know what is or is not a hate crime, so much so that Cheshire Constabulary recently admitted to conflating crime and non-crime in its hate crime statistics.
This amendment can potentially start unpicking this muddle, because the source of the confusion about what is or is not a crime lies in the creation of the category of non-crime hate incident. As we have heard, this category was established by the College of Policing and its guidance encourages police officers to overreach and police non-crimes. It is worth telling noble Lords how this is posed in the guidance. The NCHI guidance states:
“Where it is established that a criminal offence has not taken place, but the victim or any other person perceives that the incident was motivated wholly or partially by hostility, it should be recorded and flagged as a non-crime hate incident.”
Note the use of the word “victim” to describe the reporter or accuser, when no evidence exists that any crime has been perpetrated against him or her. The victim has to claim only that some action or speech was
“motivated wholly or partially by hostility”.
“Hostility” itself is a vague and subjective term. The guidance continues:
“The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.”
Furthermore, any other person’s perception can be the basis for this, which is even further removed from any real incident, let alone crime.
Finally, the guidance notes:
“Police officers may also identify a non-crime hate incident, even where the victim or others do not.”
Why? It is because:
“Victims … may not be aware that they are a victim of a non-crime hate incident, even though this is clear to others.”
I find this a kind of dystopian, Orwellian, nightmare world. Imagine untangling your way through that; your name, unknown to you, can appear on a database intended for recording details of criminal offences and be subject to checks by vetting officers when you apply for jobs, as we have heard from noble Lords.
I hope noble Lords can see the dangers here. The subjective nature of the NCHI guidelines creates a real possibility of abuse of the system by people acting in bad faith. The NCHI guidance means that unfounded, spurious and malicious reports can be filed and never tested, let alone the fact that this data gathering distracts the police from pursuing real criminals. I was contacted by one person ahead of this debate, who said, “I had a visit from the police because a member of staff offended another member of staff, who works for me. No crime was reported. The police spoke to me for 40 minutes. In the meantime, the 200 pallets that I reported stolen the week before did not generate a phone call or visit.” Then there is the chilling effect of NCHIs on free speech, as other noble Lords have vividly spelled out. NCHIs can act as a threat, a kind of surveillance of free speech, by people who say it will eventually lead to crime. Anyone who is following the fate of gender-critical feminists, who are constantly accused of hate by a particular brand of trans activist, will understand just how damaging that is to free speech.
This Government tell us all the time that they are keen to oppose cancel culture. I fear that these NCHIs inadvertently contribute to that censorious climate of denunciation and the toxic climate of hate, which we are all keen to combat. I therefore urge the Government to consider these amendments carefully and remove this contradictory anomaly, which, I fear, brings the police and criminal law into disrepute.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I was not going to speak on this, because there are much bigger issues coming up later, but I had seen this in a reverse way. It is not completely clear, if you do not have a QC’s training or legal training of any sort, whether this amendment is trying to help or hinder the collection and retention of data.
To me, this seems like a good opportunity to talk about misogyny and other abusive behaviour that falls short of a criminal offence but none the less should be recorded on a person’s police record. The biggest benefit of retaining that data is that it might help in the future investigation of criminal offences. For example, if someone is a notorious misogynist but it has never reached the threshold of criminality, this will help the police’s line of inquiry if said person is later a suspect in a violent attack against a woman. As we all know, the justice system is biased very strongly against women committing crimes.
What I did agree with from all those offering support for the amendment is that proper oversight is absolutely necessary. There should be some regulation about this, because some of the anecdotes mentioned seem ridiculous. I still have not decided whether I support this; it would depend on how it dealt with proper oversight.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was not going to speak to this amendment, but like the noble Baroness who spoke before me, having listened I am so minded. I will study the amendment very carefully, but a balance has to be struck. That is always most difficult on issues of human rights and freedom of speech.
We have to deal with the reality that hate speech, whether intended as hate speech or not, can often incite physical acts of violence. During the pandemic we have seen not only homophobia—as a gay man I have a particular interest in that, but my interest is in all physical hate crimes—but an enormous rise in physical hate crimes, some of them reported as happening on the crowded Underground or in domestic situations, because people are in much closer quarters than they would otherwise be.
My reason for speaking is to add a note of caution about how we proceed. I will study the amendment in detail, as I said, but we must respect that speech that could be defined as hate speech, or perhaps is not, can often encourage individuals to take actions against people who they feel should not be within their communities or do not belong.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendments in this group. Somehow, we have ended up in a position where freedom of speech—a precious part of our way of life—has been seriously constrained by something the police have invented themselves around perceptions of hostility. I find it incomprehensible that the Government have allowed the police to carve out this territory unchecked. Why has the College of Policing—a wholly unaccountable body—been allowed to invent a wholly new form of recording of behaviour that, by definition, is not criminal? Can my noble friend the Minister explain how we got here?
The recording of non-crime hate incidents is not trivial. It drains police resources from the other things they should be doing: reducing knife crime; actually solving crimes rather than recording them; or making women feel safe on our streets—just a few of the things that ordinary people think are more important. As we have heard, those who have non-crime hate incidents recorded against them are often completely unaware that it has happened, which, if nothing else, is a denial of justice. The information can be kept indefinitely and, most chillingly, can be reported to third parties under the Disclosure and Barring Service. This means that the police have created for themselves the ability to wreck people’s careers.
We live in a society where the expression of views that others disagree with is becoming dangerous. The case of Dr Kathleen Stock is the latest example of this. Disagreement is too often and too rapidly equated with hate or hostility. The mere existence of non-crime hate reporting fuels this intolerance. The police are actively encouraging non-crime hate reporting by giving a platform to people who claim to be offended by the views of others. It is a cancer in our society that we should eliminate before it becomes dangerously pervasive.
Amendment 106 is a complex amendment and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Moylan for his clear introduction of it. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not hide behind a critique of the amendment but engage positively with the substance of the issues that my noble friend and others have raised.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Having listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, read out as to the current guidance given by the College of Policing, and given the balance referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, it seems that the very first thing is that the guidance should be scrapped. It should not be waiting for the conclusion of this rather long-winded Bill. Somebody should be getting in touch with the college and either telling those there not to give any guidance at all or getting the Government to tell them in the meantime the sort of guidance that could go forward pending this excellent amendment, which I support.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I did not participate in Second Reading on the Bill, but I did get some correspondence that explained to me what was going on, and I just could not believe it. I am not going to repeat the arguments which were so eloquently put by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the supporters of the amendment but I could not believe it. As an employer, I am required to do criminal record checks and if I got a response that said someone was guilty of hate crime, I am afraid their application would go straight in the bin. Yet we discover that people can be put on such a list without their knowledge, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, and that their name will stay there indefinitely. That of course does not apply to people who have actually been convicted of crimes, so they are in the worst of all positions.
Then there is the arbitrary nature of this recording, so I wondered how big a problem this is. I am told that there have been 119,934 of these incidents recorded by 34 police forces and that 2,130 of them were done by children. It is extraordinary that this could be happening and is part of a wider concern where our free speech is being undermined. I went on Twitter; I think I lasted about three months. I have spent 40 years offending and upsetting people with the things that I said. So far as I know, I am not on a list as having committed a hate crime.
However, the essence of our democracy is that there should be free speech and that our police should be in the business of finding out what the evidence is, not turning into the people who conclude and are, in effect, prosecutors. I will not detain the House but among the examples given was someone who expressed the view that trans women should not have access to women-only spaces. Well, I believe that; is it a hate crime? Am I not allowed to say that? The fact that someone could be put on such a list indefinitely offends against our democracy.
I am sure my noble friend the Minister will have a brief, because all Ministers always do. I am sure she will have her brief from the Home Office—I worked in the Home Office for a while—and it will say that the amendment is not perfectly drafted and that some provision elsewhere could cover it, and all the rest. I hope she will throw that away and give an undertaking not only to bring forward a government amendment but, this very day, to get on to the College of Policing and end this absolute outrage.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I think I am probably quite woke, and proud to be so; none the less, I support the broad thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, subject to a couple of caveats. The first caveat is a slightly light-hearted one. As a serial offender, I gently say to noble Lords and friends across the Committee that the overuse of adjectives named for great writers does not always help the cause of human rights. We have all done it: “Dickensian” for socioeconomic rights and “Orwellian” or even “Kafkaesque” for civil liberties. “Chilling” is similar. In fact, an online wit once said of my overuse of these terms: “That Chakrabarti woman finds everything chilling. She sees refrigerators everywhere.” That is just a gentle point about the way we frame this.
I support the broad thrust of this, but the problem is not just about allegations of hate. It is about soft information, as it is sometimes called, or allegations that are not capable of sustaining a criminal charge and should not sit on databases for years and years, or indefinitely. This problem has been growing for many years with the rise of the database state and the potential to hold all sorts of data, even if it never matures into a charge. That is dangerous.
In my previous role as director of Liberty, I saw many cases of this kind. Not all involved free speech. I remember one woman who had allowed her small children to play in the park while she went to a kiosk, and people thought they were unattended. She was cautioned by the police because she was at the borderline, they thought, of neglect, but there was no question of pursuing a charge. None the less, this data sat around for years and was hugely detrimental to her when she sought to work in positions of care.
This is not just about the glorious culture wars that have got everyone to their feet today. It is not about your views on trans inclusion or not, but about whether so-called soft information or police intelligence that never matures into a charge should sit unregulated, off the statute book, as a matter of police discretion and administration. Whatever our views on the free speech point, we surely have to agree with procedural point that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was right to make clear.
I remind noble Lords that free speech is a two-way street. It is not just about the woke and so-called cancel culture; it is also about protesters who feel that they attend demonstrations and sit on police databases for many years just because they have been caught on CCTV. We in your Lordships’ House would do a great service to the nation if, whenever we consider these so-called culture wars that centre around identity politics and in particular free speech, we remember that it is a two-way street. It is people on either side of very contentious arguments who sometimes want to “cancel” each other, and we should remember that.
My final point is a substantive one about the way I urge the Minister to take this forward. Given that the concern is about not just hate incidents but all soft information that may be held indefinitely, can the Minister’s response today—or on Report, with, I hope, substantive government safeguards—be comprehensive and address not just non-crime hate incidents but all soft intelligence and all police data about individuals that could be to their detriment going forward, whether it touches on free speech rights or other rights such as Article 8 rights to privacy and autonomy? Can this soft information that has been held administratively by the police be on the statute book and brought under proper regulation and control?
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, the issue is very simple. We surely have to decide whether hate crime and non-hate crime, and all their different manifestations, should be left to police guidance, or whether the issue is far more important than that and should be brought under the process of Parliament—legislative control and legislative process. To me, the answer is perfectly clear: the latter.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, I shall attempt to be very brief indeed. My understanding of the law is that it should bring about a degree of certainty in society and a degree of reconciliation. I fear that the Bill as it stands does neither: in fact, it does the opposite. It has the perverse impact of making division and intolerance more likely because it points the finger of accusation at people who have done no wrong. As such, it seems to me to be an intrusion too far. The perverse consequence of trying to stamp out hate plays into the hands of the oversensitive and the intolerant, and actually gives strength to those who want to damage others by making outlandish or, indeed, even malicious accusations.
Two weeks ago, we stood in this House paying tribute to Sir David Amess. The Chamber was filled with voices of alarm that social media and everything else had fuelled intolerance and injustice. These provisions might well be misused to pour petrol on those flames. The test of innocent until proven guilty is turned on its head: that is unacceptable. When officialdom is given the power to police the thoughts of the people, it crosses a dangerous line. I have said enough; I said I would be brief, but I am following in the footsteps of some very powerful speeches. I wholeheartedly support these amendments, and I hope that the Government and the Minister are in listening mode.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a point about something that is not directly related, but which I found quite odd. A few weeks ago, I was arrested for speeding. It was the first time in 40 years that I had actually done anything wrong while driving. Interestingly, the notice I received clearly said that the fact that I had no other points on my licence was irrelevant because that would be unfair to others. I do not understand how, if you have been a good guy and have never done anything wrong, that cannot be a positive factor, yet in this Bill we are accusing people and putting them immediately in the negative, even though there is no serious proof. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I too support these amendments, for all the reasons given by the noble Lords who tabled them. Of course, the principal amendment seeks regulations and lacks specificity. It does not seek to define all the circumstances for retaining, recording, using or disclosing personal data relating to hate crimes or non-criminal hate incidents or otherwise. That is sensible, and it is now for the Government to accept the principles that underly this amendment and come forward with proposals. Of course, I accept the caution which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, brings to the question of regulations that are unamendable; nevertheless, this is a complex area that needs a complex response.
The principles engaged are important. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out, this amendment is not concerned with established hate crime or in any sense with defending hate crime. It starts from the principle that personal data deserves protection from the arbitrary retention, use and disclosure by the police, enforcement agencies and authorities generally, and the converse principle that disclosure should be subject to the rule of law and to principles of accountability—points made by many in this debate, and briefly but eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, a few moments ago.
The conduct with which these amendments are concerned is not provably, still less proved, criminal—a point made by many. They seek to control the arbitrary retention, use and disclosure of personal information, based on a subjective perception of a citizen’s motivation, in the absence of solid evidence or proof. It is subjective, one notes, because it is often based on the subjective view of another citizen—no better informed, necessarily, than the citizen about whom the information is then held.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, spoke on the basis that subsection (7) was in a different category from the rest of the clause. I prefer the way that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, put it, when he set out the principles that underlay the whole of this amendment. It is not often that I find myself agreeing with almost everybody in the House, including, at one and the same time, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—but I do. Even on this occasion, although I understand the hesitations voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, she and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, accepted the need for regulation in this area.
The amendment is directed at achieving sensible limitations on the retention, use and disclosure of data to others. This is an area where the Government ought to act and that has become controversial, with the emergence of guidelines that are, frankly, offensive to justice and parliamentary democracy. I therefore invite the Minister—I believe that I speak for the House in doing so—to return to the House with proposals that accept the principles that we have enunciated and will give rise to amendment of the Bill, to its vast improvement.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, it is unusual to have such unanimity across the House in Committee on something that is superficially a very complex matter. I agree with two noble Lords in particular. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was very succinct: he said that the information that the police retain should be subject to parliamentary or government control and not to police guidance. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in being cautious about regulation and having a full role for Parliament in any rules that are introduced.
I am sure that this is a very complex matter. I have just been wondering whether, in my role as a sitting magistrate in London, I would see this information. I obviously routinely see the police national computer—PNC—list, which includes convictions, cautions and bail conditions. If we go ahead and have a “bad character” application for a trial, additional information may be disclosed to us—to do with allegations of, say, a domestic abuse nature.
I was also thinking about my role sitting as a magistrate in family court, where I routinely see allegations that have not been substantiated in any court but have been recorded over many years in social services reports. I think that it is right that I see those allegations when we as a court are making decisions about the way that children should be treated in the context of a family court.
I give those two examples, which are different to what noble Lords have spoken about, to acknowledge the complexity of the situation with which we are dealing. I am sympathetic to the points that have been made by noble Lords, but I am also sympathetic to the Government addressing this with an open mind. I will listen with great interest to what the noble Baroness says about whether they propose bringing back any amendments at a later stage of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which has been very constructive. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for tabling the amendments. I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for promoting the need for balance, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his concluding words.
I say at the outset that the Government do not disagree with my noble friend’s view that people should not be inhibited from saying what they think, provided that it does not transgress the legal framework that this Parliament has put in place. Noble Lords would all be concerned if the activities of the police were—even if inadvertently and quite possibly for the best of motives—having an adverse effect on particular individuals who had committed no crime. If that possibility were having a chilling effect, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, or causing people to temper their quite lawful remarks, that would be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
That is my starting point. I will try to set out some of the background to the issues raised by the amendments that are before noble Lords. My noble friend Lady Noakes asked: how have we got here? It is a key legacy of the Macpherson inquiry, set up to consider the issues surrounding the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and is intended to give the police the means to understand tensions within communities before they escalate to serious harm.
As the name implies, the data pertains to incidents that are not crimes. It can include location data to know where repeat incidents of apparent tension and hostility might occur—for example, outside a place of worship. In this respect, the data is vital for helping the police build intelligence to understand where they must target resources to prevent serious crimes that may later occur. The importance of such intelligence has been illustrated where its use could have prevented real harm. The tragic case of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter, subjected to persistent hate and abuse and where the police failed to draw the links to repeated incidents of harassment, is a prime example.
Of course, non-crime hate incidents may also include the collection of personal data. Some of these records will include an accusation of hate crime that has been made against a person but was not proven. I know there has been concern that such data might appear in enhanced criminal record checks, which are required for jobs such as working with children and vulnerable adults, and that a person could be inappropriately disadvantaged for expressing a sentiment that is in no way criminal.
Precisely to guard against that possibility, the disclosure of non-conviction data in such checks is covered by statutory guidance issued by the Home Office to chief officers of police. This makes it clear that the police should disclose such information only after careful consideration and when it is proportionate and relevant to the job in question. Data of this kind can be disclosed only on the say-so of a senior officer, who should also consider whether the individual concerned should be given the opportunity to make the case that the information is not shared. Individuals also have the right to request an independent monitor to carry out a review of whether information is relevant to the role for which they are applying.
In practice, it is rare for the police to disclose non-conviction information of any kind: only 0.1% of enhanced certificates included such information in 2019-20. However, I fully understand that the public are concerned with how the collection of non-crime hate incident data might infringe fundamental liberties, particularly free expression, and may harm a person’s future prospects. However, I do not think that it is as simple as saying that the issue could be resolved through the introduction of more stringent regulations governing the processing and disclosure of data. We need to avoid unintended consequences through any reform of this practice. First, we need to ensure that we do not tie the hands of police in collecting the non-personal location data that I describe, and which can be vital in building an understanding of hotspots where serious harm might occur; this takes us back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, about balance.
Secondly, it is important to remember that the process of determining whether a crime has occurred is not always linear or simple. While the law on hate crime is clear, the process of determining whether an offence was committed may not be. The use of non-crime incident recording can exist in the grey space between the police making initial inquiries and making records such as this, and a decision to take no further action due to lack of evidence, or where a suspect cannot be identified. Non-crime hate incident records often form part of the normal record-keeping of early criminal investigations.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am not a lawyer, but can the Minister explain why she thinks that this is a matter for the College of Policing and not for Parliament and the Government?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am simply pointing out that the Home Secretary has been in touch with the College of Policing to see if this issue can be improved and reformed further. I was saying, “Let’s count nothing in and nothing out.” I hope that my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean will take comfort in my right honourable friend the Home Secretary having identified a problem for which she is seeking a solution.
There will be more to be said in the coming months, but I hope that for now I have said enough to reassure my noble friend Lord Moylan and that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend invited the House to wait and see. Can she give us some idea of how long that wait might be?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can certainly promise my noble friend and noble Lords who have been involved in the debate this afternoon that I will go back and see if I can put a timeframe on it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, when I tabled these amendments, I had no idea that they would find universal approbation in all parts of the House or attract the support of so many distinguished legal figures. It is quite humbling to look at the list and see my noble friends Lord Sandhurst and Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—all highly distinguished figures in one department of the law or another. Indeed, I may have missed some speakers whose careers I am not equally familiar with. They are all united on two fairly straightforward points: first, that the operation of the current system of recording can cause genuine harm, unjustly, to particular individuals; and secondly, that this process should be subject to statutory and parliamentary supervision. Really, that is the essence of the entire case for supporting these amendments.
There were many speeches, for which I am grateful. I do not have time to thank everybody but it was an excellent debate, with speeches made by many people who, like myself, do not have any pretensions to legal expertise, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Dobbs, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—
Lord Moylan (Con)
Did I make a mistake there? Sorry. I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken.
I particularly draw attention to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. They both made a very important point, which is that it can be useful to the police in preventing crime in the future to have access to this information and, in certain cases, to retain it. I do not pretend that the drafting of the regulations envisaged by these amendments is going to be simple. It will have to take account of the important points that they made. But these amendments do not prejudge the weight to be given to those various factors when the Government come to draw up the guidance envisaged. I am very sympathetic to the points they made.
I would like to give everybody a gold star for their speeches, except possibly my noble friend on the Front Bench, who sadly struggled; it is a matter of bitter regret to me that goes to my heart. My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean put his finger on this: she struggled to explain, and did not really even attempt to explain, why these provisions should not be the subject of statutory supervision. She gave an example of harassment of an individual as to why this information should be retained. In my explanation of the amendment, I tried to point out that it would not affect harassment of individuals in individual cases. But if she feels that is not sufficiently clear in the amendment, I would be happy to accept further amendments from the Government that would make it abundantly clear. I hope that deals with one of the points she made.
My noble friend also said—and this is always an argument for doing nothing—that we must beware of unintended consequences of more stringent regulation. We have not asked for more stringent regulation or indeed for less stringent regulation; we have simply asked for proper regulation by properly constituted bodies. We are leaving it very much in the hands of the Home Office and my noble friend to come forward with something that they think appropriate.
I am very encouraged—if I can give some consolation to my noble friend—by her remark that her colleague the Home Secretary recognises that there is a problem and that some indication of some possibility of action was implied by that. Taking heart from that comment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“An officer of the department of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for an officer of the department of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to be an authorised person for the purposes of Clause 36.
“The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner.A person designated by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner under paragraph 7B(1) of Schedule 4 to the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 (asp 10).An officer appointed by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland under section 56(1) or (1A) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner in Scotland, persons designated by the Commissioner in Scotland and persons appointed by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to be authorised persons for the purposes of Clause 36.
“Bail and primary carers
(1) Section 4 of the Bail Act 1976 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (9), insert—“(10) Where a court determines whether to grant bail in criminal proceedings to a person to whom this section applies who is a primary carer for a child or pregnant, the court must—(a) consider the impact of not granting bail on the child or unborn child; and(b) presume (subject to victim impact or other relevant considerations) that it is in the best interests of the child or unborn child for bail to be granted.(11) In this section—(a) “child” means a person under the age of 18, and(b) “primary carer” means a person who has primary or substantial care responsibilities for a child.””Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause reflects the requirement for judge to consider the impact of not granting bail on a child when determining, in criminal proceedings, whether to grant bail to a primary carer of a dependent child.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I am pleased to move this amendment, which has the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. I am grateful for the knowledge and wisdom they will bring to the debate. I declare an interest as Anglican Bishop for Her Majesty’s Prisons in England and Wales and president of the Nelson Trust.
The sentencing of a primary carer can have a serious detrimental impact on the rights of a child and their life chances, yet the fact that they are a primary carer is not consistently considered by the court making the sentencing decision. Amendment 110 would require judges to consider the impact on a child of the decision of not granting bail when determining in criminal proceedings whether to grant bail to a primary carer of that dependent child. Amendments 215 to 217 aim to address inconsistencies in sentencing by requiring judges and magistrates to give due regard to the impact of a sentence on any dependent children and their welfare when sentencing a primary carer. The intention of Amendment 218 is to gather the relevant data about the number of prisoners who are primary carers and the number of children who have a primary carer in custody. Given that there are five amendments here, I hope noble Lords will bear with me.
I know other noble Lords will cover in greater detail the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the rights of children whose primary carer is in prison be upheld. In the vast majority of cases, the primary carer is the mother, and this will be my point of reference today. However, I acknowledge that for some children the primary carer may be someone else. My starting point with these amendments is not that primary carers—mothers in the most part—should never be given a custodial sentence. It is instead that we must find a way for the least harm to be caused as a consequence of sentencing. Custodial sentences for mothers punish children, including the unborn, and that is not justice.
I believe not only that every person is created precious and with unique potential but that we are created as people of relationships and that perfect wholeness and harmony—shalom—is about everything in a perfect interdependent relationship: humanity and all creation; of course, I would add, rooted in God. If we want a criminal justice system which is about justice, safety, transformation and the flourishing of individuals, communities and society, we have to attend to the whole picture of relationships—the whole system, and indeed, the long term. If we are to strengthen family ties, reduce reoffending and disrupt intergenerational cycles of abuse, trauma and offending, there must be consideration of where and how a mother serves her sentence.
So often prison is not able to meet the rehabilitative needs of the people who are sent there and will also not be about enabling the better safety of the public or strengthening communities and society. Many women are often in prison for only a few weeks. The majority of women are there for less than six months and, according to the Prison Reform Trust:
“72% of women who entered prison under sentence in 2020 have committed a non-violent offence.”
Alternative community-based provision must be available, well funded and trusted by those making sentencing decisions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate. My name comes after hers on this amendment, and I strongly support what she has said. This is a very important set of amendments and I really hope the Government will take the opportunity that they give. The right reverend Prelate is not saying that those who have primary caring responsibility, or where an unborn child is involved, would get a free pass in relation to the sentencing regime or the bail regime. She is saying, with these carefully thought-out amendments, that there have to be proper arrangements for the courts to take these matters into account and recognise that they are a significant factor in many cases in determining a sentence.
If I could just take the Committee through these amendments, Amendment 110 says that where a court is considering whether to grant bail to somebody—that is, somebody who is not convicted of any criminal offence—they should have regard to the impact of not granting bail on a child for whom the defendant is the primary carer, or an unborn child, and that the court should presume, subject to victim impact or other relevant considerations, that it is in the best interests of the child or unborn child for bail to be granted. The right reverend Prelate is saying, “Weight the scales in favour of granting bail where there is a child for whom the defendant is the primary carer, or there is an unborn child.” That is sensible and should be the approach anyway.
Coming to the right reverend Prelate’s four other amendments, Amendment 215, which comes after Clause 131, says that the court should be under an obligation, through pre-sentencing inquiries, to discover whether the defendant is a primary carer for a child. That is obviously sensible, and no court would want to be in ignorance of that should it be sentencing somebody who is a primary carer. Amendment 216 says that where the defendant is a primary carer, the court must give reasons as to how it has dealt with the issue of primary caring. Again, that seems to be common sense. Amendment 217 says that where a court is considering imposing a custodial sentence on a primary carer or a pregnant woman, it must consider the impact of a custodial sentence on the child or unborn child and presume it will be detrimental to them. Amendment 218 would make sure that proper data is collected so that the criminal justice system is aware of the extent to which primary carers are imprisoned.
These amendments would mean that the interests of the child of which the defendant is the primary carer, or an unborn child, have to be explicitly considered and they are a weight—in many cases, a very considerable weight—in the scales. If we put these amendments into the Bail Act 1976 or the Sentencing Act 2020, which is where the right reverend Prelate is proposing they go, it will have an impact on sentencing. It is not enough, and it is a complacent view, as the Human Rights Committee found, to say, “Don’t worry; the judge has already taken it into account, it is referred to in the sentencing guidelines.” The evidence before the Human Rights Committee is that that was not the case. Put it into the Sentencing Act, as these amendments propose, and we will find that it then becomes a much harder thing for a court to avoid; it should be thinking of the rights of the child of which the defendant is the primary carer, or an unborn child. This is a significant opportunity for the Committee to make this Bill better, and I strongly support the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are about ensuring the best interests and welfare of the child. We must remember that children are those under 18, not just little ones. The arguments have been admirably set out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. It is an honour to follow them both.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I have a brief point to make. I find a great deal of attraction in the thinking behind the new clause. It has great force and has been eloquently moved. But the question I ask myself is: if one is going to extend these provisions to the primary carer of children, what about others for whom the primary carer is in charge? What about the vulnerable, the educationally challenged, the disabled and the aged? Once you begin to accept that the interests of the primary carer for children should be addressed in the way contemplated by the new clause, there is a lot to be said for widening its scope so that it applies to primary carers across the spectrum.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the principle of these amendments. I warmly welcome what the Government are trying to do to roll back the use of prison for women. Everyone accepts that sending a woman to prison is generally something to be avoided at all costs. We need alternative provision as quickly as possible. However, we all know that this will take time. We have to deal with the situation in the interim.
In considering these amendments, I am acutely conscious of the burden that legislation is placing on the judiciary. One has only to read the Sentencing Code to realise what Parliament is actually doing to the judiciary in terms of complexity. However, what is important about the role of Parliament is to set out the principles. If I might try to answer the question raised by the noble Viscount, it is the interests of the child that we need to put at the heart of sentencing. We have put other interests there, but we need clearly to specify that one of the factors judges must take into account, whether on bail or in sentencing, is the interests of the child. Extensive work has been done in Wales and elsewhere: modern research shows that imprisoning a mother has a very serious effect.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord is saying, but I am not sure I see the distinction in principle between having regard to the interests of a child—I accept that that is a very important consideration—and having regard to a vulnerable old person, or a person with serious educational disabilities. It seems to me that all of them are equally worthy of consideration in statute if you go down this particular road.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
If I might attempt to answer the noble Viscount’s question, paramount importance is given to the interests of the child because evidence has shown that, where there is abuse of children and where mothers are imprisoned, you pass on criminality to a new generation. That is the distinguishing factor. I therefore very much hope that we can look at these amendments for the principle. I am possibly not as keen as others on the detail, for the reasons I have given, but we need to show that one of the fundamental principles of sentencing is to take into account, through the interests of the carer, the interests of the child.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend who has just spoken that there is a principle here that needs to be considered rather than the granularity of these amendments. Indeed, I would say to the noble Viscount that, although we should try to achieve the protection of all people who are vulnerable, you cannot do everything at once. It is the whole of the life of the child in front of them that is affected if a parent is in prison.
The right reverend Prelate moved these amendments eloquently. I will say, very respectfully, that I think she omitted one or two key elements. These may lead one to the conclusion that we do not need quite complicated amendments but can achieve her aims, which I share, by a simpler method that is more evolutionary in its process. I might perhaps raise a couple of specifics. First, the information that the right reverend Prelate referred to is sometimes simply not before the court. That is because legal aid does not now provide solicitors with the earning potential—and it is not a high earning potential—to go out and investigate the reality of a child’s position. This means that the necessary information may not get in front of the court at all.
I had a conversation some time ago with somebody who was working as a manager of excluded primary school children in one of the London boroughs. She told me that she often rang the solicitors for 11 year-olds right at the top of the primary sector, or sometimes when they had just moved from the primary sector, to ask if they were aware of certain aspects of the child’s life—and they had no idea. They do not have the resources to make those inquiries. Furthermore, when cases come before the court, it is nowadays very rare in the Crown Court for a solicitor to be there instructing counsel in such cases, and, in the nature of the profession and the fees payable, counsel may have received the brief only the night before, and it may be a very junior counsel. These are the practical issues that judges encounter all the time.
I want also to say something about judges; I have a family interest in this, which I will not go into in great detail, despite the urgings of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. It is this: judges should be given credit for understanding the problems that the right reverend Prelate raised; she perhaps did not quite get there. Judges, many of whom are mothers themselves, hear these cases and understand perfectly well. They do not need a statute to tell them that it is not in the interests of a child for that child’s mother to be sent to prison .They do everything they can—on the basis of the information they are given, which may give rise to the real problem—to ensure that, if at all possible, a woman who has primary caring responsibility for a child is not sent to prison.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting. The right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 215 says:
“A court must make inquiries to establish whether the offender is a primary carer for a child”,
and, if those inquiries suggest that the defendant is a primary carer, then, according to the amendment, the court has to direct a pre-sentence report on the circumstances of the child. Does the noble Lord object to that burden on the courts?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I do not object to that burden on the courts, but I am surprised that it has to be placed upon the court. My view is that that sort of report should be part of the process when a young mother, for example, appears before the court. Mechanisms already exist that can ensure that such information is given. I am saying that we can achieve the same purpose more simply—for example, by the use of the Sentencing Council, if it is asked to concentrate on these issues.
I simply add this. The last statistics I have seen for women in prison, for 2020, show that 3.4% of prisoners are women. This is the lowest percentage it has ever been, and it is continuing to fall because the courts absolutely understand what those who tabled these worthy amendments are saying.
When the Minister replies, I hope he may be able to provide reassurance that the ends of these amendments will be achieved but in a more flexible way that can evolve over time, rather than by slightly clunky statutory provisions that, in my view, should not be necessary. Do we really need an Act of Parliament to ensure that courts give proper account to the paramount interests of children, which my noble and learned friend referred to a few moments ago?
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to make a short contribution to fully and strongly support the amendments. I declare my interests in the register, particularly as a trustee and vice-chair of the Prison Reform Trust. I first compliment the opening address by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and fully associate myself with the arguments she made in opening this debate.
I will briefly give some background to these amendments. Following the publication in 2009 of my independent report to government on mental health, learning disabilities and the criminal justice system, a programme to establish liaison and diversion services across the country was commenced. This has continued to this day, supported by all Governments, with 100% geographical coverage of the country now achieved.
These services are based in police stations and courts and are made up of multidisciplinary teams comprising mental health nurses, learning disability nurses, speech and language therapists and other disciplines working together with drug and alcohol staff to assess the needs of the arrested person to determine whether it is appropriate to divert them away from the criminal justice system, depending on the nature of the offence, or to help and support the police in determining whether they should be charged. If they are charged, this assessment information passes through to the courts and, in partnership with the court staff and probation staff, they try to ensure that a more comprehensive picture of the often complex needs of the individual is available in the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court at first appearance.
However, one crucial piece of information that is not necessarily available—for a variety of reasons that we have already heard in this debate—is whether the offender, most often when it is a woman offender, is a primary carer. In January 2021, I asked a Parliamentary Written Question about
“how many children were taken into care because their mother was given a custodial sentence in each of the last five years”.
Extraordinarily, the answer was that the data requested is not something that Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service records. It went on to say:
“In practice, it is Local Authorities overseen by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government … who are responsible for delivering operational support to families on child safeguarding, including for children affected by parental imprisonment.”
It further stated that the Ministry of Justice
“acknowledges that parental separation due to imprisonment disproportionately affects women. Individual women’s prisons”—
I have visited all of them over the recent past—
“collect information on caring responsibilities at the point of reception”
into prison.
There are many problems with this reply, but it essentially confirms the siloing of the information on primary carers away from the criminal justice system, and that first knowledge of such caring responsibilities is at prison reception. That is simply too late, as the damage to the family is already in train; we know that about a third of women in the prison population are on remand, and that, on 2019 figures, 33% of women remanded by magistrates’ courts and 40% by Crown Courts, did not receive a custodial sentence. We also know that about 50% of women were sentenced as we have already heard this evening, to fewer than six months in prison. Surely, therefore, as this group of amendments makes clear, by collecting this information on whether the offender is a primary carer—predominantly women, but also sometimes men—and ensuring that the judiciary properly considers this information and the best interests of the child, the damage to the family that remand and short custodial sentences inflict can be mitigated against.
Each of these five amendments contributes to this outcome, particularly pre-sentence reports, but it is important to stress that it is essential that pre-sentence reports are available to the court for all offenders, as this is a primary means through which sentencers can be informed of dependent children. This is clearly not the case at the moment, but sentencing legislation directs that sentencers must obtain a pre-sentence report for all cases unless they deem it to be unnecessary and are transparent in that decision.
As the charity Women in Prison identified in its supplementary evidence to the Justice Select Committee, the evidence from Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service showed that there was a decline in pre-sentence report volumes over the past decade. For example:
“In 2010, pre-sentence reports were received for 62% of all court disposals reducing to 53% in 2018. Therefore, almost half (47%) of sentences which result in a custodial or community order have no new PSR prepared to inform the sentence.”
Furthermore:
“There is a lack of data to disaggregate these figures according to gender and in answer to a parliamentary question in 2019, the Government could not say how many women in England and Wales had been imprisoned without a PSR.”
This is totally unacceptable. I hope that the new focus on this issue by the reconstituted national probation service will quickly achieve better results.
As a committed member of the Government’s advisory board on female offenders, I am pleased that the agreed strategy, which we have heard something about already today, includes strongly advocating for effective community sentences with continued investment in local women’s centres, as recommended by my noble friend Lady Corston in her groundbreaking report some years ago. Such an approach would help to ensure the successful completion of the community sentences and, crucially, would also ensure that children are not unnecessarily taken into care, that the primary carer does not lose their home or their employment, and that family responsibilities and commitments are protected.
I believe that the role of the liaison and diversion services can play a real part in helping to collect this information about primary carers, with agreed protocols on information sharing and confidentiality. Its timely presentation at first appearance in the courts will facilitate the reduction in the use of remand, the better use of bail and an increase in the use of community sentences, with the interests of the child and the role of the primary carer transparently considered by the judiciary. I therefore ask the Minister if he would clearly explain the Government’s position regarding primary carers and their children, and I urge the Minister to accept these invaluable amendments.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my fellow trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. The whole House could agree with everything that he said. I thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing these amendments because, again, I do not think that they are, in their thrust, controversial at all.
I have stopped being a sentencer. I was a Crown Court recorder from 1998 until 2015, with a short gap when I was a Minister, and it became an increasingly difficult part of my judicial life. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, I suspect that he may once have been a recorder, but he spent most of his judicial life as a High Court judge, a Court of Appeal judge and the Lord Chief Justice. Essentially, when you get to that great height within the judicial system, you are dealing with life sentences and trying to work out the tariff that a murderer should get. You are not dealing with what a woman, probably in her late teens or early twenties, with a child should receive for her 10th offence of shoplifting—unless, of course, it came to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. I have absolutely no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will have dealt with those sorts of cases on appeal with the attention, intellectual rigour and humanity that we would all have expected of him.
It may only be the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and possibly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who, like me, have sentenced what I might call “ordinary” criminals in the Crown Court. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is of course too modest to mention that his wife, Judge Levitt, now deals with these matters on a daily basis in the Crown Court. But one of the things that recorders and amateur judges like me, who perhaps do four or five weeks in a Crown Court during the course of a year, have to cope with is the sad people—be they men, women, young teenagers or adults—who come before us for repeated low-level but very annoying criminal offences, such as shoplifting in order to fund a drug habit and so forth.
The one thing that we were determined to do—I do not think that this is controversial—is not send people to prison when it would cause more damage than benefit, both to them, as individual defendants, and their children. Remarkably, the older teenagers and young people in their early twenties who had not just one but two or three children were our daily bread and butter, and we were anxious not to send them to prison if we could possibly help it because of the effect that it would have on their children.
I hugely thank two people, one of whom is in this Chamber, for their influence on my coming to understand the difficulties of sentencing and putting people in custody, particularly women. One was James Jones, the former Bishop of Liverpool, who was the right reverend Prelate’s predecessor but one—perhaps her immediate predecessor. The other is the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who, for me, is the source of information about the prison system. If you read his book about it, and the opening chapter, which concentrates on Holloway—now shut, thank God—you will begin to understand just a bit of the difficulties that amateur sentencers, magistrates and Crown Court recorders, but also the equivalent of Judge Levitt, have to cope with, day in, day out. These are anxious decisions about what to do with women and children whose offences are sufficient to cross the threshold for custody—but, if they are sentenced to prison, what collateral damage does that cause to others?
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, for two minutes, I want to throw a pebble into what seems like calm water. I totally support everything that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has said. However, we need to ask ourselves: what is a child? If somebody talks to me socially and says, “Do you have any children?”, I say, “Yes, I have two.” They are grown-up men who flew the nest a long time ago.
However, adults with a learning disability are sometimes cared for by their parents, if they have chosen that the child should not go into care. Their family unit is mum and dad, who are in their 70s or 80s, and somebody with a learning difficulty who might be in their 50s. That is not what we think of as a nuclear family, but we still have to care for the child of those elderly parents, and when one parent dies there are all sorts of problems. Mencap has done a lot of work on this and I have worked with it on it. We really need to be careful about how we legislate for adults who have the mental capacity of a child.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate for not just these amendments but the care and time she gives to compassionate consideration of the criminal justice system generally. I am also grateful to the other authors of this group of amendments. We on these Benches fully support them.
In this House, we have repeatedly stressed the special needs of women in prison and the effect of custody on women and their children. I entirely take the point made by my noble friend Lady Jolly and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that there are others who are cared for who need our concern. In terms of legislation, we have achieved no more than lip service. These amendments would put that right by imposing real duties on courts and judges to gather the necessary information and consider the effect of custody on children in making bail and sentencing decisions for their primary carers.
Duties would be imposed on the Government to collect the data necessary to enable informed decision-making about the effect of imprisoning primary carers on the lives and futures of their children. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that Amendment 218 on data collection could—and should—have gone further than requiring data on the number of prisoners as primary carers and the number and ages of the children affected. For example, it would be helpful to include data as to the arrangements made for looking after those children following the imprisonment of their primary carers. For instance, we should know how many children have to be taken into care, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. We can and should consider that further on Report.
Noble Lords have had the benefit of the excellent briefing from the charity Women in Prison. The statistics it has collated tell a grim story. More than 53,000 children each year are affected by their primary carers being sent to prison and 95% of children whose mother is imprisoned are forced to leave home. One sentence encapsulated it all for me: “We’ve been sentenced,” says a mother, “but they’ve been sentenced with us.”
This point was at the heart of the opening speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. Parental imprisonment is for children a well-recognised predictor of mental ill-health, poor educational attainment and employment prospects, and future criminality for the children concerned. It is often said that criminality runs in families. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said that in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. The extent to which we fail the children of carers in the criminal justice system tends to make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The problem is made worse by the preponderance of short sentences among those passed on women offenders. Some 62% of sentences passed on women are for terms of six months or less, despite all the evidence that such sentences do far more harm than good, that offenders who receive short sentences are generally far more successfully rehabilitated with community sentences than with prison sentences, and that the damage to children of imprisoning their primary carer stems principally from the initial, sudden separation—the loss of home, the loss of parental care, the dramatic changes for children, that follow immediately on parental custody, often without any preparation or warning.
In the Joint Committee on Human Rights 2019 report on children whose mothers are in prison, the committee quoted the 2007 report of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston:
“[t]he effects on the … children every year whose mothers are sent to prison are … nothing short of catastrophic.”
The committee cited the evidence of a girl called Georgia of 15, who I think is the girl whose evidence was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. She said:
“On the day of her trial, I was at home in the living room, dancing to MTV, and I got a phone call from my brother. He said, ‘Mum’s gone’. I thought he was joking. I had to ask him about five times. From being the young girl who was dancing in the living room, I automatically took on my mum’s role. I did not even have time to adjust to the custodial sentence. It just leaped.”
The amendments in this group rightly cover bail—that is Amendment 110—as well as sentencing decisions. The effect upon children of a remand in custody of their primary carer may be even worse than that of a prison sentence. It usually comes at the very beginning of the criminal process, often without any warning at all, and its effect is immediate, devastating, and of uncertain duration. Against that background, it is highly significant, and frankly shaming, that a very high proportion of women remanded in custody—66% of magistrates’ remands, a higher figure than that given by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and 39% of Crown Court remands—do not ultimately lead to a custodial sentence, largely invalidating the original remand decision. Amendment 110 would make bail more likely for primary carers, which would be a real benefit.
For sentencing courts, the duties proposed in Amendments 215 to 217 would lead to an immediate improvement in sentencing practice, as judges complied with these duties imposed by law in the interests of the children, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, stressed, where until now they have been subject only to non-binding sentencing guidelines, a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. For that reason, I disagree with the point expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who questioned whether these amendments were necessary at all. I completely agree with the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that judges and recorders are hugely concerned not to send women who are primary carers for children to prison. But the fact remains that far too many primary carers do get sentenced to prison. I believe that over time, these amendments—because judges and recorders follow the law—would also lead to a general change of culture among the judiciary, and possibly in government as well, preventing courts sending primary carers of children to prison.
Before closing, I will add a word or two about sentencing pregnant women to prison. It is particularly welcome that Amendments 216 and 217 cover the special position of the unborn children of pregnant women facing custody. We have all been appalled by the report last month of Sue McAllister, the Prisons and Probations Ombudsman, into the death of Baby A in September 2019 at HM Prison Bronzefield, and the care of Baby A’s mother in the time leading up to and around her baby’s birth, when she was left alone in her cell—an account also mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. But it should be remembered that Baby A’s mother was described in that report as
“a vulnerable young woman with a complex history who found it difficult to trust people in authority.”
That description can be applied to the majority of pregnant women who find themselves in prison and, indeed, to the majority of young women prisoners. We should take care not to forget that, particularly given that three out of five women in prison have minor children. I urge the Government to respond positively to these amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I should first begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for standing up at the same time as him. I am not sure whether I stood up too quickly or the noble Lord stood up too slowly, but we got there at the same time.
This group of new clauses relates to primary carers in the criminal justice system, and first I thank the right reverend Prelate and noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I know they were proposed in a recent legislative scrutiny report on the Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and this topic has been an area of interest to the Joint Committee during this and previous Parliaments. As set out during debates on the Bill in the other place, the Government support the principle behind these amendments. I hope, therefore, I will be able to provide to the House the reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, asked for. I can assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that we do take these points very seriously. More generally, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that when it comes to our sentencing reforms, we do consider the impact on children. However, the reason the Government do not propose to accept these amendments is that they do not consider them to be necessary, for reasons I will seek to explain.
When sentencing or considering the grant of bail to a defendant who is a primary carer of a child or who is pregnant, courts will consider principles established in relevant case law. There is a wealth of case law on this point. We have heard the contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and I am reluctant to get into the details of criminal law in his presence. But it can perhaps be conveniently found in a case called R v Petherick in 2012—let me give the reference for Hansard: “EWCA Crim 2214”.
In that case, a single mother with a boy of 16 months was convicted—she pleaded guilty—of causing death by dangerous driving and driving with excess alcohol. The court set out nine points of specific and clear guidance—nine principles—which had to be taken into account with regard to sentencing. If I may summarise those in a sentence or two with no disrespect to the court, they make clear that the aims of custody have to be balanced against the effect that a sentence can have on others. That is the case both with regard to sentencing and with regard to pretrial detention. When I say, “on others,” this point is not limited to children, as a number of contributions to this debate have highlighted—particularly those from my noble friend Lord Hailsham, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and, again, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. It does have broader application, and the court will obviously want to consider the effect of custody or pretrial detention on others who are dependent on the person who might go to prison. This is a point, therefore, with more general application.
I have talked about sentencing and remand in custody. When it comes to sentencing, the principles I have just set out, in broad terms, are reflected in detailed sentencing guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Council. Courts are required by law to follow those guidelines, and the guidelines specify that being a “Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives” is a mitigating factor when sentencing an offender. The effect, therefore, is that the fact that the primary carer is such can tip the scales. What would otherwise have been a proportionate sentence if it was a sentence to custody can, if the person is a primary carer, become disproportionate. It can tip the scales.
As we heard from my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, to whom I am grateful for his kind words, recorders and judges give—to use his word—anxious consideration as to whether a custodial sentence is required. Again, the position in law can be summarised like this: a custodial sentence can be imposed only where the court is satisfied that an offence, or combination of offences, is so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified. Even where a court is of the opinion that the seriousness of an offence would ordinarily warrant a custodial sentence, it still has discretion to impose a community sentence after taking into account wider considerations. Community sentences are part of the important background to this debate. I think we will come to them later on in the Bill and I look forward to the thorough endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, of our proposals on community sentences, given what he said in this debate. That is the position with regard to sentencing.
On defendants awaiting trial, there is a general right to bail unless it is necessary for the protection of the public or the delivery of justice that the defendant be remanded in custody. A defendant accused of an imprisonable offence can be refused bail only where there is specific justification for that refusal, as specified in legislation. A number of noble Lords talked about the information which is available to the court about the personal circumstances of the defendant. The bail information report includes information about the direct effects on an individual and any dependants, should they be remanded in custody.
With regard to pre-sentence reports, which were also mentioned, guidance was introduced in 2019 for probation practitioners, in addition to the legislation already in place, which sets out that a request to the court for an adjournment in order to prepare a pre-sentence report is considered mandatory in cases involving primary carers with responsibilities for children or other dependants, and for those at risk of custody. An aide-memoire highlighting key areas for practitioners to consider when assessing the diverse needs of women in the context of offending was also issued in 2019 to assist probation practitioners to prepare those pre-sentence reports on women. We are currently running a pilot in 15 magistrates’ courts that specifically targets female offenders, as well as two other cohorts which have specific needs, for fuller written pre-sentence reports.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, spoke about the importance of the courts giving reasons why they were refusing bail, for example, or sentencing somebody to custody. That duty is, with respect, unnecessary to impose on courts because they are already required by law to state in open court their reasons for deciding on a sentence. Moreover, where there are dependent children, sentencing guidelines, as I have said, require the courts to consider the impact on them at various points in the sentencing process. That is the effect of Section 52(1) and (2) of the Sentencing Code.
I turn to data, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, made points. I underline the point again from the Dispatch Box that data is critical. My noble and learned friend was very kind, but the fact is that I am quite keen on data. I am not the only person in the Government who is, but I certainly am.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that we have already committed to improving our work on data collection concerning primary carers in prison. That work is already under way. We already collect information on parental responsibilities but the current questions do not identify dependent children of primary carers using the correct definitions. We are therefore making changes to the questions to enable us to identify prisoners with primary carer responsibilities on their entry to prison, and to enable access to that information centrally—a point made, I think, by the right reverend Prelate.
We are already looking at how we can deliver our commitment to improve national data collection through changes to what is called the basic custody screening tool. That is completed shortly after somebody goes into prison and we want to capture more robust and reliable data on parental responsibilities. Responding to earlier reports from the Joint Committee, the Government have committed to collecting more data centrally and using that to inform policy and improve our services for prisoners with primary caring responsibilities.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The first report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2021 details in section 2 the concern expressed by the committee in 2019 that there was no data about carers who were in prison. The Government gave an assurance that they would do something about it in 2019. The committee produced another report in 2020, saying “You’re still not collecting that material”, and a Minister gave another assurance. In 2021, the committee wrote a third report—this report, containing these suggestions—saying that none of the previous assurances has been complied with. Why should we accept the assurances the Minister is now giving in relation to the 2021 report, when all previous assurances given to that committee have not been complied with, as detailed by the committee in its report, and as the Ministry of Justice has not denied?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Work still has to be done, of course, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that we are doing more than we have done before. As I have tried to explain, we have put in place a process to identify what we need to collect and how we are going to do it. One must also take into account—the noble Lord who made this point will forgive me for not remembering who did so—that it can be difficult to get this information from people in prison. Some people do not want to provide information about dependent children and others who rely on them. I am not using that as an excuse, but one has to be alive to that point as part of the data collection service. All I can say to the noble and learned Lord is that I have this firmly in my sights. In this part of the criminal justice system, as, I would say, in others, data is really important and I am certainly focused on it.
I was going to make one other point on data, which I hope the noble and learned Lord will be pleased to hear. We will also consider not just the collection of data but what data can be published. It might be that not all data we collect can be published because of confidentiality issues, but we will certainly ensure that we publish what we can.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
This is a separate point. Amendment 215 would require the court to
“make inquiries to establish whether the offender is a primary carer for a child”
and, if it discovers that the defendant is, to then order a pre-sentence report about the circumstances of that child and the impact. Is the Minister asserting that that provision is currently in the sentencing guidelines?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I hope I made that clear earlier; let me go back to my notes. I do not want to mislead the noble and learned Lord. As I understand it, the position is this: guidance was introduced in 2019 for probation practitioners, in addition to the legislation in place, which sets out that a request to the court for an adjournment in order to prepare a pre-sentence report is considered mandatory in cases involving primary carers with responsibility for children or dependants. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am not disputing what the Minister says, but I read him as saying that that position is not reflected in guidance. He is saying something different: that if somebody asks for an adjournment to make inquiries, one has to be granted. That is obviously different from the amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I was going to come to the detail of pre-sentence reports a little later. Let me come to that and if the question is still alive, I will give way again.
I think I had completed what I was going to say about data, apart from one point. The right reverend Prelate asked about pregnancy data. In the time I have had available, I have been able to get the following response, but I am obviously happy to continue the conversation. In July this year, we published a national figure—for the first time, as I understand it—for self-declared pregnancies in the women’s estate and the total number of births that took place during the period in three categories: prisons, transit and hospital. That is found in the HMPPS Annual Digest. I do not know whether that has fully answered the question from the right reverend Prelate on specific data. If it has not, I am very happy to continue the discussion.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate this afternoon; it is now getting on for this evening. I am very aware of time and where we are in this group of amendments. There have been some thoughtful contributions and plenty to think about.
We have talked a lot about what is, and about the numbers of women in prison, but we must look at the reality. There might be things which are theoretically there, but we still have so many primary carers in prison, and while the amendment is about primary carers, it is also about the rights of the child. We were in danger in our debate of not keeping the child at the centre. I have heard what people have said about other dependants. I take that on board, but it does not take away from us focusing on children and the long-term intergenerational impact. We could have a good theological discussion later, but I used “Shalom” because we cannot have any of this discussion without looking at the whole picture.
I have respect for all that has been said about judges and I give them credit for what I have heard in the very powerful speeches today. One problem is that there is not always enough information about what else is available. We will be talking about community sentencing another time, but I have had judges and magistrates say to me, “We don’t know exactly what is available in this area that could be offered to this person.” We must keep this all in the round.
Data has come up again and again, and that is crucial. I am grateful to all those who have talked about its importance. We have been talking about the number of women in prison and what happens at sentencing, but, with due respect, it is not happening. If it were, we would not have the number of women in prison that we have and the number of children who are being adversely impacted by this. We must be careful about the theory, what is happening and why it is happening. Therefore, data is really important.
We talked a lot about pre-sentencing reports. They are crucial, but it is not just about a pre-sentencing report—it is the information it contains. Again, we know that lots of primary carers, particularly mothers, do not always want to say that they are mothers. We must look at why that is. Again, it is that bigger picture—it is not just the PSR but the information it contains.
I do not want to replay all the arguments that we have heard, and I thank noble Lords. There is something I still want to hold on to about the rights of the child, and about inconsistency. I have heard what the Minister has said, yet that issue of inconsistency is really important because of the reality of what we have in our prisons at the moment and the number of children being impacted.
While I am willing to withdraw the amendment at this stage, I hope that there will be further discussion about the rights of children and all that we must do to continue achieving the aims of the Female Offender Strategy, which is not where we are in reality. I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for their support. We want further discussion going forward but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
“(1C) The constable must record the reasons for each determination including the assessment of each of the matters the subject of subsection (1B).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with Lord Paddick‘s amendment to page 206 line 18, requires a custody officer to record case-specific reasons why it is necessary and/or proportionate to release a person on bail, including the reason for any conditions attached.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 110ZA in my name I will speak to my Amendments 110ZB, 110ZC and 110B and to Amendment 110A in the name of my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond in this group.
We now come to pre-charge bail, also known as police bail, where the police need more time to investigate than the time limits for keeping someone in custody without charge allow. In 2017, in response to concerns that people were being kept on pre-charge bail for too long, particularly journalists under investigation as a result of the phone hacking scandal, the Government used 18 clauses of the Policing and Crime Act to severely curtail the time someone could be held on pre-charge bail.
At the time, briefed by police practitioners, we told the Government that their changes to police bail were unworkable and that they had gone too far the other way. Some 18 clauses of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 are now all but reversed, relegated to Schedule 4 to this Bill. There clearly needs to be a balance between the need for a thorough police investigation, diligently carried out within resource constraints—which, because of the significant cuts in police officer and police support staff numbers since 2010, have been considerable—and the adage that “justice delayed is justice denied”. The irony of telling the police to speed up their investigations while at the same time curtailing their ability to do so will not be lost on the Committee.
It must be necessary and proportionate for the police to release a person on bail, including the imposition of any conditions of that bail. I know from my own professional experience that custody officers tend to record something along the lines of “I am releasing this person on bail because it is necessary and proportionate to do so” or “because it is necessary to ensure that the person surrenders to custody” or whatever Section 30A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 says may be a reason for releasing a person on bail. This is simply copied and pasted into the custody record. I was sitting here earlier reading that and realising that perhaps, as a police inspector reviewing detention, I might have been guilty of a similar act of simply copying generic paragraphs out of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
This is not sufficient and Amendments 110ZA and 110ZB are designed to address this. The police officer should record the case-specific reasons why it is necessary and proportionate to bail the person and the case-specific reasons for imposing the conditions, if any, attached to the bail—not “to ensure the person surrenders to custody” but why the officer thinks this person is unlikely to surrender to custody; for example, because he has absconded in the past, perhaps. If the factors to be taken into account in paragraph 17 of Part 2 of Schedule 4 are included in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in a new Section 30A(1B), so should be the requirement to say what it is about this person that makes release on bail necessary. Later in the Bill, in Clause 132(7), courts remanding children in custody will be required to set out their reasons for doing so in writing. This amendment requires the police to do the same when it comes to police bail decisions.
On Amendment 110ZC, following representations made by the Law Society—from my professional experience I see the merit in some and not others—I agree with it that the if the matter is straightforward, what is called in the legislation a “standard case”, a senior police officer should be able to extend bail only to a maximum of six months before the case is referred to a magistrates’ court for independent adjudication, rather than the nine months suggested in paragraph 29 of Schedule 4 to the Bill.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, my Amendment 110A is grouped with my noble friend’s amendments, as we have just heard, and is about bail principles. I bring it forward at the suggestion of the Police Superintendents’ Association and thank it for its help in doing so. In particular, I thank its president Paul Griffiths, with whom I have worked over a number of years, including on this issue in a previous police Bill; sadly, nothing has changed.
At the heart of every investigation is the requirement on police to collate, review and examine the evidence that is gathered. This should be without prejudice and the police are expected to pursue lines of inquiry that gather the facts, whether the facts support the victim’s account or that given by any suspect. For those investigations that require CPS authority, the information presented must allow the full-code test to be applied so that a decision can be made by the CPS as to whether or not the case progresses through the criminal justice system.
To ensure that the investigation is effective and efficient, it should be free from interference from factors that would seek to pervert the course of justice or cause a victim, witness or suspect to provide false evidence to the police, whether under duress or otherwise. The imposition of proportionate, appropriate, legal and necessary pre-charge police bail allows for the protection of the victim, suspect, witnesses and the general public, Correctly applied and checked, police bail is vital in ensuring that the investigation can progress fairly and comprehensively. It should be used only to protect and never to punish. Its imposition should be subject to appropriate review and audit procedures to ensure that the system is fair and maintains public confidence.
Currently, as we have heard, the breach of pre-charge police bail does not constitute a separate offence for the purposes of the PACE custody clock. If a person is arrested for breach of bail, the police will have to use the remaining time on the custody clock which relates to the substantive events for which they were bailed.
The current proposal in the Bill is that the custody clock will pause if a suspect is arrested for breaching police bail. In the majority of cases, the police will not be in a position to make a decision about whether that person on bail is charged for the offence for which they are on bail. The outcome is often release from custody with the same conditions, simply with a reiteration that the bail conditions should not be breached. Currently the police have less time to investigate the offence, and the risks to the investigation remain. The police would ask that any breach be regarded as a separate offence that can be charged on its own merit, if appropriate, using the established rules of evidence for offences.
Imposing pre-charge police bail can be significant in its impact on the human rights and liberty of a suspect and, as such, there must be a process that allows challenge and review. The primary decision-maker should always be the custody sergeant, as they are independent from the investigation. They are also responsible for the welfare and treatment of detainees, and they work on systems that allow for a clear and auditable rationale to be recorded and scrutinised.
The suspect and/or their legal adviser should always have the right to object to conditions, as they do with PACE reviews or extensions, and to have these objections noted on the record with the rationale clearly communicated. They should also have the conditions altered or amended if circumstances change, and that can be done in writing to a custody inspector. The suspect should always have the right to ask the courts to review bail conditions that they feel are inappropriate.
We have previously discussed appropriate authority levels for the time that a suspect remains on police bail. That should reflect the requirements of modern-day investigations such as forensic and e-forensic evidence.
I reiterate that pre-charge police bail should be imposed only where it is necessary and proportionate and protects individuals, the public and the investigation. Police should ensure that it is for the minimum time necessary to complete the investigation, that the rationale is clearly communicated to parties as appropriate and that an appeals process is in place—in addition, with a review process to ensure that the investigation is being carried out diligently.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the two noble Lords who have spoken have fully introduced their amendments. Amendment 110ZC, from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would provide that a bail period could be extended only for a period of six months at a time, and not nine, so it would reduce the potential extension period before referral to a magistrates’ court.
I remind the Committee that I sit as a magistrate, and I occasionally do those hearings where I am asked to extend pre-charge bail. It is an interesting process for a magistrate because you see far more serious cases than you would in the normal course of events; it is the extremely serious cases where the police are looking for an extra period. They are often computer-based cases, in connection with child pornography-type offences. One common scenario that I see as a magistrate is that the police have made no progress in their investigations. That may be through a lack of resources or through them having other priorities, but, either way, there are often requests to extend the pre-charge bail period, sometimes for a matter of years, where the court or the magistrates making this decision are not given a particularly good reason. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that amendment because it would inevitably put further pressure on the police to make progress on any individual case before it was brought to the magistrates’ court.
The noble Lord’s Amendments 110ZA and 110ZB would require custody officers to record case-specific reasons why bail and bail conditions were necessary and proportionate. I recognise the scenario that the noble Lord gave, of a cut-and-paste approach, and I would be interested in the Minister’s response to the points that he made. The final amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is Amendment 110B, requiring the police to publish annual statistics on the number of people released under pre-charge bail and the number released under investigation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, spoke to her Amendment 110A, which would create an offence of breaking the conditions of pre-charge bail. It would supplement the powers of arrest available where conditions were broken, and the offence would be a summary offence. The noble Baroness went into some detail, which I thought was persuasive. She quoted the Police Superintendents’ Association, which said in evidence to the Commons Committee that
“bail conditions are imposed and then suspects continue to breach those bails. Of course, those bail conditions would be there to protect victims or even the wider public. It could be extremely useful to us for that to be an offence in its own right.”—[Official Report, Commons, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 18/5/21; col. 31.]
This matter was raised in the House of Commons, where it was spoken to by my honourable friend Sarah Jones in the context of Kay’s law, a well-known domestic abuse case where an abusive partner killed Kay while he was on pre-charge bail. I will not rehearse the speech that Sarah Jones made but it was very powerful.
The Minister’s response to the request, which we see here in Amendment 110A by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, was that she wanted to look at a wider review of civil orders that could potentially be put in place as well as greater data collection, rather than specifically making an additional criminal offence. It is interesting to note that the Centre for Women’s Justice came out with a specific proposal whereby a breach of a bail condition triggers the presumption that the police will impose a domestic abuse prevention notice and apply to court for a domestic abuse prevention order. Of course the breach of a DAPO would be a criminal offence, so it would effectively create a “two strikes and you’re out” process.
The Minister, Victoria Atkins, whom I have always found very helpful when I have spoken to her about these and related matters, spoke about reviewing a greater array of civil orders, such as a stalking protection order or sexual risk order. It would be helpful if the Minister could say how long that review is likely to take and whether we are going to get any proposals at later stages of the Bill. I acknowledge that there are a number of potential ways of closing this loophole and that the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, is a particular proposal and there is a wider context. However, there is an urgency to this issue. There is an opportunity in the Bill to address that lacuna, if I can put it like that, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. These amendments bring us to the issue of the reform of pre-charge bail. The intention of the Government with this set of changes is clear: to create a more effective and proportionate pre-charge bail system through “Kay’s law”, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Kay’s law has been so named after Kay Richardson, who tragically lost her life at the hands of her estranged husband while he was released under investigation rather than on bail. It is clear that we need robust decision-making around the use of pre-charge bail in order to ensure that it is used fairly. This is why we have removed the presumption against bail and introduced the risk factors to be considered by the custody officer.
Let me first address the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Amendments 110ZA and 110ZB relate to record-keeping for bail decisions. I certainly agree that there should be a clear audit trail to evidence how these decisions have been made. I do not, however, consider that it is necessary to legislate for this, given that it is an operational process, but it is our expectation that custody officers are already keeping records of how they came to their decisions as part of best practice within each force. I acknowledge that this may not be done with the consistency we would expect, which is why it would be more appropriate to include provision for this in the national statutory guidance on pre-charge bail, which is to be published by the College of Policing.
Amendment 110ZC is concerned with the timescales for the review of pre-charge bail. Again, I fully recognise that we must provide the correct balance here—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to balance in his opening remarks—between the rights of those who may have been victims of crime and those who, at this stage, have yet to be charged with an offence. The new timescales provided for in the Bill, which have been subject to public consultation and engagement with law enforcement, charities and victims’ services, strike a fair balance and will create a system that works better for all involved. That being the case, the Government are satisfied that nine months rather than six is the appropriate point at which decisions around the extension of pre-charge bail in standard cases should be referred to a magistrates’ court. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for sharing his personal experience on this subject. As he said, it will place further pressure on the police, but on the opposite side, it would potentially clog up the courts if referrals were brought forward. Following our consultation, we believe it is equitable for extensions up to nine months to be made by a senior police officer, and only then should the matter be referred to the courts.
Amendment 110B would require police forces to publish data annually on the number of individuals released on pre-charge bail and those released under investigation. We heard some powerful arguments from my noble friend Lord Wolfson about data in the previous group, and I am about to reiterate some of those, because we agree that accurate data is crucial in order to monitor the impact of these legislative changes and ensure that they are operating as intended. I am pleased to inform the noble Lord that the information he seeks is already collected by forces and published by the Home Office annually through the Police Powers and Procedures bulletin. Perhaps to anticipate a subsidiary question, statistics on the number of individuals released on pre-charge bail have been published yearly since 2017-18. The Government have recently amended this collection to include the number of people released under investigation. This information has been collected for 2020-21 and will be published later this year.
One might reasonably ask, since it has been four years since the last round of reforms, why we still do not know how many people are released under investigation. There are 43 forces across England and Wales, as the noble Lord well knows, which use different case management systems and data warehousing. We have been collecting data on the number of individuals on pre-charge bail since 2017, first on a voluntary and now on a mandatory basis, and we have also started collecting more data on pre-charge bail in terms of offence, breach, demographic and so on, and on released under investigation and voluntary attendance. This is voluntary collection at the moment, but we are working with police and systems providers where forces have been unable to provide data to enable reporting with the intention of changing to mandatory collection following the reforms as system updates allow.
Turning to quite a different matter, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has tabled Amendment 110A, and I acknowledge her long association with this subject. This would create a new criminal offence of breaching pre-charge bail conditions where a person is arrested elsewhere than at a police station and where there is no reasonable excuse to do so. It is essential that we keep in mind the safety and welfare of victims at this stage of the criminal justice system, as well as balancing this against the risk of criminalisation of individuals who have not been charged with an offence. Noble Lords will be aware that debate around the consequences of breaching these conditions has been ongoing for a number of years. While I understand those concerns, I cannot agree that such a criminal offence would be a proportionate response to this issue. Pre-charge bail is just that: pre-charge. There has been no charge or conviction against the individual as yet. It would therefore be disproportionate to criminalise the individual at this point, particularly where they may face a harsher sentence for the breach than the one carried by the offence for which they were originally arrested. Bail should not be punitive in nature according to the principle of the presumption of innocence.
On top of this, the Government do not currently have an accurate snapshot of the number of individuals who breach their conditions each year—I fear we are back to data again. Without knowing how many people this would affect, such an amendment could well lead to unintended consequences, criminalising a potentially large group of people and tying up the courts system. I stress that there is obviously no desire on the part of the Government to allow suspects to breach their conditions wantonly. Where there has been a breach, police officers will look to consider whether a substantive offence is established, such as intimidation or harassment in the first instance. In certain circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, alluded to, there is also the option of a court order, such as a sexual risk order or the new domestic abuse protection order, breach of which is a criminal offence in itself.
The Bill also introduces a three-hour pause on the detention clock where an individual has been arrested for breach of their conditions. This will allow the police further time for progressing the case, either through investigation of the breach or preparing a substantive case for charging. The Government have already made a commitment in the Commons to increase the data collection in this area, which will provide a more detailed understanding of this issue. It is my hope that this may yield a more proportionate, tailored and workable policy solution in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to Sarah Jones’s amendment in the other place and asked about the Minister’s consultation. I fear I do not know the answer to that; I will get back to him on when it may be expected to report. She also acknowledged that the collection of data around breaches of conditions to better understand the scale of the problem was part of the problem we have here. I think the Minister’s response was welcomed by his colleague Sarah Jones in the other place and she was content to withdraw her amendment. It has been helpful to explore these issues, but in the light of my explanations, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond for her support and for so clearly and powerfully explaining her Amendment 110A. Arresting somebody for breaching pre-charge bail where the only thing the police can do if somebody has breached the conditions is simply to re-bail them under the same conditions undermines the whole purpose of police bail—there is no sanction at all. The Minister said, “Well, the person has not been convicted of an offence and they could end up being convicted of breaching the bail but not of the original offence.” I may have been dreaming, but I seem to remember being at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court, albeit the stipendiary magistrate concerned was known colloquially as “Shotgun Maclean”, and his saying to an arresting officer that, unfortunately, in a not-guilty offensive weapon trial, the officer had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of possessing an offensive weapon, but for breaching court bail—in that when they first appeared in court the person was released on court bail to reappear for the not guilty hearing—he would go to prison for three months.
There is the whole argument about this being disproportionate for somebody who is not convicted of a criminal offence if they were convicted of breaching bail, but it happens already when people who are innocent breach court bail. This seems to completely undermine the noble Lord’s argument. The point of Kay’s law is to stop dangerous people being released under investigation with no conditions attached. Without a sanction for breaching the conditions that are imposed, the conditions have no weight.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. Regarding the sort of cases he referred to, I would expect—particularly if analysis of computers was involved, for example—that these would not be standard cases and that the Crown Prosecution Service would designate them as such, so the six-month or nine-month limit would not apply. I am not sure that the cases he referred to were relevant to the examples I gave.
I accept that the Government have consulted on this, but I would go back to the Law Society, which is on the other side of the argument—including as it does defence solicitors—and feels that nine months in a standard, straightforward case not involving such things as computer analysis would be a long enough extension for a senior officer. However, we will reflect on what the Minister has said and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“35A After section 46A (power of arrest for failure to answer to police bail) insert—“46B Offence of breaking conditions of bail(1) If a person who has been released on bail under section 30A(1) breaks any of the conditions of their bail without reasonable excuse they are guilty of an offence. (2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine or to both.(3) In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) a document purporting to be a copy of the notice given to the person under section 30B and to be duly certified to be a true copy of that part of the notice is evidence of the conditions imposed.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) the copy of the notice is duly certified if it is certified by the custody officer who took the decision or a constable designated for the purpose by the officer in charge of the police station from which the person to whom the notice relates was released.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would create an offence of breaking conditions of pre-charge bail. It supplements the powers of arrest available where conditions are broken. The offence would be a summary offence.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am immensely grateful to my noble friend Lord Paddick, who has absolutely perfectly put my case again, and to the Police Superintendents’ Association. I will reflect on what the Minister has said but I am really disappointed because we have been here before. However, the Home Office is going to get more data, which is a very good thing. I will put this to the Police Superintendents’ Association to see what it has to say, because it has been banging on about this for a very long time. In the meantime, I am not moving my amendment.
Lord Beith
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to explore whether there is a potential gap in the law related to other teaching or supervisory positions of trust.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 111 I will speak to the related Amendment 112. Here, we are being asked to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to import some definitions into it. This presents some problems, to my way of thinking. We are dealing with “Positions of trust” and people who abuse those positions, using them to abuse, exploit or manipulate young people to consent to sex. The clauses before us in this Bill refer to someone who
“coaches, teaches, trains, supervises … on a regular basis, in a sport or a religion”.
That immediately prompts the question: why are other activities involving coaching or training on a close one-to-one basis not listed in the way that sport and religion are?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beith is right to lay his Amendments 111 and 112 to the Bill, asking whether to restrict Clause 45 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to those listed in positions of trust, currently including sport and religious activities. He has explained why his amendments have specifically added dance, drama and music, and I entirely support his argument. I am afraid that, over the years, there have been too many examples of young people aged between 16 and 19 and even, frankly, in their mid-20s, who have been abused or coercively controlled by people with whom they have been working on various activities. My noble friend cited the example of dance; I am afraid the same is true of the music sector, where a lot of teaching is one to one and supervision has to be taken to some extent on trust. That means the structures of safeguarding and support to ensure that that position of trust is not abused need to be rigorous.
Formal sports activity, for one of my children, started as an after-school club. Some children were then selected by the same school coach for the county team. There were then journeys to county practices and preparations, and competitions across England. There are now too many examples of sexual abuse by gymnastics coaches and staff, which is why the Whyte review was commissioned. Its interim report was published earlier this year and I look forward to seeing the entire report because, frankly, this is a problem in sector after sector, within sport and elsewhere, and I am beginning to wonder whether we need a formal review on each one before action is taken.
But this is not just a sporting issue, or even one just for dance, drama and music. Another activity that is currently excluded is chess. An almost identical process to the gymnastics example that I gave earlier was in evidence at the same school of my children, starting at primary and continuing through 11 to 18 secondary school. It started as an after-school activity and progressed to competitions at county or national level. There was one gatekeeper—the coach—and nobody else. To be clear, I am not aware of any cases of abuse in chess in the UK, but that is not true in other countries, notably the US, where there have been some scandalous cases in Philadelphia, California and Florida, which read almost identically to those that we have seen in gymnastics and other sports in the UK.
The root of the problem, as outlined by the organisation Mandate Now, is:
“The sexual and physical abuse of a child, or neglect, is not a reportable offence in either England, Wales or Scotland despite child sexual abuse being a crime in all jurisdictions. Bullying, emotional or verbal abuse, like sexual abuse currently, can only be addressed by ‘guidance’ which is unenforceable.”
That is why protection for those in a position of trust is absolutely essential. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, discovered in her excellent review of the duty of care in sport in 2017, if there are no structures to ensure that organisations—in this case, schools and the governing bodies of the activity concerned—can hold their people to account, abuse and coercive control can flourish undetected.
I have a question for the Minister. I am struggling to understand why only one or two activities are being added at a time. As I said earlier, will the Minister say whether it will take a formal independent review of each area of activity before it is understood that anyone in a position of trust with these young people needs to be regulated in the same way?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is slightly more complex than one might have thought. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for laying out the nonsensical way in which at the moment we exclude all the other categories. I do recognise the value of what the Government are trying to achieve in Clause 45: it is important that we stop predators from abusing positions of trust to prey on children and vulnerable people.
I also note, as no doubt the Minister will point us to, that this clause includes a Henry VIII power to add to or remove positions of power from the specified list. I normally loathe Henry VIII powers—I think they are extremely dangerous—but obviously I am weakening on this one.
It is also important not to cast the net of this offence too broadly or to define it too narrowly. I find it much more complex than when I first signed the amendment. There must be a level playing field, and a sports instructor should not be held to a higher standard or treated as a greater offender than, say, a dance tutor, because abuse of children is abuse and that is what we are trying to deal with here. I hope the Minister will work with your Lordships’ House to put together an amendment with which we are all happy.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, my task in this debate is easy: all I have to do is to support the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and say that I have rarely heard an amendment moved more comprehensively than he just did.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we strongly support my noble friend Lord Beith. He has clearly explained his amendment: persons other than those mentioned in the Bill are in positions of trust. Although there is no evidence of widespread concern about instructors in dance, drama or music abusing their positions of trust, there are examples and fairly recent high-profile cases. My noble friend explains that either we should leave it to the courts to decide whether someone is in a position of trust or a more comprehensive list is required that is not limited, as my noble friend Lady Brinton said, to the examples in the amendments.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to some extent, although one could imagine that children are more vulnerable in certain scenarios and one-to-one situations than in others. But we support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Beith.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we too support these amendments, and I too found the introduction from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, to be comprehensive. The brief in front of me asks why some youth activities are included and others are not, which is the point the Minister will have to address when he winds up this brief debate. I will not repeat those points about why certain activities might be included and others might not, and I am sure that everyone who has spoken in this debate wants to achieve the same end, but there are different mechanisms to do that.
I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who, as she said, somewhat unusually found herself in agreement with potentially using Henry VIII powers to amend legislation. While listening to this debate, I remembered the biography of a very famous English composer that I read recently, just a few months ago. He would fall foul of these regulations and would very likely go to jail on the basis of that biography.
I hope this problem is not widespread, but it is something that people are far more alert to these days than they were in the past. It is right that the Government should ensure that the appropriate structures are in place in each of the activities for which young people get support, so that, if things go wrong, the coaches or whoever is involved can be held to account in an appropriate way.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to this short but focused debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for the measured way in which he introduced the amendment, which raises difficult issues, as I think all speakers have recognised.
The Government’s aim in this area can be briefly stated. I understand there to be relatively little or perhaps no disagreement across the Committee on this point, certainly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has just said. The aim is this: we seek to protect children from those who might take advantage of their position to sexually abuse them. The provisions we put in the Bill followed detailed review and consideration. We feel they provide the best protection for young people while still balancing—this is a critical point—where possible their right to fully consensual sexual relationships. I must underline that point at the outset, because it is very easy to overlook it.
The positions of trust offences set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 were never intended to apply in all scenarios in which a person might have contact with or a supervisory role in respect of somebody aged under 18. If you do that, in effect you raise the age of consent by silence. If we are going to have a debate about the age of consent, let us have one—but let us not have an inadvertent, sub silentio raising of the age of consent by having too wide a category of positions of trust.
I acknowledge that this is a very complex area. With respect, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said that this was a first for her because she quite liked a Henry VIII power. I am not sure whether it is a first for me that I am agreeing with her from the Dispatch Box; I think I have done it once before, but if it is not the first time it certainly does not happen too often. But I do agree with her that this is a very complex area, because we are trying to strike the right balance between protecting young people and respecting the right of those aged 16 or over to engage in consensual sexual activity.
Therefore, although it is very tempting to say, “Well, there’s been a case here and a case there, let’s widen the definitions”, we have to act on the available evidence—not anecdote, supposition or a case here or there, but real evidence. The question therefore is, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Beith, put it, if I can summarise his speech in five words, “Why these and not others?” I heard him say that I am unlikely to persuade him. I remember when judges said that to me. I rarely did persuade them—but let me have a go anyway.
The answer is this: we have looked across the field. We have spoken to a whole load of stakeholders, which I will not read into the record, but the number is vast. We have concluded that those who teach, train, supervise, instruct or coach in a sport or religion are particularly influential over a child’s development. That is why they should be captured in the positions of trust provisions. The reason is that those settings allow for roles that involve very high levels of trust, influence, power and authority. Particularly in the case of those involved in a religion, the figures are often also well-established, trusted and respected in the local community. Both sport and religion provide a child—a young person, I should say, as this goes to 18—with a strong sense of belonging, whether to a team, a squad, a community or a faith group. As noble Lords will understand, deep feelings held by the young in respect of those groups can provide unique and special opportunities for predators to exploit or manipulate them.
Another factor that we have taken into account is that when we come to sport as usually understood—for present purposes I do not want to get into the question of whether chess is a sport; that is perhaps for another government department—the physical nature of that activity means that coaches have legitimate reasons physically to touch in perhaps a more general sense than just touching, in other words putting their hands around, moving, manipulating and repositing the body of the young person they are coaching. A sports coach therefore has far more opportunities for physical contact than other roles. This again can be manipulated by abusers.
The amendment focuses on drama and music as further settings. Again, I hope it is clear from what I have said so far that I absolutely understand the motivation for these amendments but, without strong evidence to support their inclusion, I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that there is no reason to include drama and music and exclude other settings in which adults work with children. I underline the point that it was never the intention that all settings where adults interact with children would be engaged. I suggest that it is dangerous to say, “Because there’s been a case here or a case there, we should include them.” We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that there had been a case involving chess in the United States. “Does that mean that we include chess here?” I ask rhetorically. I suggest the answer is no.
I will make one point on ballet—I am not sure whether that is a sport, an art form or perhaps both—of which I am obviously fairly ignorant. On the inclusion of dance, I suggest to the noble Lord that our definition of sport in Clause 45 includes types of “physical recreation” engaged in for the purpose of “competition or display”. I consider that this definition of sport would include dance. That might deal with the ballet point specifically, although I accept that the noble Lord’s point goes wider than just ballet.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, accepted that, in a number of these cases, there is no hard evidence—but we do have isolated cases. As I hope I have explained, we are seeking to rely on what appears to us to be the available evidence. To pick up the question, “What evidence would make you include new categories?”, the only answer I can give is that we are not limiting the nature of the evidence that will make us happy to consider other categories. I do not want to limit or straitjacket the sort of evidence we might look at in advance. If we find that new evidence emerges that might justify legislating further, we will do so. That is why we have put the Henry VIII power into Clause 45, so that we can add further activities if it appears appropriate—I emphasise “appropriate”—in the light of new evidence.
To come back to my main point, what we seek to do is strike this balance between safeguarding young people and, on the other hand, protecting the rights given to them by Parliament to engage in sexual activity on a consensual basis once they have reached the age of 16. I fear I might not have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Beith, of the correctness of the Government’s position, but I hope I have explained it to him. I none the less invite him to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, before my noble friend responds, I feel very uncomfortable at the proposition that we should wait for examples of problems in specific sectors before there are provisions to deal with them. I think I have said enough, actually.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I will reply very briefly to that point. When I say “new evidence”, I am not saying that there must be, God forbid, an incident. I am not circumscribing or limiting the nature of new evidence. If there is new evidence without there being an incident, we will look at that as well. I am certainly not saying that we will legislate only when, God forbid, there has been a terrible case. But one has to be careful. If one draws this net too widely, the effect is, sub silentio, to raise the age of consent. That was never the intention behind this provision.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, may I pursue that? What evidence are we talking about, then? We are all giving examples of where somebody in a position of trust might be by themselves with the person who trusts them. I do not follow what the evidence might be. I keep thinking of examples that have not yet been mentioned. Art lessons is another. I have been in an art lesson where the tutor has helped me to produce what I have ineptly tried to produce on a piece of paper. One could go on. What is “evidence” in this context?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The art lesson may be a good example. With respect, there is a huge gulf between the relationship of somebody to their art teacher, if they go to an art group, and the sort of intimacy that a physical sports coach has with somebody or the sort of power, control and sense of authority that a religious leader has over a young person.
I shall give one example of evidence, picking a made-up country from private international law. Let us say that, in Ruritania, there is a huge number of cases of a particular category. It might well then be said, “We can see there is a problem with this category. It has happened in Ruritania. The circumstances are the same as in the UK. You should add that.” That is just one example. I do not want to limit the evidence that we would rely on but, with respect, we cannot say that, because there has been a case in an art class or a case here and a case there, we will include all these categories. We should not include every circumstance in which adults have close contact with under 18 year-olds. I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, wants to come in.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the Government’s position but I do not understand the argument that we are surreptitiously changing the age of consent. If a 16 or 17 year-old wants to have a sexual relationship with their music teacher, they had better find another music teacher; the solution is quite simple. They should not continue in a professional relationship and have a sexual relationship at the same time.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
With great respect, the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, shows that if we draw this too widely, we are limiting the ability of a 16 or 17 year-old to have a sexual relationship with that person. This the balance that we want to strike. At the moment, there is nothing to prevent a 17 year-old having a consensual relationship with a person with whom they have a tuition relationship or other kind of relationship. The question is: where do you draw the line? We say the line should be drawn at sport and religion. If you draw it too widely, you impact on that person’s ability to have a sexual relationship with other adults.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I start by answering one of the Minister’s questions: what would constitute evidence? The answer is: the same kind of evidence that was sufficiently persuasive for the Government to include sport and religion in this definition. I would expect it to be on exactly that level, bearing in mind the context, the professional relationship and how it operated.
I start where I agree with the Minister. We are not seeking to change the age of consent in this legislation; it would be the wrong place to attempt such a thing, even if there were strong arguments for doing so. What should determine the position that the law provides in this area should not be the selection of certain sports because there appears to be more or less numerical evidence of abuse; nor should it be an attempt to import some new age of consent; it should be on the same basis, whichever area of activity we are talking about.
The Minister said something very interesting which will cause us to reflect between now and Report. He said that, in the Government’s view, dance—or ballet, at any rate—is included. There is a compelling argument for that, which is one of the reasons I was inspired to put down this amendment in the first place. This is a very physical activity during which people who are themselves very skilled at it have to explain—and sometimes demonstrate or assist those they are teaching—some quite extraordinarily physical things. That is done by hundreds and thousands of ballet teachers, and has been for many years, with total propriety, but it is a context in which abuse can occur. In that respect, as the Minister obviously realised, it resembles the kind of definition he brought to bear for sport.
I agree also that there is a balance between, on the one hand, defining a position of responsibility and placing responsibilities and limitations on someone who has such a position, and, on the other, interfering with the rights of 16 and 17 year-olds who have reached the age of consent. My noble friend Lord Paddick highlighted the difficulties in achieving that balance when he pointed out that we would hardly welcome a situation in which it was generally accepted as okay for someone in that kind of professional relationship to continue a sexual relationship when attention was drawn to it. We would mostly expect the professional person to believe that they had to end the relationship, even if it were entirely consensual.
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the proportionality of the inserted subsection in comparison to other offences.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 113 in my name I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. I declare an interest as a Liberal Democrat and someone generally against sentence inflation, but I have specific points to make on this clause.
Clause 46 effectively increases the maximum penalty for “destroying or damaging” anything by fire, or for any offence involving damage to a memorial, which means something “erected or installed”, or
“a garden or any other thing planted or grown which has a commemorative purpose”,
whether it is the statue of a national hero or a slave trader, a person’s grave or a pet cemetery. The clause does this by removing the financial limit on when the case can be tried at, or sent to, the Crown Court for sentence. Magistrates’ courts cannot send someone to prison, I believe, for more than a maximum of 12 months, but a Crown Court judge can send someone to prison for criminal damage where there is no threat to life for a maximum of 10 years.
To put this into context, Clause 2 of this Bill, as drafted, increases the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker from one year to two years, while this part of the Bill increases the penalty for damaging a memorial from one year to 10 years. It is clear where the Government’s priorities lie; it is more important to protect a statue of Churchill than it is to protect our brave men and women police officers.
It gets worse. New subsection (11B) of Section 22 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, inserted by Clause 46, includes
“any moveable thing (such as a bunch of flowers)”
left in or on a memorial, as part of the memorial—so, a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for damaging a bunch of flowers. Pick up a bunch of flowers placed at the feet of Churchill’s statue and hit a police officer round the face with it, and you can get up to 10 years in prison for damaging the flowers but only two years for assaulting the police officer. Amendment 113 is designed to probe the proportionality of subsection (11B). Amendment 114 is consequential.
In fact, bearing in mind that the limit for a summary-only trial—at least in the original Bill, and I cannot find any amendment to it—is £200-worth of damage, to replace, repair or restore the property damaged, it is unlikely that anything other than minor superficial damage would be below this value. There may well be a case to treat graves as a special case, where it can be deeply distressing if the burial plot is disturbed, but, aside from that, I am yet to be convinced that Clause 46 should stand part of the Bill, at least in its current form.
There is far more merit in protecting the living, as Amendment 115 proposes to do, than in protecting the memorials of the dead. Damaging life-saving equipment is a very serious matter, and there is far more merit in this amendment than in Clause 46.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to support these amendments. We are now getting into the stuff that I will fight tooth and nail over. As an archaeologist and activist, I feel that I have a little bit of insight into this whole situation and perhaps into the ridiculous law that the Government are trying to introduce here. Instead of debating and discussing it and coming to a sensible resolution, this is part of a battle in a culture war, which is absolutely ludicrous.
History is important, but it is not fixed. People like to think that we all know what it is and it is in all the books, but, actually, as an archaeologist, I know that we reinterpret it all the time and are constantly making new discoveries. Just in the last week or so, we found Roman statues in a totally unexpected place. This is what happens: we change our minds about history and it gets rewritten.
The problem is that we have some very ugly history, which is littered with powerful and wealthy white men who, behind a thin veneer of toffish respectability, did some quite nasty things and were responsible for atrocities such as the enslavement of millions of people, genocides, war crimes and the grabbing of wealth from some of the many nations that we now call “developing nations”. Our statues ignore this history and pretend that it was benign and that these were good guys, which is simply not true: they were slavers and pillagers, and we ought to recognise that. Having their so-called heroism set in stone is actually quite offensive. There is no hint in many of these statues that they did some evil deeds.
People—many members of the public—do not like this, and they are showing their dissatisfaction with celebrating people who really should not be celebrated. They raped and pillaged, and the fact that they then spent a lot of money on universities, libraries or parks does not really make it all all right. So the question of what we should do with these monuments is important, but not easy. It should force us to confront the evils within our history and reflect on how they carry through to the social and economic conditions of our present.
Instead of leading on this quite important dialogue, the Government simply storm in with a new criminal offence, which I find so ludicrous that I feel I ought to go and speak directly to the Home Secretary about it. They are trying to put their fingers in their ears, sing “Rule Britannia” and pretend that all of this did not happen and that it was all okay—but it was not. Councils all over the country and the Government have to realise that statues are not something that we cannot change or remove. The fact is that some of these statues celebrate evil deeds, and the Government should recognise that.
I have more to say, if noble Lords wish.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I apologise for not standing up promptly—I was expecting the noble Baroness to say more. I will deal with two issues in relation to this group. First, I will deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in relation to what is in effect an increase in the penalty for certain sorts of criminal damage. We on this side completely understand that certain sorts of criminal damage—for example, to the gravestone of a much-revered and loved person—that cause very little financial damage nevertheless absolutely cut to the heart of a community or an individual. Our view is that it should be possible, in certain circumstances, for that to be dealt with somewhere other than a magistrates’ court.
This absolutely over-the-top provision is not necessary to ensure that something like that, which does merit a Crown Court trial, should be dealt with in the Crown Court. I would have thought that a much more targeted amendment could have dealt with that, but this, which deals with absolutely every sort of thing, is unnecessary. You do need a provision to make sure that protection is provided in relation to things that are deeply offensive, such as the desecration of a grave—but, beyond that, the law works, by and large.
I also agree that a lot of thought has gone into this, but there is practically nothing in the Bill—except for one or two increases in sentences for violence—that deals with the protection of women and girls. Instead, there has been this very complicated provision. But, as I say, we accept that it will be appropriate in certain cases to allow for a trial in the Crown Court.
Our Amendment 115, which comes after Clause 46, is designed to deal with a practical issue in relation to criminal damage: the effect of vandalism on safety equipment. This amendment was moved in the other place by Sarah Champion MP, and it reflects a campaign that has been run by Simon and Gaynor Haycock, whose son, Sam Haycock, went swimming in Ulley reservoir in Rotherham in May 2021, on the very day that he finished school, aged 16. He went to help a friend who was in trouble. At the reservoir, a throw line that has a safety belt on it, which you can throw into the water to try to assist someone, is behind a locked cupboard. You can access the throw line only by ringing 999 and getting a PIN number from the police in order to get the line out. The delay in getting the throw line out may well have had tragic consequences on this occasion. The reason that it is behind a locked door with a PIN number is because of the vandalism of safety equipment. I wonder whether the Government could spend their time focusing on something that has a practical effect, rather than engaging in rather divisive culture wars. I very much hope that the Minister will feel able to say something to help Simon and Gaynor Haycock in their campaign.
The amendment proposes that it is made a specific offence to intend
“to destroy or damage any property which is considered life-saving equipment, including life-belts, life jackets, or defibrillators.”
Of course, it would already be an offence to do that, but it matters a lot to indicate that this is something that the law regards with particular hostility because it costs lives, including the life of Sam Haycock. I very much hope that the Haycock family will hear good news from the Minister tonight.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments focuses on criminal damage and the need for Clause 46 to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 addresses a sentencing limitation in the existing legislation to ensure that offenders who vandalise, attack or destroy memorials serve appropriate sentences that fit the severity of the crime.
The present position is this: where there has been criminal damage to a memorial and the value of that damage is less than £5,000, the court’s sentencing powers are limited in that the offence must be tried summarily and can attract a maximum penalty of only three months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to £2,500, which does not reflect in all cases the severity of the crime and the harm caused. We must remember that we are seeking here to provide a maximum sentence, not a mandatory sentence.
Clause 46 therefore removes this restriction by amending Section 22 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 so that where damage or desecration of a memorial occurs and amounts to an offence of criminal damage, the court will no longer be constrained in its sentencing options where the value of the damage involved in monetary terms is assessed to be less than £5,000. These are important changes that will ensure that courts can sentence appropriately, given the facts of the particular case.
I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to remove new subsection 11B from Clause 46(2) on criminal damage to memorials. New subsection 11B provides that moveable items such as flowers, flags or wreaths that are left in, on or perhaps adjacent to a memorial and—this is important—have
“(or can reasonably be assumed to have) a commemorative purpose”
will also
“be regarded as a memorial.”
It is important to recognise that items such as these, when placed at a structure such as a gravestone or—let us pick a topical example—the Cenotaph for the purpose of commemoration, albeit temporarily, should be covered by the clause. If someone goes to the Cenotaph, takes all the wreaths and chucks them around and destroys them, the fact that the value of those wreaths might amount to £4,683 ought not to prevent the court treating that offence with the severity with which I think everybody would regard it.
In the summer of 2020 there were attempts to set fire to the flag on the Cenotaph. The sentencing of those who burn the flag on the Cenotaph should not be limited by the value in monetary terms of the piece of fabric consumed by fire that is part of the memorial—ditto damaging a poppy wreath. The problem is that under the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, wishes to make, those acts of vandalism and damage would not be covered as damage to a memorial. That is not right.
There are occasions when moveable objects such as these, when placed on a memorial, gravestone or similar structures, constitute the very essence of a memorial. A rose, when placed on the tomb of the unknown warrior, ceases to be—if I can put it this way, with apologies to Shakespeare—just a rose; it is something else. Those items should get the same protection as the memorial itself.
I therefore strongly disagree, respectfully, with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, when she says this is just about culture wars. It is not. Let me be absolutely clear: this Government have no problem with discussion, debate or challenge. If you want to say that Nelson was a great man or a terrible man; if you want to focus on Churchill’s successes in World War II or his actions in the Bengal famine, that is absolutely fine. What is beyond debate, I am afraid, and puts you into the proper realms of the criminal law, is defacing monuments.
Let us take an example from law. I did a little research, and it turns out that both the Grey of Gray’s Inn and the Lincoln of Lincoln’s Inn were leading advisers to Edward I, who in 1290 published the edict to expel the Jews from Britain. Does that mean I should go around defacing bits of Gray’s Inn or calling on Lincoln’s Inn to change its name? No. Because we recognise that these are matters for debate.
We can debate and discuss, but here we are talking about defacing monuments: criminal damage. That is not a debate on history. That is destroying the cultural fabric of this society. I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, say very deftly, if I may say so, that if it is a memorial to—I think I jotted this down correctly—“a much-revered and loved person”, that ought to perhaps go to the Crown Court and not the magistrates’ court. I respectfully suggest that a much-revered and loved person to one group of people is perhaps entirely the opposite to another; I do not agree that that is a workable basis for the law.
We have to say that the monuments we have are the monuments we have; they deserve protection. If we want to change a monument and have it pulled down, there are ways to do that. We can have a debate in your local council or a vote—it depends who the monument is being put up by—but we cannot have a right to deface monuments knowing that the protection given by the criminal law is too low in certain circumstances and, I suggest, extremely low in these circumstances.
The noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I do not respond in this debate to the point about violence against women and girls; we will debate that on many other occasions.
I now turn to the noble and learned Lord’s amendment about damaging or destroying life-saving equipment. I say at the outset that the case he outlined is extremely distressing and appalling. I hope I may be allowed to say that my sympathies and the Government’s of course go out to the family. The fact that it had to be locked with a PIN is, as I understand it, the genesis of his argument and what provoked the amendment. We therefore understand and agree on the intention behind the amendment. It is almost incomprehensible that anybody would damage or destroy obvious life-saving equipment.
While I understand the need for an effective deterrent, I respectfully suggest that the amendment will not have the desired effect, for the reason he almost touched on: it is already an offence to intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy property, including life-saving equipment, under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment. Additionally, Section 1(2) of that Act goes further and makes specific provision for an aggravated offence of criminal damage where the defendant intends to endanger life or is reckless to such endangerment. That offence already attracts the possibility of life imprisonment.
If in this case it could be shown that the defendant intended to endanger life or was reckless, we already have a maximum potential sentence of life imprisonment. If that is not already proving an effective deterrent, perhaps the better course of action is for the various government departments responsible for water safety, health and safety and law enforcement to come together, see what is not working and identify working solutions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
It is very helpful of the Minister to tell us what the law is—accurately, I am sure. I do not think it is well known that if you damage life-saving equipment, you might be falling foul of Section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act—that is, you might be recklessly endangering life—because generally you will not intend to do that. That is why it is important to have a provision that makes it clear in the Bill, because most people do not have the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, to tell them what the law is.
Earl Attlee (Con)
It seems pretty obvious that if you get hauled before the courts for damaging life-saving equipment, you are going to be in deep trouble. What you do not know is what the penalties are.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
We seem to be reaching a measure of agreement. I still say, with respect, that because we have that on the statute book at the moment, it is not appropriate to re-legislate in another place. I will take away the points put to me by the noble and learned Lord about more education and sign-posting, and clarifying and explaining to people what the law is. If people do not know what the law is in the Criminal Damage Act 1971, it is unlikely that they are going to be any more familiar with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2021, as I hope it will be. If we have it in the law, however—and we do—with the reckless addition of a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, I suggest that that ought to be sufficient. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord not to proceed with the amendments. I hope that I have already responded to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, as usual, my noble friend has been very helpful, but what he has not convinced me about is why there is an increased deterrence value in having a maximum sentence of not, say, two years but one of seven years. I do not see why going to seven years is going to increase the deterrence value of the new offence.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am sorry, is my noble friend now back on the memorials point?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The short answer to that is that I did not make my argument on the basis of deterrence. Sentencing encompasses a number of factors: there is deterrence; there is the actual punishment for the offence; there is marking society’s disapproval at what was done. I hope that I made my argument very clearly on the first two. I was not suggesting that people would necessarily be deterred; I hope that they will be, but that is not the main basis of my argument.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this short debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support, albeit coming at the issue from a slightly different angle to the one from which I was coming. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for picking up on what I said, which is that this needs to be more targeted. I specifically said that Clause 46 “as drafted” is not suitable. It needs to be much more accurately targeted; otherwise, it enables people to make the accusation that I did not make, that this is about dramatically increasing the penalty for what could be very minor damage to a statue of a very divisive figure. In fact, I made reference to the fact that doing anything to a grave, for example, could be deeply distressing and it may be that the penalty needs to be increased for that particular purpose. Clause 46, however, goes far too wide and draws those who feel that it is about culture wars into the argument, where that would not be the case if it were more far more tightly drawn; but at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Competition Act 1998 (Coronavirus) (Public Policy Exclusions) (Revocations) Order 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To move that this House regrets that the Competition Act 1998 (Coronavirus) (Public Policy Exclusions) (Revocations) Order 2021 (SI 2021/773), in respect of the Competition Act 1998 (Solent Maritime Crossings) (Coronavirus) (Public Policy Exclusion) Order 2020, (1) removes any COVID-19 related collaboration for lifeline services on the Solent ferry routes, (2) does not provide a greater incentive for operators to compete to the benefit of passengers and freight customers, and (3) does not provide a continuing overview of competition issues by the Competition Commission on these routes.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I decided to put down this Motion to Regret because it provides an opportunity for us to discuss the role of competition in ferry services. Does it incentivise operators to compete? Can they compete? Is there a role for the competition commission or some other body, because there is also a problem of a lack of transparency? This regulation relates to the competition exclusion for the Isle of Wight ferries during the Covid epidemic. That has now been, quite rightly, removed, but many of us can wonder what the difference is between when the regulation was in force and now, when it is not. I want to address my remarks both to the Isle of Wight services and to the Isles of Scilly services, and I declare an interest, as I live there.
The ferries kept going during the Covid-19 restrictions, thanks to grants from the Government to make up for the lack of passengers. I think they are all very grateful for that. For the ferry routes to these two islands, the total grant was about £10 million, but we do not know which company received it and what it did with it. They were not allowed to compete with each other on the Isle of Wight, while they now are, but I again question what changes have occurred since they were allowed to compete. Does competition, therefore, work in the ferry sector to give customers, passengers and freight a reasonable service at affordable prices? It is quite important for the people who live on these islands. Do they ever really compete, or is something else required to look after the customers’ interests?
We do not know whether the companies make excessive profits, but there is quite a lot of evidence that some of them fail in providing lifeline services for those who need urgent transport, particularly for the NHS. It is true to say that successive Governments have recognised the particular difficulties caused to both businesses and social services, as well as to education services, by barriers imposed on these communities. It is not, perhaps, surprising that schools on the Isle of Wight have long been at the bottom of the league table, with Ofsted constantly imploring improvements. There is no reason why it should be that way, but apparently it is.
Councillor Phil Jordan, who is the Cabinet member for transport on the Isle of Wight Council, has said:
“We have great concerns over the transparency of the operational factors of ferry companies that, in turn, lead to commercial decisions that take little account of the lifeline service the ferry operators provide, or the human cost involved with such commercial decisions.”
There is a lot of evidence that patients going to the mainland for NHS treatment, such as cancer intervention, are given absolutely no priority on some ferries. Quite apart from the costs involved, there is evidence that patients returning from NHS treatment—anaesthetics or invasive cancer treatment, I am told—are not given priority to board ferries. Sometimes, they are refused travel or sent to a later ferry. In other words, as they say colloquially, the sick are being bumped from travel.
The local MP, Bob Seely, has voiced support for a public service order, and the Isle of Wight Council has committed in its corporate plan to achieving a public service order on the Solent ferry operators. We do not know much; perhaps the Minister can tell us where that has got to.
It is the same for the Isles of Scilly. It is a very infrequent ferry service. Loading and baggage handling are, frankly, Victorian. There is no passenger shelter and freight charges are double those of the Scottish equivalent, which are already pretty high. It is good that the council has been awarded £48 million in a levelling-up fund announced by the Chancellor last week for two ferries between Penzance and St Mary’s. The trouble is that this is intended to perpetuate the inefficient, bad services, when they could be run with one ro-ro ship costing half that, about £22 million. I have told them that. The taxpayer is wasting about £19 million. When he responds, can the Minister tell me whether the Government required the council to seek competitive quotes for the new ship and services or ownership of these vessels? Is he happy that this £48 million will perpetuate what I think is an inefficient and expensive monopoly, to the detriment of the islanders—forget about the company?
We have two monopolies to the Isle of Wight and one to Scilly, providing what the Government seem to agree are lifeline services. There is not much monitoring going on as to whether these are effective. You have to ask what customers can do when these services are seen to be failing. You can ask the carrier, but it will say that it is not interested. You can ask the Department for Transport—we do not have a Transport Minister responding tonight, so let us say the Government—which will say that these are commercial services that they cannot influence. Customers may then ask what the remedies are if companies are seen to fail. After all, rail services are tightly controlled, as are many bus services, and there is generally competition for air travel in most places. Where is the community bit? What about affordability, service quality and frequency, for the NHS and other emergency services?
I will give the House a couple of examples. In Scotland, something called a road equivalent tariff is generally applied on fares and charges. To Islay, this is 29 pence per mile, while to Scilly it is £1.62 per mile, which is five times higher. For the Isle of Wight, on the Southampton to Cowes route, it is 96 pence per mile, which is three times higher. The train fares in the UK are very similar, between 10 pence and 30 pence per mile. As I said, the freight charges to Scilly are double those to Islay. This is not good for the economy. Unlike rail, the ferry fares are not regulated. There is no transparency about the ferry company costs, what might be a reasonable profit or the use of the Covid-related grant. What can people do? Should they ask the carrier or the department?
It is interesting that, over 10 years ago now in 2009, the OFT undertook a market study into the Isle of Wight services and the lack of transparency of their operations. Three operators wrote to the OFT offering increased transparency. One of them, Red Funnel, offered to publish clear information on performance, price per passenger, costs, capacity utilisation, customer satisfaction, reliability, punctuality and market growth. In spite of these commitments, which you might call solemn and binding, 12 years later, none of this has been done by Red Funnel or any of the other operators.
The same applies for the Isles of Scilly. It is a monopoly and there is no such information. There seems to be no pressure on operators to reduce costs or improve services. Where does the pressure come from? It could come from competition or from a government agency. After all, the Government control rail fares.
I do not think that the competition on the Isle of Wight works properly and, as I said, on the Isles of Scilly, the council has refused to commit to put the operations in the levelling-up fund bid out to competitive tender. Why? This failure of competition and governance is clearly having an adverse effect on the economy. Scotland recognises this, but in England I think the Government hope it is all going to go away.
I would like to hear the Minister’s response to the proposal that there needs to be some kind of regulatory oversight to make sure that the companies behave and provide the lifeline services to which they have committed themselves. It is a light touch role but could be done. We have the Office of Rail and Road for the railways and part of the road network; perhaps the remit of that could be expanded to cover ferry services. Maybe it is time for the CMA to be given a remit to examine these issues afresh and, most importantly, keep them under regular surveillance. In conclusion, I believe that some urgent action is required to make competition work for the benefit of consumers. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling this Motion to Regret. I agree with almost everything he said. Of course, there are contrasting models in operation for ferry services around the UK, from market-based models to very much more subsidised models. Those complaining about the Solent services often look to other services for comparison, but the problem is that no two islands are really the same. People are searching for a model which provides the guarantee of service that the isolation of many UK islands requires but also an incentive for efficiency.
To look at a comparison of the islands, let us take Lewis off the west coast of Scotland as an example. Lewis is 130 miles off the mainland. It is about 350 miles from Edinburgh and about 600 miles from London. In contrast, the Isle of Wight is only 14 miles from Portsmouth and there is a ferry service which takes only 45 minutes. There is no regular air service, but there does not need to be one because of the short distances. The Isles of Scilly, whose service I know relatively well, are 35 miles off the coast. There is a sea crossing which is only for those with strong nerves and a strong stomach. It takes nearly three hours on what is a very elderly boat. I was therefore delighted to hear that there is funding to help deal with this situation. In reality, people go backwards and forwards to the Isle of Wight on a daily basis as commuters. You are not a daily commuter on a regular basis on the “Scillonian”, but of course people do go back and forth in a day to take up medical appointments. The vast majority of medical services are provided on the mainland.
We need a nuanced approach. Even in good times, islanders in general across the UK complain about their connectivity. There is, and rightly so, an emphasis on the importance of lifeline services. The SI to which this Motion to Regret relates suspended some elements of the Competition Act in relation to the Solent ferry services. There are three companies involved—one hovercraft service and two ferry services—so there is an element of competition. However, of course, during the pandemic they were apparently down to 10% of the normal passenger numbers and obviously it was not commercially viable. Yet it was obvious that essential services had to continue—freight as well as lifeline services—in terms of life-saving services.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, what a privilege it is to have the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, with us this evening. With COP 26 happening in Glasgow, the Minister for Energy Efficiency, Fuel Poverty and Clean Heat is among us. In fact, maybe I should apologise that we have detained him from saving the planet. I hope that he will be able to give us a brief insight into COP 26 and his role in it in his answer to the very good questions asked by noble Lords and my noble friend Lady Randerson.
What I thought was more of an irony about this order is that it mentions the Competition Act 1998 (Groceries) (Public Policy Exclusion) Order 2020, whose time has, I think, already expired. The irony is that the thing which the groceries order was set up for—Brexit and Covid—was not a problem at the time, but now we actually have a crisis. A number of the supermarket shelves are empty, we do not have HGV drivers and supply chains are failing, so maybe we should look at that. We have now allowed cabotage, and drivers’ hours have been extended. It is mentioned here that we have more of an emergency, particularly perhaps as we approach Christmas, than we would do otherwise.
I want to say a couple of things about the Isles of Scilly—not the Scilly Isles, as they are very different places, one fictional and one real. First, I want to thank the Government for the £48 million that has been attributed through the levelling-up fund, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to sorting out the next generation of vessels and the port structures that support them for travel between Penzance, which I visited over the weekend, and the Isles of Scilly—and between those islands as well. That very important commitment allows a change from the current “Scillonian” and freight vessel, which are well out of date and will cause problems into the future. I do not dispute in any way the questioning of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. He knows far more about ferry configurations than I would, but we should note specifically and positively the Budget Statement in that area.
I am also a supporter of competition, in principle, because it is important whether you do it through procurement of a contract to run a service—perhaps on a TfL basis—or in the form it takes on the Isle of Wight, which perhaps does not work exactly correctly, where there is competition between operators. That is important, but what we have with Scilly is always the cost and uncertainty of the connection. We always looked at Scotland as having a far better approach to remote communities off our islands, while in England we find, off Cornwall, that the Scillies are discriminated against.
I looked up the cost of flying by helicopter, which is a form of competition. For those who wish to visit—and I hope you do—the price for a single adult to fly to Tresco or St Mary’s is £129 one-way. If you are lucky enough to be an infant aged between two and 11, it is only £108. That gives an indication of the cost of that second-rate transit for members of the British Isles community. They are second in a league to our friends north of the border.
I reiterate that I wish the Minister every success at COP 26. I am sure he will be there in his energy roles. This conference is the most important we have had on the planet, and I give all good wishes to the Government, and Alok Sharma, in achieving success at it. I also thank the Government for the recognition of the Scillies issue in the Budget.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for securing today’s debate via his Motion of Regret, which clearly comes from a good place—designed, as it is, to protect consumers from high prices and to keep ferry routes accessible to all. The debate has generated more heat than I expected, but it is important because in our communities at the periphery, there is a strong sense that they suffer from high prices, are forgotten because they are at the end of the line, and get left out in government considerations. I join my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in thanking the Government on behalf of the Isles of Scilly for their £48 million contribution to improving the quality of the sea services to those islands, because what is there at the moment is clearly not fit for purpose and needs to be improved. It is a lifeline service and helps the tourist economy of those islands.
As we heard, in March 2020, the Government announced that ferry services to and from the Isle of Wight were at significant risk of disruption due to the pandemic, so they introduced regulations which allowed the two ferry operators to share information and staff to ensure that ferries continued to run regularly across the Solent. That was for all the reasons and purposes that noble Lords have outlined: for economic, health, education and welfare reasons.
Now, of course, the Government have decided that the Covid pandemic is at an end and seem to think it is the right time to end the suspension of competition law, believing it is no longer needed. I do not know that the pandemic is at an end: the figures tell us otherwise. People are getting Covid at the rate of about 40,000 a day, and about 1,000 people a week are dying from it, so I am not sure that we are at the end of it. People are still very cautious in their travel plans for that very reason. The absence of people travelling means that those services could be under threat in future. I do not buy the line that there is no more threat of severe disruption to the Isle of Wight ferry crossing services.
Can the Minister explain how the Government reached the conclusion that now is the right time to end the Covid provisions? Although I am not a local of the Isle of Wight, it is a place that I have visited on many occasions. I think the first time I went there was in 1970, to a pop festival. Back in those days, Sealink, a nationalised industry, ran the service. It was a very good and very cheap service, actually, by the standards of the time. As a Brightonian, I am familiar with the ferry service: it goes from just down the road in Newhaven, along the coast from the Isle of Wight. It strikes me that ferry prices there are quite expensive. Ironically, my wife recently used the service and complained to me about it. I can understand how local people who have to make multiple journeys for work, health, education and other purposes see their ferry ticket prices adding up and becoming a serious expense and, by default, an inhibition on business on the island. I must acknowledge that there is genuine concern from some that there is insufficient competition.
I think that my noble friend Lord Berkeley said that there were two monopolies, and I think that is probably a fair description of how it works, and that that has undoubtedly resulted in high fares. I suspect that the companies see those two services, in particular, as providing a regular flow of income that they can pretty much rely on. Does the Minister think that fares are too high? Clearly, local people do. That is reflected in the attitude of the local MP and local councillors. Are there too many barriers to entry to new ferry companies, I wonder?
It has been reported that an island-based consortium may well be working up a plan to run a community vehicle ferry service and has asked the local council for its help. Are the Government planning any additional support for such a move? Do they see that it has a role in stimulating some genuine local competition? If they do, I suspect there will be quite a lot of takers for that service, given the high cost of the service as it currently is.
So are the Government planning to ensure that there is real competition? Do they accept that services are expensive? What comfort can be offered to the community of the Isle of Wight in ensuring that ferry services can be provided in future at a reasonable price?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who came along to discuss the subject I thought we were coming here to debate: the revocation of the SI.
As I listened to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I thought there was a sense of déjà vu about them, and of course there was. Perhaps the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will remember that we actually discussed this subject in 2017, when I had the privilege of being a transport Minister: we had a take note debate on remote island communities in England. I hope the noble Lord refreshed his speech before he made it again; I have not looked it up to see whether he has made the same one. So we have been here before and discussed the topic, and I gently suggest to the noble Lord that if he wants to have a debate about ferry services and their role in transport policy, perhaps he might want to go through the channels that would secure that properly rather than trying to shoehorn it into a debate on competition policy and the revocation of a particular SI. I will be very happy to explain to him the subject of his regret Motion—that is, why we revoked the SI. If other noble Lords are not interested in that, at least the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will be.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his concern for my welfare and my brief. I can tell the noble Lord that I will be travelling up to COP. In fact, I suppose I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for detaining me in the House today; looking at some of the transport issues that have occurred to people travelling up to COP in the last two days, maybe I was better off staying here after all. I will be going for the buildings day next week.
To respond to the subject of the debate—I will come to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, later—last year, in response to the unprecedented challenge posed by the coronavirus pandemic, the Government responded with unprecedented rapidity to support businesses and people, and to enable a co-ordinated response to coronavirus. As part of the Government’s action, six public policy exclusion orders were made. These orders were intended to disapply elements of UK competition law temporarily in order to help businesses co-ordinate specific activities in certain sectors, and to support lifeline services during a period of disruption related to coronavirus. The Solent maritime crossings order was one such measure.
As the noble Lord is no doubt aware, more than 140,000 people live on the Isle of Wight. Residents rely on essential lifeline services to get access to medical supplies and essential healthcare or to facilitate the journeys of NHS staff, emergency services and other key workers. These services are all supported by ferry operators—I think there are currently three—without which residents would be isolated and with limited resources.
In response to the outbreak, and at the request of the local MP, the Government acted swiftly and suspended competition law temporarily for the Solent ferry operators to ensure that they could co-operate to continue to provide essential transportation despite the effects of lockdown. The order permitted three kinds of agreements between the Solent crossing operators to co-ordinate during the period of disruption: the use of timetables, the routes operated by any Solent operator, and the deployment of labour or facilities.
Of course, such measures are usually prohibited by competition law as in normal times co-ordination of this sort can lead to higher prices, less choice and lower quality of service for consumers. However, given the exceptional circumstances, it was not clear that any of the companies would be able to maintain a service without co-operation, and that therefore, without this order, lifeline services may well have ceased. The measure was therefore an important part of a wider support package to safeguard the vital transport links to the mainland.
In response to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I can tell the House that the Government also made available £22.4 million-worth of funding for the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly between April 2020 and April 2021.
Operating together, the Solent maritime crossings order and the financial support scheme enabled the maintenance of lifeline connections to the Isle of Wight. Key services were retained despite temporarily not being economical to run. The Solent ferry operators were altogether able to transport passengers and passenger vehicles representing nearly 50% and 64% of their pre-pandemic baseline. They also saw an increase of 23% in the transportation of commercial vehicles. Without the temporary suspension of competition law and the funding provided, services would likely have stopped running, thus creating significant issues for islanders during the pandemic.
Under the Competition Act, exclusion orders may be applied only to situations where there are exceptional and compelling reasons of public policy. The Solent maritime crossings order was intended to address the effects of coronavirus on the Isle of Wight’s transport system. We were clear when making the order that it would remain in place only until the Secretary of State determined that there was no longer a significant disruption or a threat of significant disruption to the operation of Solent crossings.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that the Government’s decision to revoke the order was made following consultation with the Isle of Wight Council and the ferry operators and with the confidence that the ferry operators were financially secure enough to return to normal services. The response strategy reopened the economy and, with the lifting of restrictions and the vaccine deployment, measures such as the Solent maritime crossings order became unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also asked why the revocations SI does not provide a continuing review of competition issues by the Competition and Markets Authority on these routes. The CMA, as the UK’s independent competition authority, continues to be responsible for monitoring markets and enforcing competition law across the economy. Now that the Solent ferry crossings are back under competition law, they are indeed back under the auspices of the CMA. The CMA has significant powers and expertise to investigate markets and anti-competitive behaviour and to take remedial action where necessary. Complaints of anti-competitive behaviour can be made directly to the CMA. As the noble Lord knows, the Government do not determine which cases the CMA decides to act on.
I will add a note about the wider use of competition law exclusion orders. They have proven to be an effective instrument to provide a safety net—and at times more considerable security and support—to industries which need to collaborate in order to address exceptional circumstances. However, it is not a power that should be or can be used without careful consideration. The Government have recently made use of the instrument again. We temporarily exempted companies operating in the oil industry from the Competition Act for the purpose of sharing information and optimising fuel supply in the event of disruption. Earlier this month, the Secretary of State also announced a temporary exemption for parts of the CO2 industry to help provide further security of CO2 supplies and businesses. Finally, we have agreed to make an exclusion order for Premier League broadcasting rights to provide stability for the football pyramid, including for grass-roots football, women’s football and lower league clubs.
In each case, the use of exclusion orders was a proportionate and limited measure informed by the Government’s engagement with industry and intended to give companies a bit of breathing space to resolve the wider issues. However, we should be clear that business practices that undermine or restrict competition in markets are a threat to consumer interests, productivity and the wider economy. Suspending competition law longer than necessary could be harmful to consumers and to the economy and the Government will continue to use such measures only where necessary and appropriate.
The Solent maritime crossings order and all the other public policy exclusion orders revoked in July fulfilled their purpose. That there is no longer a need for this order is a testament to the success of the road map and the effectiveness of the Government’s response to Covid-19.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Bassam—and of course to the Minister for his response. I do not regret tabling this Motion because, as the Minister said, it is four years since we last debated the order and quite a few things have happened since then, including Covid. I certainly want to put on the record the thanks of people I have spoken to on both islands for the grant the Government gave to keep the services going during Covid—otherwise they would have stopped; they had very little income because there were no passengers.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned that the Covid problems are still here and asked whether it was too soon. I can inform him that twice in the last six months there has been a week’s shortage of meat for people to eat on the Isles of Scilly. Whether that is due to Covid, transport or whatever we can debate.
I agree with the Minister that it is time to have this particular order withdrawn, but the concerns of residents and businesses on these islands will not go away. It is something that will need further thought, but it is good to know that the competition is still around, and that we can talk to the CMA if we want to and see where it goes. Again, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this very short debate and beg leave to withdraw my motion.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 1st November 2021
(3 years 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-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (1 Nov 2021)
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Paddick’s amendment to page 40, line 14.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 116 and speak to my Amendments 117 to 121 inclusive in this group.
Clause 48 gives the police the power to compel people to have their photograph taken at a police station without their consent. It includes someone arrested for a recordable offence and released without being charged or otherwise being prosecuted for an offence, if they have not previously been photographed, the previous photograph is unavailable or inadequate, or a constable thinks that another photograph might be useful to assist in the prevention or detection of crime.
We have had concerns for some time about those not convicted of a criminal offence having their photographs retained by the police, but forcing a person to attend a police station and taking their photograph without their consent in such circumstances seems draconian. However, the clause goes further. It includes anyone who has been convicted abroad of an offence which would have been an offence if committed in England or Wales, if the police do not already have a useable photograph of the person so convicted or if a police officer thinks that it might be useful to have another one.
Aside from how the police would know about such a conviction, particularly since the UK has lost access to EU databases that record all convictions in EU countries, some countries are notorious for having legal systems that fall far short of what would be considered acceptable in the UK. Surely, at least in relation to overseas convictions, there should be some judicial safeguard to ensure that such a conviction is safe, rather than a constable being able to force someone to be photographed in such circumstances. My probing Amendment 117 removes the conditions associated with an overseas conviction, and the other amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his amendment. I have a very brief comment for the Minister. The Explanatory Notes say:
“Section 64A of PACE confers a power on the police to take photographs from a person who has been detained in a police station and/or arrested. If a person is arrested, charged or convicted without a photograph being taken, there is no power to require them to attend a police station later for this to be done, although there is such a ‘recall’ power in … PACE relating to taking of fingerprints and DNA samples.”
There are so many important things in this Bill, and this is yet another. The noble Lord is quite right to point this out. Therefore, why was it thought not to be necessary to include the taking of photographs in the original legislation but now is thought to be necessary? What is the evidence for the change in legislation to include photographs?
Also, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the very important point about the extension of that power to overseas offences. Does that extension of power include not only photographs but fingerprints and DNA samples?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for explaining what he described as probing amendments.
Clause 48 amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow the police to require certain persons to attend a police station at a stipulated date and time for the purpose of taking their photograph. Comparing facial images, along with DNA and fingerprints, is a key tool for police to quickly identify and eliminate suspects. Under existing legislation, people who are arrested are taken to a custody suite to have their fingerprints, DNA samples and photographs taken straight away. If this is not done, there is a recall power to require those who have been arrested, charged or convicted to attend a police station so that their fingerprints and DNA samples can be taken. However, this power does not cover photographs and Clause 48 will address this omission, which I hope goes some way to explaining the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—I think it was an omission rather than being deliberate—and bring consistency.
As things stand, opportunities to take photographs are being missed—
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but is the Minister saying that it was a mistake? It was an omission; was it a mistake?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am saying it was an omission. I am not saying it was a mistake, because I do not know whether it was, but it was an omission. I think there is a difference.
As things stand, opportunities to take photographs are being missed. This means that matches to crimes the person may have committed in the past or may commit in the future are not made. As the noble Lord explained, these amendments specifically intend to probe the necessity and proportionality of the provisions in proposed new subsections (1H) and (1I) of Section 64A of PACE. These provisions cover occasions when the police have been notified of a conviction in another country that has an equivalent offence in England and Wales. Where there is no photograph on file, or it is of poor quality, police will now be able to ask an individual to attend a police station to have one taken for the purposes of preventing or detecting a crime. To ensure appropriate oversight, this will require authorisation at the minimum rank of inspector.
As I said at the start, these provisions simply align the police’s ability to take photographs in certain circumstances with provisions that already exist for DNA and fingerprints. In that sense, we are therefore not breaking new ground. We are dealing here with individuals who have been convicted of a criminal offence, albeit in another country. In the interests of protecting people in this country, it is right that the police should be able to take and retain a photograph of a convicted person in these circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord agrees, particularly given the existing precedent in PACE, that this a necessary and proportionate power, and that he will therefore be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his support. I have to say to the Minister that I am really none the wiser about the questions I asked. There is a catalogue of cases where people are convicted overseas and where it turns out that the convictions are unsafe and unsatisfactory because of the inadequate legal systems that operate abroad. Yet this is a blanket power for the police to summon and photograph anybody on the basis of an overseas conviction. The noble Lord has not addressed how there could be any safeguard against such an unsafe and unsatisfactory conviction overseas.
The Minister talked about where the police have been notified of an overseas conviction, but I do not understand what the mechanism is by which the police would be notified. So my questions remain unanswered by what the Minister said and I hope that, between now and Report, the Government will be able to answer them, otherwise we will be having another debate on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Arrest without warrants: safeguarding
In section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrest without warrants: constables), after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A constable exercising the power conferred by subsection (1), (2) or (3) may not require or ask the person under arrest to enter a vehicle or premises other than a police station unless at least one other constable is present in the vehicle or when entering the premises, as applicable.””
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I have the duty of opening this debate on amendments tabled by noble Lords in response to Sarah Everard’s abduction, rape and murder by a man who was, at the relevant time, a serving police officer, and further to the public outpouring of revulsion and distrust arising from revelations about how the perpetrator was allowed to thrive in the police service, despite repeated concerns about his character and conduct over so many years. These emerged in particular during sentencing proceedings just over a month ago.
My Amendment 122 attempts to address the fact that as a matter of hard law—as opposed to soft guidance, practice, or anything of that kind—a lone arresting officer is currently permitted to require a person subject to arrest to enter a vehicle or premises other than a police station. This gives rise to obvious dangers of abuse of power and dangers to the majority of officers who, unlike the man in question, undertake hazardous and vital public protection duties in good faith.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I think the subsequently tabled Amendment 123, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, attempts to tackle a very similar mischief. He will forgive me, I hope, if in a moment I explain why I prefer my original proposal.
My Amendment 275 requires that the inquiry into matters arising from the Sarah Everard atrocity—for that is what it is—be put on a statutory footing under the Inquiries Act 2005. I am grateful not only for the signature of my noble friend Lord Rosser but for that of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and my friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I am also grateful for the support that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and a number of other noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House have expressed for this endeavour.
Once more, I hope that my noble friend Lord Rosser —and my noble friend Lord Coaker on his behalf—will forgive me for preferring my precise formulation to his Amendment 281, not least because in this matter the ideal outcome must be for the Home Secretary to hear the legal and public confidence arguments and by her own volition launch a full statutory inquiry under the 2005 Act, long before the Bill before your Lordships’ Committee becomes law.
Finally, I will support my noble friend Lord Rosser’s Amendments 282 and 283, which seem so important given the obvious needs for better training and vetting in the police service.
Amendment 122 amends Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 governing the powers of police constables who arrest without warrant. It would prevent a police officer in or out of uniform from requiring an arrested person to
“enter a vehicle or premises other than a police station”
unless or until a second officer is in attendance. They would still be able to restrain the arrested person to prevent an escape if so required and, if necessary, to seek bystander assistance in so doing. However, there would be no question of a sole plain-clothed or uniformed officer driving off with an arrested person. This clear and simple change to our law must be better for the safety of all citizens and constables alike.
We now know that the first phase of the hideous abuse of power against Sarah Everard perpetrated by a predatory, murdering rapist was that he went hunting for a young woman under the cloak of dusk and draconian lockdown laws. He persuaded Sarah that he was arresting her under suspicion of breaching those same lockdown laws—something, by the way, that should require those laws being perhaps amended or repealed. While some senior voices in policing had the gall to suggest that she and other women are somehow too naive or compliant, and others have tried to suggest that we ought to perhaps flag down traffic, demand to speak to the control room on an officer’s radio or resort to private sector safety apps on our own mobile phones, it seems that no amount of new guidance to either citizens or constables can substitute for a clear and well-publicised change to primary legislation that everyone can understand.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a genuine privilege to follow that eloquent introduction to this group of amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I make it absolutely clear from the outset that, for me, this is no competition between amendments: we are absolutely on the same page, in the same chapter and in the same book. In my view, it would be inexcusable for any Minister to reject these amendments on the grounds that they are not sufficiently well drafted.
The noble Baroness and I are both Back-Bench Members of your Lordships’ House; neither of us is a parliamentary draftsman. Yes, we are perfectly capable of drawing up a basic amendment or new clause and of obtaining advice elsewhere, as I am sure we both have. What we both trying to say, however, is that there needs to be a solution to the fear that now exists among young women about lone male police officers. It is a solution that the Government have to produce and that parliamentary counsel has to draft and put in a form that will be clear both to women and to the police.
Our feelings of sympathy for the family and friends of Sarah Everard are in no way diminished by the passage of time. Indeed, it is vital that we should keep this story running until we reach a satisfactory ending. If I may be forgiven for putting a personal slant on this, we are fortunate enough to have five daughters. One is a young professional woman, single, living with friends in a shared flat in Clapham, just like Sarah. She goes out with her friends or on her own and walks across the common, just like Sarah. She walks home when she feels like it and is obviously responsible in the way that she approaches her journey, just like Sarah. And she was brought up absolutely to trust the police, just like Sarah.
All those assumptions have been smashed on the ground as a result of this case. I am sure that we are not the only family who, for obvious reasons, sit up at night looking on Find My Friends, worried about the whereabouts of our children—although they tell us now that they are worried about our whereabouts and use Find My Friends for that purpose. We are genuinely concerned as they go about their lawful lives day and night. We have taught them the basic conventions of good self-protection and safety but, of course, one of the basic tenets of that domestic advice was that you can always trust a police officer: if something goes wrong and you can see a police man or woman, turn to them; they will see you right. We and they are now shocked to the core by the number of cases of police sexual misconduct that have come to light. This case is the very worst of the very worst, but it does not sit in a category all of its own. More than 70 incidents of police sexual misconduct, almost all by male police officers, have now come to light and been investigated to a greater or lesser extent.
Sarah Everard should, of course, still be alive and free to come and go as she wishes. In her death, she should not have to be remembered for the unspeakable things that happened to her, to which the noble Baroness referred—for the abuse of her person when alive and the desecration of her body in death. She must not be seen to have died in vain. It is our duty, in both Houses of Parliament, to take the appropriate steps to demonstrate to the world at large that Sarah Everard did not die in vain and that other young women—other women—will be protected from such events so far as is possible. That is our responsibility.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 281 and 282, which concern police culture and police training. I say at once that I agree with my noble friend that the woeful police response, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, emphasised, sums up a real issue about culture that I do not see being tackled cohesively.
I understand why my noble friend favours her amendment because she wants an all-embracing Lawrence-type inquiry. I can see the strength of that. The benefit of the amendment that my noble friend Lord Rosser and I have signed is that it focuses on the culture of the police, which is a very important facet.
I was very struck by HM Inspectorate’s report, Police Response to Violence Against Women and Girls, which showed woeful inconsistency between the way police forces conducted themselves. The inspectorate highlighted that, at the level of individual cases, victims reported hugely different responses depending on which call handler they spoke to. Some were very sympathetic, others made the victim feel that they were not being believed. At force level, there were hugely unexplained variations about how forces used their protective powers and orders at their disposal. At local partnership level, the roles and responsibilities for partners working together in a multiagency safeguarding arrangement varied considerably. At the national level, actions to improve police responses were split over multiple government strategies. This surely has to be addressed if we are to make real inroads into these deep-seated problems about violence against women and girls.
Behind this woeful inconsistency, lack of leadership and lack of priority lies a great cultural impediment in so many of our police forces. I know that the Minister has commented before on the performance of her own police force, Greater Manchester Police, but I was struck by the Manchester Evening News investigation into the force last December. She might not want to comment on it and she might think it is not accurate, but it looked into the primary reason why the force missed 80,000 crimes last year. As noble Lords know, this led to action being taken, new management and a new chief constable, but what the Manchester Evening News said is that it discovered a tendency for
“obfuscation, denial, secrecy and an instinct to defend the indefensible”,
taking
“misleading and inaccurate statements, denial of official criticism and legal stonewalling; police officers fearful to report failure and those attempting external scrutiny being brushed off.”
As the article says:
“Understanding and fixing the causes and solutions of what was dubbed a ‘rotten’ culture four years ago will … be central to that”.
I do not want to tar every police force with Greater Manchester’s brush, but lying behind that are major issues about how the police conduct themselves, which is very relevant to our debate.
I was interested in the interview with the former Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, in the New Statesman on 27 October. Commenting on the Sarah Everard case, he said that instead of being “defensive”, senior officers must be “constantly vigilant” about weeding out dangerous officers and supporting those who need to improve. He said:
“Leadership is all about being honest and there will be times when the police have to own up.”
Where are the signs that most police forces and most police leaders understand that? I do not think there are many signs at all.
Then there are the comments of Sir Tom Winsor, Chief Inspector of Constabulary, to the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee recently. He warned of a culture of colleague protection. He said that forces needed to be “much more assiduous” in throwing out probationary officers who had a fondness for violence or exercising power, exhibited misogyny, racism or homophobia, or showed a lack of maturity and judgment.
Why on earth did he have to make that comment in the first place? Why on earth do police forces not exercise a considerable degree of vetting over probationary officers at that crucial first stage? He went on to say—and this is controversial—that professional standards units, which countered corruption, were often not staffed with the best people, which meant that substandard officers, whom he referred to as
“cancerous growths within the force”,
were not identified or pushed out. He gave the example of a group of male officers in the locker room who did not challenge or report two colleagues who boasted of picking up a female assault victim and taking her home, where she was raped. The pair were ultimately prosecuted but nothing happened to the officers who did not report them.
I rest my case. There are so many examples of a really damaging culture. We can see this being played out in relation to this awful, horrendous number of crimes against women and girls. We can change the law. We can do all sorts of things like that but until we change police culture, I do not think we are not going to have the effect we need.
I like both amendments and clearly, on Report there will be an attempt to composite them—if I may use that word, which my noble friends here will well understand and not love. So far, we have heard weasel words from the chief police officers. There is little indication that they understand that the culture they lead has got to change. I very much hope that this House, through our debates on this Bill, will be able to influence a change of direction.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this issue of trust in the police is an interesting one. Trust has been eroding for many years now. Two cataclysmic events in the past couple of years have really made a difference. The first—not chronologically—is the murder of Sarah Everard and the way that the police policed the vigil and the ludicrous comments that solo women should hail a bus if they feel in danger and so on. Really, the whole police force needs some serious attention and serious guidance, and perhaps even a new police commissioner. That might be a very good idea.
The other thing was that during the pandemic we had law and we had guidance and then we had what the Ministers were saying at regular press conferences. That got very confusing for the police, to the point where they were trying to move people on for sitting and resting during a walk. That did not help the police and that was not the police’s fault. That was the Government’s fault for not being clear about instructions.
I support all the amendments in this group and agree that we need a statutory, judge-led inquiry. It cannot be allowed to drift past without real challenge by a judge. You have to remember that this was not somebody pretending to be a police officer: this was a real police officer abusing his position to abduct, rape and kill. The fact that he had a reputation already in the police is extremely damaging. This is a culture that we all know exists, and it should be fixed.
On Amendment 282, I have spoken many times here in your Lordships’ House about training for the police on domestic violence, because they have a reputation for assaulting quite a lot of the people they live with. We have to make sure that they get this sort of training. As far as I know, only about half the police forces in England and Wales have so far had domestic violence training. If they do not have that training, it really cannot be argued that they know what to look for and how to treat victims of abuse, so that is extremely valuable and important.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, I speak in support of Amendments 122 and 275 in the name of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti—who has already made an eloquent and erudite contribution, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said—and other noble Lords. I will also echo elements of the noble Lord’s contribution.
Amendment 122 encapsulates and incorporates precisely the advice that I would now want to give to my own two daughters and, in due time, my own grand-daughter, in the light of what we all know happened to Sarah Everard. There has been talk of flagging down buses or otherwise seeking assistance, in the case of a lone arresting officer seeking to require a person subject to arrest to enter a car or, as the amendment says
“premises other than a police station”.
I simply do not find such advice or suggestions helpful or sufficient. These suggestions would not, I am afraid, assuage the well-grounded fears of many women in the wake of recent events and revelations about the behaviour of some police officers. The amendment, however, sets reassuring and necessary parameters, and I am in full support of it. We must use this legislation to afford clarity and safety to women.
With regard to Amendment 275, again, I believe that action taken hitherto by Her Majesty’s Government is insufficient and that a statutory inquiry, for all the reasons advanced already in this debate, is needed. It is needed to learn lessons but also to give a signal that we will now begin to restore the faith and trust in the police which has been so manifestly and extensively damaged.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have to tell the Committee that I find these debates very difficult. I was a police officer for over 30 years and, for part of that time, a senior police officer. Like the overwhelming majority of hard-working, decent and honest police officers in this country, I find it very difficult to hear this sort of debate and to say the sorts of things that I will say now. I do not have the same sympathy for senior police officers who are failing in their leadership. I recall speaking privately to a former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and asking that individual, “What on earth is going on at the moment?”. He said, “Well, Brian, I think when the police come under pressure, diversity goes out of the window”. The police have been under a lot of pressure because their resources have been reduced, because knife crime has become an epidemic and because of the horrific situations we find ourselves in.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said earlier, it is not just about Sarah Everard. In the last two weeks we have had a Metropolitan Police officer charged with rape and another with indecent images of children. There were a whole series of cases that point to a real issue with the culture in the police service, and in the Metropolitan Police in particular. So I completely understand and support the principles behind the amendments, and I have indicated my support for Amendment 122 by adding my name to it.
I want to bring some real-world practicality to bear on the amendments. Amendment 122, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, suggests that a police officer
“may not require or ask the person under arrest to enter a vehicle or premises other than a police station unless at least one other constable is present in the vehicle or when entering the premises”.
Not only does that go to the heart of the Sarah Everard scenario, but it is entirely consistent with best practice for the protection of the person arrested and the arresting officer. I should explain that in the police a person who has been arrested is called a prisoner, and I will do the same.
First, it does not specify that the provision should apply only to a woman or a child, as Amendment 123 does. The noble Baroness pointed out how there might be legal difficulties with that but, as she said, what if the arresting officer is gay or the person arrested is a gay man? Where would the protection be for the arresting officer against allegations of inappropriate behaviour in those circumstances, or the protection for the arrested person, if we restricted it only to a woman or a child? As the noble Baroness said, a black person may also have fears about getting into a vehicle when there was only one officer present. From my own professional experience, I have lost count of the number of reports of black people who have been beaten up on the way to the police station. The issue that we need to address here is male violence perpetrated by police officers, whether directed at a male or a female prisoner, although women may understandably feel more threatened with a lone male arresting officer than a male prisoner would. Amendment 122 would provide protection for the police officer and for the person arrested, whatever sex or sexuality they may be.
Secondly, it is very dangerous for a lone police officer to drive with a prisoner in the car. The prisoner could attack the officer while driving even if handcuffed, as we saw with the tragic death of police Sergeant Matt Ratana, who was shot in Croydon police station by a handcuffed prisoner. Ideally, police officers should patrol and respond in pairs wherever possible, and at least one of those police officers should be female, but that is not always possible. Ensuring that two police officers are present is an important and almost always adequate safeguard.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, and as the Minister said in answer to an Oral Question on Thursday, only about one-third of police officers are female—even fewer, I believe, in the Metropolitan Police—so the practicality of requiring a female officer to be present, as Amendment 123 demands, may not always be possible, and in some cases it would not be appropriate to release the prisoner if a female officer could not attend the scene.
I turn to the other aspects of Amendment 123. Giving the person arrested
“an immediate and reasonable opportunity to contact another person”
could have serious officer-safety implications. I myself have been subject to attempts to rescue a person that I had arrested, albeit that it was in Brixton a few months before the Brixton riots. There is a real danger that the arrested person could summon people to effect her escape from police custody. And, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, alluded to, the problem with the arresting officer providing a telephone number purporting to be the number of a police station or control room, were he to have criminal intent, is that he may have an accomplice on the telephone number given to the prisoner.
Long delays between arrest and arrival at the police station, in my professional experience, expose both the arresting officer and the person arrested to danger. It may not always be possible, for example if the prisoner is violently resisting arrest, either to explain her rights to her or to provide them in writing. Again, in my professional experience, people do not want to be arrested by the police and are unlikely to attend a police station if allowed to go free. I completely understand the sentiments behind both these amendments. I have serious reservations about the practicality of Amendment 123, but I have no hesitation in commending Amendment 122 to the Committee.
I also strongly support Amendment 275, which calls for a Macpherson-type inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, into the Sarah Everard atrocity and all the surrounding issues. This is something akin to the issues of public trust and confidence around racism that came out of the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence and that the Macpherson inquiry looked to address. We are facing an equivalent situation here in terms of misogyny and violence against women and girls. It is absolutely appropriate that we have a similar inquiry to the Macpherson inquiry to deal with that. I prefer Amendment 275, for that reason, to Amendment 281.
I also support Amendment 282: mandatory training for all officers, not just recruits, on violence against women and girls. Of course, culture is the most difficult thing to change, but training is an important part of changing that culture. I also support Amendment 283, with the caveat that I believe the vetting procedures used in the recruitment of all police officers need to be urgently reviewed, not just for officers transferring between forces.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about the Sarah Everard vigil. I will refer to this at length when we come to the public order parts of the Bill, but I was an advanced, trained senior police officer in public order. I read the Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services report into the Sarah Everard vigil. How HMIC came to the conclusions that the police did everything right, on the basis of what it wrote before it got to that conclusion, I have no idea. The evidence in that report is completely contrary to that conclusion, in my professional judgment. So, there is something seriously wrong here: how can we change the culture if we have that sort of whitewashing by HMIC?
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, raised issues around police leadership and police culture and what I have described before as a culture of cover-up rather than own-up. I have always believed the way to build public trust and confidence is, when there is misconduct, to show you are ruthlessly dealing with it rather than trying to cover it up to protect the reputation of the force. I will say more about that when we come to a later group on the duty of candour. The noble Lord is absolutely right: there is a failure of leadership at the top of the police service. It makes me very uncomfortable to stand here and say that, but it is something I felt when I was in the police service and continue to feel now. I absolutely support these amendments.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is getting quite late in the evening, but I think everyone here would agree that this has been a fantastically high-quality debate on one of the most crucial issues facing our country today. I hope that many members of the public, let alone our fellow Peers, will read the brilliant contributions of my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti, Lord Hunt and Lady Blower, the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones —I think I have mentioned everyone.
This really is an important debate, and at its heart is the trust and confidence the public of this country have in the police. We will not change attitudes and these issues with which we wrestle until we can ensure that the public trust the police. It is really hard, and it must have been difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to say some of the things he did, but that is the reality and the police have to accept it. We all agree that the vast majority of police officers are good and do their duty, et cetera, but it does not alter the fact that the statistics tell us that there is a serious problem. This is not about blaming anybody; it is about saying what we are going to do about it.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that this is not—and nobody has suggested it is—a competition of amendments. From his experience, my noble friend Lord Hunt knows that, between all noble Lords, we should be able to devise a set of amendments on which we all agree and which have, at their heart, a desire to improve the policing of this country and restore the confidence and trust of the British people. That is what all these amendments are about.
One or two issues arise from them. There has to be a statutory inquiry. I frankly cannot believe that the Government would resist that. There is just incredulity, because it just makes every sense. As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti laid out, that is why the Inquiries Act was passed, and successive Governments have used it as the vehicle to deal with serious problems to which you want a response that people can agree with and have confidence in. You can set up other inquiries, which will all be well meant and do a good job, as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and others will. This is not to say that they will not do a good job, but I say to the Government that at the heart of this, public confidence is everything. It is the holy grail. It is the only vehicle that people will think of as correct. If you go to the supermarket, down the pub or to the sports club, or if you walk down the road and say it is a public inquiry led by somebody of stature, in whom people can have confidence, it will take you over the first hurdle, because people will believe its conclusions, whatever they are. All of us find it unbelievable that the Government are resisting this. Whichever amendment we choose as the best, surely we can agree on the principle of a statutory inquiry. It is certainly something to which we will have to return on Report, if the Government resist.
Why am I and the Chamber so exercised about this? We have heard very eloquently of the horror of the Sarah Everard case. Every now and again there is some horrible crime that unites us all in its horror. There is always something that ignites passion and fury within the public and the political establishment that demands action and that something more is done, beyond the normal “This is shocking, this is terrible”. This has to be a lightning rod that says, “No more, we’re going to change”. It cannot go on, and the Minister understands and knows this.
I googled it again. Time after time we hear it. This week, a serving Metropolitan Police officer was charged with rape. Channel 4’s “Dispatches” reports that 2,000 police officers have been accused of sexual misconduct over the past four years, which includes over 370 accusations of sexual assault and almost 100 of rape. A mugging victim came forward to the BBC with her experience when she reported her attack. The police officer on duty asked if he could take her out on a date, whether she was single, what she wore to work and whether he could take pictures of her. According to the BBC report, he was so confident that there would be no repercussions for his behaviour that he did it in writing on his official police email account. It is unbelievable and shocking at the same time.
I know Sue Fish because she is the former chief constable in Nottinghamshire, the area which I represented for a number of years. She said:
“This isn’t about an individual officer. This is about a prevailing culture within policing.”
We ought to be able to find a way around this. Notwithstanding the other amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, Amendment 281, tabled by my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talks about a statutory inquiry to look at this issue of culture. Obviously, there is a need for some sort of statutory inquiry into what happened to Sarah Everard, but we must get to the root of what is happening with respect to the culture in the police. It is not everyone, but it is a significant number of police officers, which is why in Amendment 281 we have said that there must be a statutory inquiry
“into the culture of policing and the prevalence of violence against women and girls”,
to include members with specific
“expertise in the prevention of violence against women and girls”
and various recommendations to be made to it, and so forth and so on.
One thing I find here is that all noble Lords read the amendments, so I will not repeat everything that is in the amendment, but, if we cannot change the culture, we have a real problem. I will tell you what I think. The vast majority of police officers are sick of it and want something done about it, and the vast majority of police staff want something done about it. They are looking to our Government to do something about it, working with senior police officers. We talk about leadership, but we have a leadership role as well. It goes back to the signposting of a statutory inquiry as being so important—because that is the lightning rod that you hold up to the public to say, “We get it, we understand it, we realise why you’re so upset about it, we’re upset about it and that’s why we’re going to use a statutory inquiry to do something about it”.
I know that I am getting passionate about it, but if we resort to a calm, reasonable, almost closed-shop type of inquiry that has a look at it but does not have that sense of urgency, that sense that this is a moment when we need to grasp this issue, we will fail. We talk in later amendments about vetting and training. All those things are crucial, and something must be done about them.
Let me say this as well. I know that the Minister gets this, because she has already made a commitment to look at recognising violence against women and girls as serious violence, and to look at how it is assessed. That is a really important step forward, but the Government have the power to do more. They must not waste this opportunity, out of the horror of what happened in the Sarah Everard case, and in the horror of all the cases that we read about, all the inquiries recently by Zoë Billingham that talked about the “epidemic”, and all the recommendations in that report.
So what are we going to do now which shows that this time it will be different? Will we not have a statutory inquiry, however it is organised and whatever its terms of reference, which does something about what many people in this country are looking to their Government to do something about?
We want trust and confidence in the police. We have to find a vehicle by which the concerns that are raised in this House, the other place and across the country, are recognised, realised and something is done about them. A statutory inquiry surely has to be one way of doing that.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Carlile, for raising the very important issues arising from the terrible abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard, which has appalled us all and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says, time will not fade; every time our daughters leave the house it reminds us. It is imperative that Sarah’s family and the public understand how a police officer was able to commit such a terrible crime so that we can stop it from ever happening again and restore to our police forces that trust and confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, talked about.
As noble Lords will be aware, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has recently announced her intention to launch a two-part non-statutory inquiry—I will go on to talk about that—into the circumstances surrounding Sarah’s murder. The first part of the inquiry will look at Sarah’s murderer and his tenure at the Metropolitan Police leading up to his conviction, as well as assessing any missed opportunities to hold him to account for his conduct.
The second part of the inquiry will look at any specific issues raised by the first part, which is likely to include wider issues across policing, including, but not limited to, vetting practices, professional standards, discipline, and workplace behaviour. A lot of noble Lords tonight have talked about the culture of the police, not just in the Met but all over the country. This is the opportunity to look at any systemic flaws in vetting or issues around policing culture that the noble Lord has highlighted in his amendment. We expect that the separate inquiry established by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, being led by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, into the culture and standards of the force, will feed into part two of the inquiry established by the Home Office.
I very much recognise the arguments around establishing an inquiry under the Inquiries Act, but I also understand the critical need to provide reassurance to the public at pace. A non-statutory inquiry satisfies the need to move at pace, allowing greater flexibility, and it can be tailored to the issues. We expect that the police forces for which Sarah’s murderer worked will all be witnesses to, and comply with, the inquiry. In February 2020 we amended regulations—this is an important aspect—to ensure that police officers are under a duty to co-operate as witnesses with investigations, inquiries and formal proceedings under the revised standards of professional behaviour. They are guilty of a disciplinary offence if they fail to do so.
The Home Secretary has also been clear that the Government will, following consultation with the chair, convert the inquiry into a statutory inquiry if it is determined that it cannot otherwise fulfil its functions. The Government are aiming to appoint a chair shortly and can then confirm the terms of reference. An update will be provided to the House at that point.
In relation to immediate concerns about the vetting of police transferees, the College of Policing updated its guidance this year having taken into account a recommendation from HMICFRS’s 2019 report Shining a Light on Betrayal: Abuse of Position for a Sexual Purpose. Forces should now assess details of transferees’ performance, sickness record, complaints, business interests, notifiable associations and corruption intelligence. Furthermore, the inspectorate is now undertaking an urgent thematic inspection of force vetting arrangements following a request from the Home Secretary. This will specifically look at whether forces are vetting transferees in accordance with the guidance.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I realise the hour is late, but there are two things I would like to mention. First, I am very interested in what the Deputy Commissioner Sir Steve House said. I do not know when he said it, but it does not seem to chime with the fact that, two weeks ago, I was challenged by a lone officer in plain clothes. That seems to be completely contrary to what the Minister said he announced.
Secondly, the Minister says there should not be an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 because we need to move at speed. I can tell noble Lords that the Metropolitan Police never moved quicker on racism than when it was announced that there would be an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. It was not when the inquiry reported that the Metropolitan Police swung into action to deal with racism. It was absolutely ready with an answer as soon as that inquiry reported, because it knew what the problems were and realising that this was all going to become public in an inquiry galvanised it into action.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I note the noble Lord’s points and I do not disagree with him. I ask the Committee to understand the commitment of the Home Secretary. She is deadly serious about ensuring that the inquiry moves at pace and, if necessary, converting it to a statutory inquiry if it is not meeting its commitments.
I will get the date for the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the Committee. The announcement from Dame Cressida Dick was on 20 October, some 11 days ago, but I will get the date on which Sir Stephen House made those comments.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am hugely grateful to all Members of the Committee for the substance and tone of our proceedings. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who dealt with our minor points of detailed difference with such grace. If I may say so, what I really took away from his comments was the sense of a loving father speaking of his daughters and the hope that we might one day return to a moment when all our daughters and granddaughters can trust the police. I was also struck by the way he worked with the young woman lawyer in trying to bring matters forward with such urgency. I thank him so much for that.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath that we have to get to the culture of obfuscation and denial—understandable human instincts when we want to protect our colleagues and the service that we love. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that if it had been a scandal of equivalent proportions at the Bar, we would feel as uncomfortable as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, so we understand these things.
I say to my noble friends that my Amendment 275 also deals with culture, but this is not about precise amendments—this is too important for that—but about trying to persuade the Government on both of these issues, of trust and confidence on the one hand and effective change on the other, with which we are attempting to deal in this whole group of amendments. This is about trying to persuade the Government on the power of arrest on the one hand and the inquiry and the training and vetting on the other.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made such an important point when she talked about that period of lockdown and the way that that has, in a sense, exacerbated every problem in the world but also problems around the fault-lines between hard law, guidance, perceptions of the law and trust in policing and what really is the right thing. It was in that lockdown that this atrocity was perpetrated.
Of course, she was also the Member of the Committee who pointed out that, just hours or days after the perpetrator was charged, someone made the insensitive decision to police that vigil in that way. Whoever did so must have known what we were yet to find out. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke of the young woman who now features in all of the videos and photographs. We know that, subsequently, she has been stalked by serving police officers on her Tinder account. So we really are in trouble, and we are trying to respond to a really significant problem of culture and trust in policing in this country. We are not fabricating this. No one thinks that; I know that we are all on the same page.
My noble friend Lady Blower was also clear that guidance will not be enough. We have gone too far for that in relation to any of the really serious specific issues that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I and others have been trying to address in these amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for everything that he is doing in this group and on the Bill more generally. I say to him and anyone who is now feeling very concerned about and suspicious of policing in this country that there is another side. I would like to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, still represents more of what is real and true in our policing service and in our democracy built on the rule of law. I hope that we can all listen to him and heed his practical advice. The word “gallant” is used for the military; there is no equivalent for the retired senior police officers in your Lordships’ House, but there are many retired commissioners and others here. But it is the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who has been engaged with the Bill day after day and has spoken from the heart and from years of practical experience. We have to heed him. I was heartened by hearing him discuss, on Amendment 122, the approach where we do not want lone police officers driving off with arrestees, for the protection of either. That is best practice, but we now need to put that into hard law to reassure everyone and as a matter of good governance.
My noble friend Lord Coaker said passionately—and he is so right—that we have crossed a line in terms of public trust. Once lost, it is really hard to regain. That is why he made the point, again and again, that a full statutory and judge-led inquiry is part—just part—of trying to regain that trust. Can any of us imagine a Lawrence or Macpherson inquiry that was not judge-led and on a statutory footing, with all the iconography and symbolism of justice that comes with that?
Lord Paddick
“Post-charge detention of children
(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.(2) In section 38, for subsection (1)(b) substitute—“(b) if the arrested person is a child, the grounds inserted into the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 by section (Youth remand) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2021 apply;”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would bring the PACE criteria for police remand of children into closer alignment with the court remand criteria.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 123A in my name. I apologise to the Committee. If I had had my wits about me, I would have grouped it with the previous police bail amendments. I am grateful to Transform Justice for bringing this issue to my attention and for its help and support in drafting this amendment.
The Government continue to place tighter restrictions on when courts can remand children in custody. Those are much stronger than the restrictions currently placed on the police when they decide whether to remand a child in custody to court. Court criteria, most of which do not apply to the police, include that: the child must be between 12 and 17 years of age and be legally represented, other than in exceptional circumstances; they must have been charged with a violent or sexual offence or have been charged with an offence where an adult would have received a custodial sentence of 14 or more years; or they have a recent history of absconding while remanded; or they have a history of committing imprisonable offences while on bail; and there is a real prospect of a custodial sentence for the offence in question. In addition, remand in custody must be necessary to protect the public from death or personal injury or to prevent the child from committing further imprisonable offences.
The police remand many more children in custody than the courts. In 2019, the year with the most recent data available, over 4,500 children were remanded in police custody compared with 884 children remanded in custody by the courts. Some 60% of children remanded in custody by the police had been charged with non-violent offences and only 12% of those remanded in custody by the police went on to be remanded in custody by the courts. Two-thirds of children remanded in custody by the police do not receive a custodial sentence.
In Clause 132, the Bill suggests further strengthening the restrictions on courts remanding children in custody, including that the history of breaching bail or offending on bail must be “significant”, “relevant” and “recent”. If detention is being considered for the child’s own safety, this would be possible only if the risk cannot be safely managed in the community. It would have to be “very likely” that the child would receive a custodial sentence rather than a “real prospect”. Courts would also be under a statutory duty to record their reasons for imposing custodial remand, including a statement that they have considered the welfare of the child in their decision and that they have considered alternatives.
The Bill as drafted does nothing to tighten the restrictions on the police remanding children in custody, or even to bring them into line with existing court restrictions. Amendment 123A intends to bring the Police and Criminal Evidence Act criteria for police remand of children into closer alignment with the court remand criteria. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for moving his amendment. As the Committee might be aware, I sit as a youth magistrate, usually at Highbury magistrates’ court. I have to say that I was not aware of the difference in the remand criteria; I should have known but I did not. I also thank Transform Justice for bringing this to my attention. The noble Lord has very thoroughly explored the differences in the number of youths remanded by the police versus those remanded by the courts. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for raising this important issue of children remanded in custody. I quite agree that police custody is not a suitable environment for children and that they should not be detained there unless it is absolutely necessary.
The provisions introduced by this Bill will amend the “tests” set out by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, also known as LASPO, which must be satisfied before the court remands a child to custody. These are intended to ensure that custodial remand is used only as a last resort, where there are no other options and it is necessary to protect the public.
Before the courts get involved, if a child is charged with an offence, Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that the police must release them either on bail or without bail pending their appearance at court, unless one or more specified conditions apply. These conditions are that the child’s name or address are not known or are not believed to be genuine; there are reasonable grounds to believe the child will not appear in court to answer bail; the detention is believed to be necessary to prevent the child committing an offence, causing physical injury, loss or damage to property, or interfering with the investigation of offences; or the detention after charge is believed to be necessary for the child’s own protection or in their own interests.
I would like to reassure the Committee that there is already a degree of alignment between police bail and court bail, and the police custody officer must have regard to the same considerations as those that apply when a court is considering whether to grant bail under the Bail Act 1976.
I acknowledge the concern that many more children are remanded post charge by the police than are remanded by the courts while awaiting trial, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, outlined, and that this may give rise to consideration of risk-averse decision-making by the police. I do not necessarily believe this to be the case. It is important to remember that post-charge detention by the police serves a different purpose from youth remand in the courts, so it is unrealistic to expect an exact alignment of the conditions required to make decisions.
With this in mind, it is perfectly possible for the police to make a decision to remand a child post charge and for the courts to make a decision not to remand the same child to custody, and for both these decisions to be reasonable based on the evidence and circumstances before each party. In the overwhelming majority of cases, a child remanded by the police will be held for no more than 24 hours.
I also acknowledge the concern that police remand is a driver of custodial remand—that is, for example, that a court is more likely to view a child remanded by the police as dangerous. I am not aware of any data showing a causal link between police remand and custodial remand. A comprehensive evidence base comparing the circumstances whereby police bail after charge decisions are made under Section 38 of PACE would be needed, giving consideration to the threshold for grounds to refuse bail and whether custody officers have access to and apply all relevant information when making a bail decision.
Before I conclude, I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks and the Home Office’s gratitude to Brian Roberts, who was the department’s expert on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Sadly, he died last month after 50 years of public service as a police officer and then an official in the department. He is greatly missed by his colleagues.
On the basis of my remarks, I hope the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for his support.
I am afraid that there is a bit of a pattern developing here in the Government’s responses. On the one hand, the Minister said there is “a degree of alignment” between police remand in custody of children and court remand in custody. Some 4,500 children being remanded by the police and only 884 by the courts does not sound to me like alignment.
The Minister also said a child would never be remanded in police custody for more than 24 hours. Do courts sit on a Sunday? What happens to a child arrested on a Saturday afternoon? They are going to be in custody a lot longer than 24 hours.
Unfortunately, as I say, it is becoming a bit of a theme that the Government’s responses to amendments do not appear to be factually accurate. We need to review that. I am afraid I do not find the Minister’s response satisfactory, and no doubt we will return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.