House of Commons
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
The Ministry of Defence was delighted to support the Royal British Legion’s poppy appeal, in its 100th anniversary year. Members of all three services took part in Poppy Day activities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, selling poppies and collecting donations. I was delighted that all the members of the ministerial team were able to join in acts of remembrance throughout the weekend, demonstrating the central and cherished role of remembrance in our national life.
Simon Baynes
Will the Minister join me in thanking and congratulating the many volunteers, organisations and veterans across Clwyd South who have worked so hard to raise money for the poppy appeal, including Broughton community council, whose act of remembrance I had the honour of attending yesterday, laying a wreath at Brynteg Memorial Hall?
Leo Docherty
I do indeed join my hon. Friend in thanking everyone in Clwyd South who took part in those activities, particularly the team at Broughton community council and Brynteg Memorial Hall. I am sure that theirs was a fitting tribute to those who have served.
Craig Tracey
The fantastic work of the poppy appeal, which raises millions every year for our veterans, is only possible thanks to the hard work of the volunteers and armed forces who take part, giving up their time to ensure that the Royal British Legion’s fundraising efforts succeed. Will the Minister join me in thanking the volunteers and organisers of the Bedworth Armistice Day parade in my constituency, chaired by Ken Whitehead? It celebrated its centenary this year, being the only parade outside London to have taken place every year on 11 November.
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend is right to refer to the central role of the Royal British Legion volunteers. They are a magnificent bunch of people, and I particularly commend Ken Whitehead and all the Bedworth Armistice Day team. I also want to record my thanks for all my hon. Friend’s work to support our veterans and forces people in his constituency.
Elliot Colburn
I thank the many Carshalton and Wallington residents who volunteered to raise money for the poppy appeal this year. The appeal helps to fund the Royal British Legion’s work in raising funds for the armed forces covenant, providing support for thousands of service people and their families. What consideration has the Minister given to the Legion’s recent report on the impact of the covenant over the last 10 years?
Leo Docherty
I have given deep consideration to that excellent report, which I think is a hugely important piece of work. We have come a very long way in the last 10 years, but there is still more to do, and that is why we are putting the covenant into law in the Armed Forces Bill.
Robbie Moore
Over the past couple of weeks, people across Keighley and Ilkley have been working hard to raise funds for our veterans through the poppy appeal, including Jackie McGinnis and her team at the Keighley branch of the Royal British Legion. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking all my constituents who have worked so incredibly hard to raise money for the appeal, and use this opportunity to reiterate the importance of such funds being raised throughout the calendar year?
Leo Docherty
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in thanking Jackie McGinnis and the Keighley branch of the Royal British Legion. They have done terrifically good work. It is indeed an all-year-round challenge, and that is why we are pleased to have invested £25 million this year in third sector charities that support our veterans and armed forces. I am very grateful for the work that my hon. Friend continues to do in his constituency.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I speak as a great admirer of the poppy appeal. However, when the Minister next meets the national leadership of the Royal British Legion, will he point out that effectively closing down a branch and expelling its officers, as they have done in Leyton, is not the best way to promote the appeal, and nor is sealing and shutting the building so that its members have no access, and removing the base for the appeal in years to come?
Leo Docherty
I regularly meet the magnificent team of the Royal British Legion. If the hon. Gentleman can give me any particular details of that case, I should be pleased to raise it with them.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I had a friend who signed up at the age of 16 and served for eight years in the Balkans, Northern Ireland and the first Gulf war. About 10 days ago we lost him, after he had battled with mental ill health for perhaps 20 years. The Government talk a great deal about the programmes to help veterans with their mental health, but there does not seem to be anyone who is really reaching out to them. I wonder whether, through the poppy appeal and the Royal British Legion, more could be done to try to reach out to veterans so that they do not feel cast adrift once they leave the services.
Leo Docherty
I entirely agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Lady. We are trying harder than ever before and investing a huge amount of money in Op Courage, which is the bespoke mental health pathway for veterans in the national health service, but really this is about a broader challenge of reducing the stigma of mental health challenges. That is why we are ensuring that, during the time people serve in the armed forces, they see it as their professional responsibility to see mental good health as a question of resilience and capability, not something of which to be ashamed.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
This Remembrance Sunday was the first time that LGBT veterans were invited to lay a wreath openly at the Cenotaph. While the route to equality is something we all welcome, can the Minister detail the steps the Government are taking to provide compensation to all LGBT veterans who suffered a loss of earnings and pension as a result of the historical ban?
Leo Docherty
I am pleased to be able to put on record my acknowledgement of the injustice suffered by gay people who were unjustly thrown out of the military. I have met Fighting With Pride and others, and we are doing good work on this, which will be formally announced as part of a review. I hope to be able to provide further details to the House in the coming weeks.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Lady Haig’s Poppy Factory in Edinburgh has been in operation since 1926, employing ex-soldiers since the very beginning. Over the years it has grown considerably, and now it employs 41 veterans. Will the Minister join me in thanking them for their hard work and dedication in making beautiful poppy wreaths, and encourage other organisations to support veteran employability in the same way?
Leo Docherty
I am delighted to put on record my thanks to the Poppy Factory, which I have visited: it does magnificent work, and the wreaths it creates are a moving and important part of the Festival of Remembrance. I am also grateful that the hon. Lady picked up the theme of employability, because we will focus explicitly on that in the forthcoming veterans strategy.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
As you know, Mr Speaker, the Royal British Legion and the poppy appeal have supported veterans over the decades and over a number of conflicts, not least the Falklands campaign, which my constituency has such strong links with. Can the Minister talk a little about plans to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Falklands campaign next year?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is of particular interest, because my Aldershot constituency was formerly the home of the Parachute Regiment and one of my first engagements as a new MP was to attend the 35th anniversary of Op Corporate. There are significant plans under way, and I look forward to sharing those with her and her Gosport constituents in due course.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
We owe a debt of gratitude to locally employed staff who risked their lives along with UK forces in Afghanistan. Around 7,000 principals and their families have so far been relocated under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. The ARAP scheme, as I have always said, remains open and, in the past seven days, a further 100 Afghan nationals have been relocated from third countries to the UK. Of the 311 people who were called forward before the end of Op Pitting but were unable to leave the country, there are now fewer than 200 individuals remaining.
Ian Byrne
Correspondence received from the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), states that a number of my constituents’ family members may be eligible for the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme when it becomes available. The wait for the scheme to open has been unbearable for many. Can the Secretary of State confirm what discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues about this and, specifically, when the House will be informed of the date the scheme will open? Will it be before the end of the year, and what support, including legal support, will be available to help constituents to navigate the scheme?
Mr Wallace
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says but, as he knows, that scheme is under the stewardship of the Home Office. I am happy to take his representations and make them, but the policy decisions he is asking for are not made by the Ministry of Defence; they are best pointed at Home Office questions.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that Pakistan, with its deplorable record of support for the Taliban, is a hostile environment for a number of people who have fled Afghanistan and are hiding in Pakistan? If the British Government decide to issue visas to people who are taking refuge or in hiding in Pakistan, will he guarantee that they are safely able to get from Pakistan to the United Kingdom?
Mr Wallace
I listen to my right hon. Friend’s concerns. However, Pakistan has been, in these incidences, supportive, as have many other neighbouring countries. It plays an influential role in the region and it is necessary for us not only to engage, but to ensure that we work with it for the benefit of many of those people left in Afghanistan and for the wider security areas. However, I hear his points, and we also press Pakistan on areas such as terrorism, Kashmir and so on, ensuring that both parties to that conflict withdraw from any support of violence.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Last week I visited a bridging hotel where it became clear that ARAP evacuees are facing a cliff edge on their immigration status, having been given just six months’ leave to remain when they left Afghanistan. Permanent status is key to building a new life for those who supported our forces, so what steps is the Secretary of State taking with Home Office colleagues to ensure they receive indefinite leave to remain when they were promised?
Mr Wallace
I would be delighted to get those details from the hon. Gentleman, because all individuals settled under the ARAP scheme are given indefinite leave to remain.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I have no doubt that the Defence Secretary is straining every sinew, but one fears that bureaucracy and lack of clarity are getting in the way. I understand that almost 200 Afghans who worked with the British Council, and are therefore eligible for the ARAP scheme, are still in Afghanistan in fear of their lives. One sent this email:
“we are now being hunted by the Taliban. We are in hiding, and we have run out of money. We are in very real danger and in fear of our lives”.
What more can the Government do to help these people?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend refers to a scheme that is stewarded by the Foreign Office. I am happy to hold a surgery for colleagues on both sides of the House on the ARAP scheme, for which I am responsible, and I will broaden it by bringing along Ministers from other Departments so that they, too, can answer these questions and deal with individual cases brought by Members. If the House gives me leave, I would be happy to arrange it.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The Ministry of Defence did not contract private companies to undertake state-building as part of UK military operations in Afghanistan. Reconstruction activity could take many forms and could be commissioned in many ways, both from within the MOD and from elsewhere in Government. Does the hon. Gentleman have a particular company in mind?
Tommy Sheppard
The Foreign Office tells me it has spent £54 million with a company called Adam Smith International, but it will not tell me on what the money was spent. Can the Minister assure me that he will provide details of any contracts his Department has with Adam Smith International with regard to Afghanistan? There has clearly been a failure of nation-building in Afghanistan, and this Parliament needs to consider whether that failure is related to the organisations that were chosen to implement Government policy and the programmes they developed on the ground. May I ask for further assurance that the cloak of national security will not be used to withhold information?
James Heappey
As I said, the Ministry of Defence did not contract with companies to undertake state-building activity. I will clarify whether Adam Smith International had any role in anything we might count as reconstruction. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Foreign Office, and his question might be better addressed to colleagues there.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
NATO is the cornerstone of UK and Euro-Atlantic defence. As set out in the recent integrated review of international policy, the UK will remain the leading European ally within NATO, bolstering the alliance by tackling threats jointly and committing our resources to collective security in the Euro-Atlantic region. The UK contribution is substantial and comprehensive, spanning forces and headquarters, money, capabilities and people.
Rob Butler
With cross-party members of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I recently visited NATO air command at Ramstein for briefings from the excellent RAF officers based there. Given Russia’s frequent incursions into NATO airspace, its aggression and its threats, does my right hon. Friend agree that the RAF’s involvement is a crucial aspect of NATO’s commitment to constant vigilance and the protection of each and every member of the alliance?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right that the RAF is a key component of NATO’s deterrence and defence posture. The RAF preserves the security of alliance airspace through its contribution to enhanced air policing and its commitment of forces to the NATO response force. The RAF also provides high-quality staff officers to NATO headquarters, and it provides air transport, air-to-air refuelling and intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance support to NATO exercises and operations.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister knows very well what is happening between Russia and Belarus. He knows how many people are hostage on these borders, and how many children are in danger of dying of cold and starvation. What is NATO actually doing to show Russia that we mean business when it has devious and disgraceful policies such as this?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that what is going on in Belarus—and then into Poland, Estonia and these other countries—is a tragedy and a disgrace, in the way it has treated vulnerable people and clearly brought them over from other parts of the world. I am visiting Poland this week to discuss matters with my Polish counterparts. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the UK has a considerable number of forces in both Estonia and Poland, under the enhanced presence, and I have sent a recce party of Royal Engineers to see what else we can do to help. At the same time, on the diplomatic channels, we must also make sure that we are very clear that this is unacceptable behaviour. It is a hybrid, destabilising method deployed by too many countries, with human beings being the traffic. We should also press on the European Union, which is responsible for the civilian border policing of its Union; that is a very important step for it to take, as it should also be able to step up and complement NATO’s efforts.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Given the extremely concerning situations in not only Bosnia, but Ukraine, will my right hon. Friend please advise as to whether he plans to uplift our military presence to peacekeeping operations in both countries? Will a defence Minister attend the Bosnian Armed Forces Day at the start of December to show our continued support for peace in the region?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes an important point about another part of eastern Europe and the Balkans that is currently experiencing destabilising actions, activities and messaging that do no one any good. As she will know, it is a EUFOR deployment in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but there is also a NATO deployment, and I am open to exploring what more we could do in that area. Baroness Goldie will be attending the conference my hon. Friend asks about.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
May I offer our very best wishes to David Perry, whose heroic actions in Liverpool yesterday may have prevented a despicable and devastating attack on the city’s remembrance ceremony?
I say to the Defence Secretary that we share his grave concerns about deteriorating security and destabilisation, both in Bosnia and on the Ukraine border. We fully back the diplomatic efforts he mentions to de-escalate tensions, but, as the Chief of the Defence Staff said yesterday, we also
“have to be on our guard and make sure deterrence prevails”.
So may I ask the Defence Secretary to confirm that a war-fighting division is still the bedrock of the British Army and the defence capability Britain offers NATO? When will this division be fully capable for combat operations?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman is correct to identify that a war-fighting division is the bedrock. Obviously, as we reform and invest in new capabilities, the scale and availability of that division will fluctuate, as we re-equip and re-posture. However, that does not prevent our already having a very, very high-readiness battle group available in Estonia, with a matter of hours to move, as one of the best parts of deterrence is readiness, as opposed to simply having just scale on its own. We can have scale, but if we cannot get to the battlefront, we are not necessarily deterring anyone. That is why we are investing in those new capabilities, but he is correct to say that a war-fighting division is obviously part of our cornerstone commitment to NATO.
John Healey
The Army told the Select Committee on Defence last year that it will not be until the “early 2030s” before it can field a fully equipped war-fighting division, including a new strike brigade. There are serious questions about capacity—or, as the Defence Secretary says, scale—as well as about military capability. Britain’s previous contribution to the UN peacekeeping in Bosnia was about 2,400 troops, and that was when the Army was still 145,000 strong. His current cuts will leave the Army at exactly half that size. So if, in the worst circumstances, our forces are called on in both eastern Europe and the Balkans at the same time, how confident is he that Britain could meet NATO requirements?
Mr Wallace
I am very confident of that: we have just completed another round of forces allocation within NATO to make sure that we are all able to meet our commitments. We have a new scheme in NATO whereby we can trade different capabilities. For example, we have traded some capabilities for more maritime contribution, so that we can keep our abilities strong and present in the sea as much as we can on land—it will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman that Russia, for example, is capable of using all the domains to threaten our security.
On the division the right hon. Gentleman talked about, the Chief of the Defence Staff’s comments to the Select Committee represented the situation at the end of the transition, but all the way through that transition the UK’s premier armoured division, 3 Division, will have battle-winning capabilities and the ability to take on Russia as part of a NATO commitment. Only recently, I visited the division on Salisbury plain—it is the single biggest brigade or battle group we have had on Salisbury plain for decades—and saw more than 270 vehicles go through their paces, planning and making sure that they are up to date with the latest equipment.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
We recognise the need to understand and manage risk in our supply chains, including rotary wing, and work closely on this with the defence industry, including through the defence suppliers forum. We are also engaged with the cross-Government global supply chains initiative, which is aimed at improving resilience in public procurement.
Chris Loder
I was particularly pleased to learn of Leonardo’s £1 billion investment proposition to provide a great future for the site in Yeovil—where many of my West Dorset constituents work—as a global centre of military excellence. Will my right hon. Friend kindly ensure that we in the UK, and the Leonardo business in particular, will secure more transformational industrial innovation, as he envisaged under the defence and security industrial strategy?
Mr Wallace
Yes. I welcome Leonardo’s investment in West Dorset and in UK manufacturing as a whole. The defence and security industrial strategy will ensure that the UK can continue to have competitive, innovative and world-class defence and security industries. The MOD is investing in emerging technology, utilising the UK’s strong industrial and research base. Through our forward-looking strategic partnerships, we will drive collaboration on cutting-edge information.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I do apologise, Mr Speaker: I mean no discourtesy to you or the House but I am afraid I have pulled a muscle in my back and it is terribly painful for me to bob up and down. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am a proud member of and, indeed, chair of the Unite group of Labour MPs.
To follow up on the Secretary of State’s previous answer, he will no doubt be aware that the Yeovil-based Leonardo helicopter-manufacturing facility has prepared a tender for the Puma-replacement contract. Will the Government deliver on their responsibility to support workers in rural communities and protect skilled jobs in the United Kingdom? Will he assure the House that the Puma-replacement contract will be awarded to a UK-based company?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman will have read the defence and security industrial strategy and, indeed, the reforms to the Treasury Green Book that allow me to put a premium on social value, including in respect of priorities such as levelling up and UK skills. I am determined that we make that clear in many of our interactions with industry. As a member of Unite, the hon. Gentleman will know that Unite represents not just workers at Leonardo in Yeovil but no doubt lots of workers in the aerospace industry in my part of the world up in Lancashire. We have a duty to make sure that we listen to all British workers, wherever they are.
On the new medium-lift helicopter contract, we are expecting a competition and will produce details of that for the House sooner rather than later. We expect the new medium-lift helicopter to come in by 2025.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
A fortnight ago, the all-party Public Accounts Committee published the most damning report it has ever produced on MOD procurement, including helicopter procurement. The report concluded:
“To meet the aspirations of the Integrated Review, the Department’s broken system for acquiring military equipment needs an urgent rethink, led by HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office.”
Given that not one of the top 36 MOD procurement programmes—worth £150 billion of taxpayers’ money—is fully on track, who, either at Abbey Wood or on the fifth floor of the MOD, is going to accept personal responsibility? When will the Secretary of State bring in the Cabinet Office to clean up the MOD’s mess?
Mr Wallace
I have read the report and, while it makes some very important points, I am sad to say that it is actually no different from the series of reports that I have read over decades. It is not any worse than some of the ones from 2008 and 2009. There are repeat problems, which is why, in seeking defence reforms, I have been determined to make sure that we get on top of these issues. [Interruption.] I distinctly remember the report that was delivered in 2010, which showed that, in one year under the Labour Administration, they spent £3 billion without even knowing where it was coming from. My right hon. Friend is right that there are lessons to be learned. We will get on it. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss what we think we can do. Many of the programmes referred to not only pre-date me and this ministerial team, but predate my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team and we need to make sure that we get on top of that issue. There are solutions to this, but we must also enforce tight timetables and then we will deliver.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is welcome news for the British aerospace industry that the Government have published a draft plan to buy between 36 and 44 aircraft under their long-awaited New Medium Helicopter acquisition programme. Like other Members on both sides of the House, we, too, could not let this pass without mentioning the National Audit Office report. The Government have been in power for 11 years. They have overseen a Ministry of Defence that has created a black hole of £17 billion. The Defence Secretary has stood here and said that the helicopter will be ready by 2025. Why, given the evidence that the MOD has difficulty in fulfilling its contracts, is he confident that this will happen? How long will it be before the Ministry of Defence takes these NAO reports seriously, and will it take positive action to bring some positivity around procurement contracts?
Mr Wallace
The reason why I am confident about the 2025 timetable is that the expected bidders in the new medium-lift helicopter programme are expected to bid mature products that have been in production not only in the United Kingdom, but in Europe and around the world. The only negotiation would therefore be around European content and European build and all the other factors that are very important to hon. Members. I am pretty confident about 2025, but it does of course depend on what extras the services want to have added on. On the issue of 10 and 20-year programmes, it is, as hon. Members who have served in the Ministry will know, that if we change the plans half way through, we incur costs or delays. That has been part of the problem for many, many decades, but it does not change the fact that defence procurement programmes are decades long, which has a greater impact than if we were just going out there and buying a car.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
If the defence procurement landscape were a bit more positive, we might have some more confidence in the Secretary of State’s reassurances, but 2025 is not far away. Can he prompt the procurement exercise for the new medium-lift helicopter to replace the ageing Puma fleet, or at least clarify the pedestrian progress of this operational priority to date? Multiple “primes”, including Airbus with its 175M and Leonardo, will be looking to compete for this work as well as US contractors. We need to be able to scrutinise these contractors and their bids sooner rather than later to ensure that, no matter who wins this contract, the economic impact is enjoyed across these islands and not simply, for example, in the south-west of England.
Mr Wallace
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He will know from the shipbuilding industry in Scotland that there is a huge benefit for shipbuilding in Govan, Scotstoun and Rosyth. I am very keen to make sure that all the prosperity of the defence pound is spread around the United Kingdom. Lots of jobs are attached to all different types of projects whether they are “primes” or supporting contracts through things such as radar and sonar.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The Ministry of Defence has carried out extensive and robust lessons-learned exercises in response to events in Afghanistan, including for Op Pitting, the non-combatant evacuation operation, and those lessons have already been recycled into our NEO plans. It has also done the same with the decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan in the first place. Moreover, numerous inquiries are already taking place across Government to scrutinise both the UK’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and our campaign in Afghanistan more generally, including the inquiry being undertaken by the House of Commons Defence Committee, which the Secretary of State gave evidence to on 26 October.
Kirsten Oswald
Does the Minister accept, though, that there is confusion and contradiction in the UK Government’s portrayal of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, with the former Foreign Secretary saying that the Taliban takeover was “faster than anyone anticipated” while the Prime Minister was saying that it had been “clear for many months” that the situation could change quickly? Army personnel faced the heart-breaking task of turning back thousands of Afghan citizens, including many who worked with groups such as the British Council. Surely this House and our constituents have a right to know what went wrong and why. Does the Minister not appreciate that only an independent inquiry can tell us that?
James Heappey
The hon. Lady conflates two issues. The first is the decision-making process around why British forces left Afghanistan. I do not think there is much to unearth there; the Doha agreement that was signed by President Trump put us in a position where a decision would need to be made this year, either to re-engage the Taliban in full-on fighting or to leave. That was the deal that was done, and we have been very clear with the House about that at every opportunity. As for the delivery of Op Pitting itself, I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s characterisation of what I think was an extraordinarily successful military operation.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much agree with the Minister that Op Pitting was a superbly successful operation, no matter what else one might say about Afghanistan. It is only right that we in this House and across the Palace should thank and welcome the people who carried out that operation, and Members of all parties and staff throughout the Palace will be able to do so on Wednesday 24 November, immediately after Prime Minister’s Question Time, when 150 soldiers who carried out that brilliant operation will march through Carriage Gates and halt outside the great north door of Westminster Hall. I hope that all Members will be there to welcome them and thank them for what they did.
James Heappey
I did not spot a question in there, but I think that we are all looking forward to that event as much as my hon. Friend.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
There is no question that the bravery and professionalism of UK armed forces personnel certainly got the Government out of a hole when it came to Op Pitting, but one issue that we need an inquiry to look at is why, in May, the French were so much better prepared than the UK to the extent that they commenced evacuating Afghans who supported the French efforts in Afghanistan, along with their families, 90 days before the fall of Kabul. It is quite clear that similar intelligence was available to NATO allies in advance of operations commencing, so what went wrong with the analysis of that intelligence in the United Kingdom? An inquiry must establish whether the UK Government were guilty of rose-tinted assessment, complacency or general dysfunction.
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman might want to check the date on which the Foreign Office advice to leave Afghanistan was changed to be that, because it was actually very much aligned with the French timeline that he mentioned. From that moment onwards, the resettlement scheme for moving MOD-entitled civilian contractors out of the country had commenced. It is a source of regret, I think, for many who were eligible for the scheme that they chose not to leave at the first opportunity and they waited, but the MOD was not in a position forcibly to remove people from the country. The scheme was open; we were bringing people back. From memory, I think we removed about 1,500 people before Kabul fell. I wish that more had taken the opportunity to leave when the Foreign Office advice was changed, but the Foreign Office advice was changed in a timely way and the MOD capacity to move people was in place from the spring.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
The Government are committed to delivering a gold standard of care for our veterans. We have made huge progress in recent years, with tangible benefits such as the veterans railcard, the bespoke mental health care pathway, tax breaks for those employing veterans and guaranteed job interviews for veterans applying to join the civil service. But there is more to do, which is why we are putting the armed forces covenant into law and why I will be announcing the veterans strategy next month.
Selaine Saxby
The Veterans Charity, which is based in North Devon, helps hundreds of veterans across the UK each year, and would like to thank the MOD for supporting its routes of remembrance event, which involved many veterans and service personnel around the nation. The Veterans Charity received many referrals from the excellent Op Courage teams. Will the Minister clarify what plans there are for more comprehensive coverage from this service across North Devon and the south-west, where there are many veterans living in remote areas who need and deserve greater mental health support?
Leo Docherty
I am pleased to put on record my thanks to the Veterans Charity for its amazing work. I was pleased to contribute to the routes of remembrance event and to dispatch a wreath from Aldershot along with the mayor and garrison commander. We are rightly increasing the budget for Op Courage to more than £20 million this year. An important component of that healthcare is the accreditation of local GPs, so I hope that my hon. Friend is exploring that prospect in North Devon.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Last week it was revealed that hundreds of veterans face pension cuts of up to £600 a year due to computer error, with no right to appeal. As the cost of living rises under this Government, what is the Minister doing to support those ex-forces personnel who now cannot afford basics like heating and food due to administrative incompetence?
Leo Docherty
I have absolute responsibility for that, and I am liaising closely with Veterans UK to ensure that those people who have served us get the support and encouragement they need.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his question. Our Afghan relocations and assistance policy remains open and a dedicated team at the permanent joint headquarters continue to work with all those eligible to ensure their safe passage to the UK. I recently visited the region to identify what more we can do to support both third-country and in-country applicants, and we are working with a wide range of allies and partners to explore every possible avenue.
David Warburton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response. I appreciate that much of the information around the Government’s support for those in Afghanistan is sensitive, but can he update the House on whether the Government have made an assessment of how many people still in Afghanistan qualify for the scheme and what steps the Government are taking to ensure that they are able to leave safely?
James Heappey
We estimate that about 800 principals plus their families might be eligible to come to the UK through the ARAP route. However, we should be clear that this is a very difficult process that relies entirely at the moment on the co-operation of third countries, and that regulates flow. We are doing our best to get people here in the biggest numbers that we possibly can, but other countries in the region get a vote. That is why all the ministerial team and our colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office continue to work hard to maintain those relationships and maintain those permissions.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Afghan interpreters who previously settled in Newport East are still waiting to be reunited with their families who have been stuck in bridging hotels waiting for biometric resident permits for some months now. What are Defence Ministers doing to impress upon Home Office Ministers the need to sort this out?
James Heappey
I meet Home Office Ministers regularly, and so does my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, who is leading on the reception of ARAP personnel within the UK. If the hon. Lady would like to write to him with the detail of the people she is representing, we will make sure that that is passed to Home Office Ministers.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
Defence will invest at least £6.6 billion in research and development over the next four years in areas including space, directed energy weapons, and artificial intelligence. This will help to secure our military edge by ensuring that we can adopt modern technologies at scale and produce game-changing advantage.
Stuart Anderson
With the significant rise in AI being used in defence, what steps are being taken to ensure that there is transparency of calculations that show both an ethical and moral approach to defence?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend asks a very good question that needs to be addressed. I am pleased to confirm that we are producing a defence AI strategy that will cover how we will get an operational advantage. That work is ongoing and it will be published in due course.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
We are committed to providing veterans with a gold standard of support. This year we increased the budget of Op Courage from £17.8 million to more than £20 million. We are committed to supporting third-sector armed forces charities. That is why this year we are putting a record amount of money—£25 million—into that sector.
Alex Norris
Yesterday we honoured our armed forces and their incredible service, but we know that this service comes at a cost. Over the past five years, the number of personnel medically discharged due to mental health issues has doubled. We are not offering them enough support. On the commitment of just £20 million a year, Labour has pledged to increase that by £35 million. Will the Minister match that commitment today?
Leo Docherty
I think we are putting our money where our mouth is, but I make the broader point that it is about reducing stigma around mental health and ensuring that, during service, service people understand that dealing with their mental health is a professional responsibility. That is why we have introduced an annual mandatory mental health care brief. It is very important that service people see mental health as resilience and professional capability. We are trying to change the entire culture around it.
Navendu Mishra
The Government are currently missing a range of targets for the mental health care of veterans, and sadly veterans continue to face a postcode lottery when accessing services. We know that veterans face a wait of 37 days for face-to-face appointments offered through the transition intervention and liaison service, against a target of 14 days. The average wait time for treatment is 70 days, a jump from 57 days in 2018-19. We also know that there was an increase in the wait time for appointments through the complex treatment service—now at 33 days, up from 18 in 2018-19. The Government have missed targets on mental health care for veterans across all services in England. In light of that, will the Minister commit to reviewing these services to ensure that our former serving personnel get the best standards of care?
Leo Docherty
I do not accept that characterisation from the hon. Member. Op Courage is very successful. Clearly there is always more to do, which is why we are putting more money into it. Importantly, we are putting veterans themselves at the heart of Op Courage as peer support workers.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Veterans mental health services in Wales could be greatly improved if we had a veterans’ commissioner. We are the only nation in the UK not to have one. The UK Government have agreed to create and fund the post, but the Welsh Government have not yet agreed to recognise it and work with it. Will the Minister join me in urging them to do so, so that veterans in Wales can benefit from the same support as their counterparts in the rest of the UK?
Leo Docherty
I am delighted that we will have an independent veterans’ commissioner in Wales, and I thank my hon. Friend for the campaigning she has done on this. We look forward to positive working with the Welsh Government to ensure a very positive outcome for veterans in Wales.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
In September, I notified the House of data breaches relating to the MOD’s Afghanistan relocations and assistance policy, or ARAP. An internal investigation has now concluded, and I have laid a written ministerial statement of its findings before the House. While the breaches were attributed to human error, they should have been prevented by better operating procedures and training. Significant remedial actions were taken, and I am confident that their application is sufficient to prevent recurrence.
We are not aware of anyone who has come to harm as a result of these breaches, but continue to support all families awaiting relocation to the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, of the 311 ARAP-eligible Afghan families unable to board a flight who had been called forward before the end of Op Pitting, fewer than 200 remain, and we will continue with those relocations. The scale of that task should not be underestimated. More than 89,000 applications have already been received and more than 7,000 people relocated to the UK. I apologise again for the data breaches, recommit to efforts preventing recurrence and thank all those in the MOD whose ongoing work is honouring our debt of gratitude to those Afghan nationals who supported our efforts in the country.
Peter Grant
As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) referred to earlier, and may well be planning to refer to again in a few minutes, we have seen report after report from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee highlighting the fact that the Ministry of Defence does not have an adequately funded and affordable equipment programme. It has weaknesses in its management of major defence projects. There is not even a proper funding mechanism to match the long-term nature of the contracts. This is causing delays in critically important frontline equipment. How much longer will it be before our service personnel can guarantee that they will always be equipped with the best equipment available?
Mr Wallace
I understand the hon. Member’s concern, but I say to him first that we will publish our equipment programme soon, and that it is not the case that the projects are unfunded—that is an incorrect assertion. Like him, I am absolutely determined to get to grips with some of the issues. That is why we took some decisions to cancel or not proceed with programmes. We took some tough decisions to ensure that the equipment programme is affordable. It is also why the Prime Minister gave us a record capital departmental expenditure limit settlement for our equipment programme, to ensure that we can deliver the equipment for our forces.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Hello, it’s me again.
I will gladly take the Secretary of State up on his offer of a meeting about procurement, but there is an old Army saying: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. This is broke—it is official. This is the worst report on MOD procurement in living memory, Ben. We both know it is, so can we please do something about it and put it right?
Mr Wallace
I understand my right hon. Friend’s frustration; I am equally frustrated. He will know from his time in the Department that one of the biggest challenges was that people’s appetites often outstretched their pockets. We also have to adapt to threats when they change, and that causes an impact, as do things such as dollar fluctuations. There are a lot of factors in complicated procurement, but that is not to say that we do not need a lot of things to go right. I would be delighted to talk to him about some of the simple changes that could make a big difference.
The other issue is ensuring that Ministers are on top of all the detail, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement is on that detail and ensuring that we get a grip of this. It is also about having not part-time but dedicated senior responsible officers—I am not sure why no one has done that for decades. We should then hold those people more responsible.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I was disappointed to get the Defence Secretary’s written ministerial statement on the ARAP data breach and general update just before I left for these questions in the Chamber, which was too late to put to him the many concerns felt on all sides of the House. It should have been an oral statement. I hope that he will consider making such a statement.
The Defence Secretary has pledged to assist investigations into the grave allegations about the murder of Agnes Wanjiru in Kenya nine years ago by a British solider. Why has he not launched an MOD inquiry into the separate serious allegations that the killing was an open secret in the regiment and that senior officers suppressed the information?
Mr Wallace
While I have not opened a formal investigation, I have absolutely asked the question of the Army to get the bottom of what happened with the original allegations and where we got with that. At the same time, I am respecting the judicial process. The right hon. Member and I will know that we can comment only so far on what is ongoing with that incident and others that appear in the service justice scheme, or indeed on any foreign assistance required.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
I assure my hon. Friend that, as he is aware, there is no longer a military requirement for RAF Linton-on-Ouse. The timing of the site’s disposal is under active consideration. There will be an announcement and I will write to him as soon as it is made. I expect to do so shortly.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Jeremy Quin
I cannot comment on that, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as I think he is aware, the MOD looks seriously at that area. In March, we published our sustainability strategy, and we are regarded as a leader in NATO for our work on reducing emissions in military operations. We want to be best in class—that is what we are working towards—and I hope that we will see a further reduction in our carbon emissions in the years to come.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I certainly do congratulate the Royal Marines on this magnificent new facility. I am delighted that this 181-bed block for the rehabilitation of trainees was completed on budget and ahead of schedule. I am really impressed, and I think that does real justice to the magnificent fighting spirit of the Royal Marines.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
This June, in Swansea, the British Training Board opened the national armed forces training hub, supported by the Welsh Government, the local authority and the University of Wales Trinity Saint David, which provides a full career development programme to veterans, with university qualifications. Does the Minister agree that, thanks to organisations such as the BTB, the majority of service personnel go on to fantastic careers in civilian life? What more can be done to provide our personnel during their military training with the complete range of universally recognised life skills that they need?
Leo Docherty
What we can do is ensure is that when someone gets a military qualification, it has civilian equivalents. We are doing that, and that is important because military service does give people skills for life.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Leo Docherty
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and Veterans into Logistics. He is right: military service does give people skills for life, and I was very pleased recently to announce an increase in the number of HGV licence places for service leavers.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows that lots of armed forces personnel have suffered brain injuries while they have been on active service. The temptation is always to try to deal with that solely within the Ministry of Defence, but when they leave the services they often have to rely on the Department of Health and Social Care, local government and many other Departments of Government, so is it not time that we had a whole-Government strategy for dealing with acquired brain injury? The good news for the Secretary of State—I am sure he will be answering now I have said that—is that he will be able to join the campaign for a whole-Government approach to acquired brain injury by supporting my Acquired Brain Injury Bill on 3 December.
Mr Wallace
First, I would be absolutely delighted not only to talk to the hon. Member about this, but to look at his Bill. He is right: obviously some of these brain injuries are with people for life. We should therefore make sure that they are managed when they leave service and are dealt with outside, and make sure that that is a seamless changeover. I would be very happy to look at the Bill, and he can explain the details to me.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Falmouth has always had a vital role in the defence of the UK. A&P Falmouth’s in-service support contract, awarded in 2018, is worth some £239 million over 10 years. Given our strong investment in the Royal Navy, to which she referred, I have no doubt there will be future opportunities.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State tell me, first, what contact he has had with the Home Office regarding the murder of Agnes Wanjiru to ensure that at least there has been effective monitoring of a man accused of murdering a woman? An answer from his Department last week stated:
“At present, the sexual exploitation of any person is not recorded as an offence in its own right”.
Can he explain why not, and can he tell the House when it will be an offence for a British soldier to partake in the sexual exploitation of prostituted adults?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady will know that, where a judicial investigation by another police force is going on, we stand ready to support and help them, and we do that. I cannot give this House a running commentary on any investigation for fear of jeopardising that investigation. What I can say to her is that not only have I said that our support is available, but I have even, on a similar type of investigation, told the provost marshal that if there were any barriers I would seek to remove them. I am determined to make sure that both legacy or older investigations and indeed investigations into current offences get all the support we can give—we have extra members of the military police in Kenya to make sure of that—but I cannot give her a running commentary.
On the hon. Lady’s other issue, about exploitation, I have made clear, first, the points about respect for women overall; secondly, that there are already some sanctions in place in the armed forces should people go against that; and, thirdly, that I am absolutely looking at the whole section about prostitution and the exploitation of women.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
While an aircraft carrier is the ultimate expression of hard power, does the Secretary of State agree with me that the soft power expressed by HMS Queen Elizabeth and the carrier strike group, through strengthening relationships and reassuring old friends and new friends alike, shows global Britain in action? [Interruption.]
Mr Wallace
I love listening to Scottish National party Members heckle, when they cannot even run the Ferguson yards and commission their own ships.
The carrier strike group has not only visited and worked with over 44 nations on its tour, but has had visits from 63 Ministers. It is great convenor and a great presence that, made in Britain, definitely does go around the world showing that Britain can do both soft and hard power, and do it with quality.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Prior to entering Parliament I worked for the Career Transition Partnership at its Scottish resettlement centre and saw the vital work done in assisting service personnel prepare for civilian life through training, needs assessment and care support. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that funding for such resettlement programmes does not fall in the period covered by the spending review?
Leo Docherty
We provide support for resettlement for two priors to the end of people’s service and for two years after. That is a very important component of our offer to service people.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the new AUKUS partnership will not only help keep our people safe by preserving security and stability in the Indo-Pacific but will also help deliver this Government’s ambitions to level-up across the whole United Kingdom, including through the creation of hundreds of jobs in Scotland?
Jeremy Quin
I very much hope so. We spend over £20 billion a year on UK defence and over 10% of that goes to Scotland. We have increased the number of direct Scottish defence jobs by a fifth over the last three years, and that goes right the way across Scotland including Score Marine in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Other opportunities will arise over the next few years and AUKUS is a great basis for the future, not only for defence but for our joint security and for prosperity.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
At his last outing before the Defence Committee, the Minister for Defence Procurement would not give a commitment that the future solid support ships would be built in Britain; he just said that the integration would take place here. Can he say today what percentage of the content of those vessels will be UK-sourced to protect not just jobs but technology in the UK?
Jeremy Quin
As I recall, I said we expected a substantial amount of that build to be in the UK, and as the right hon. Gentleman well knows I cannot go much further on an ongoing procurement process.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Hightown barracks in Wrexham is the spiritual home of the Royal Welch Fusiliers. Ten years ago it was destined to be a housing estate but now it contains the Defence Mental Health Clinic, a reserve field detachment, cadets, a preparation college, support for transport and an inspiring anti-tank company. So will the Secretary of State agree to visit the barracks with me and thank Colonel Nick Lock and his team?
Mr Wallace
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is the hon. Lady’s birthday, and I am not sure if she would think it a birthday present or not but I will be delighted to visit it with her.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Thousands of disabled war veterans are being denied the compensation and support they need and are entitled to, so will the Secretary of State say how many people are waiting over a year for a tribunal decision on a war pension or an armed forces compensation scheme appeal, and if he does not know the details, will he write to me?
Mr Wallace
I will write to the hon. Lady with the details.
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the covid-19 pandemic and the life-saving work of our vaccination programme.
If I may, I would like to start by saying a few words about the incident that took place at Liverpool Women’s hospital yesterday. This is an ongoing investigation into what has now been declared a terrorist incident by police so it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail, but I would like to take a moment to express my thanks to all of the NHS staff and emergency services who responded to the incident. They have shown the utmost professionalism in the most difficult of circumstances and my thoughts—and I know the thoughts of the whole House—are with them and anyone who has been affected.
On covid and our vaccination programme, a year ago today we were in the midst of our second national lockdown, a time when we endured major restrictions on our life and liberty and when we observed a period of Remembrance when we could not come together and pay our respects in person in the way we all would have wanted to. Our country has come so far since then. We have put over 109 million vaccine doses in arms through our world-leading vaccination programme, which means we can approach this winter with the best possible chance of living with the virus because, as the data clearly demonstrates, vaccines work. This month’s figures from the Office for National Statistics show that between January and September, the risk of death involving covid-19 was 32 times greater in unvaccinated people than in those who were fully vaccinated.
But although we have built up this huge protection, this is not a time for complacency. Earlier this month, the World Health Organisation’s Europe director said that Europe was
“back at the epicentre of the pandemic,”
and just this weekend, the Netherlands and Austria put in place partial lockdowns after surges in cases.
We also still face the risk of new variants, just as we have seen with the emergence of AY.4.2, the so-called delta-plus variant. The latest data shows that it now accounts for around 15% of cases in the UK. Although delta-plus may be more infectious than the original delta variant, our investigations indicate that our vaccines remain effective against it. But we all know that there will be more variants in the future, and we do not want to go backwards after all the progress we have made, so we must stay focused on the threat that is in front of us and seize every opportunity to bolster our vital defences as the winter moves in.
That includes our vaccination programme, our primary force of defence. Last week, I announced to the House that health and social care providers in England must make sure that all workers, other than those that are medically exempt, are fully vaccinated against covid-19 so that vulnerable patients have the greatest possible protection against infection. Today, I would like to update the House on more measures that we will be taking to keep ourselves on the front foot.
First, we are expanding our booster programme, which is essential so that we can keep upgrading the protection that we have in this country. Our vaccination programme has given us a strong protective wall, but we need to use every opportunity to shore up our defences. Evidence published this month shows how protection against symptomatic disease, hospitalisation and death from covid-19 gradually wanes as time passes, and that is more likely if someone is older or clinically at risk. Even a small drop in immunity can mean a big impact on the NHS; if protection against hospitalisation dropped just from 95% to 90% in those who are double vaccinated, that would mean a doubling of hospital admissions in that group of people, so topping up our immunity through booster doses is essential to our security for the long term.
Today, the UK Health Security Agency has published the first data on booster vaccine effectiveness in the UK. It shows that people who take up the offer of a booster vaccine increase their protection against symptomatic covid-19 infection to over 90%, and protection against more severe disease is expected to be even higher than that, so we are intensifying the booster programme ahead of the winter. Over 12 million people have now had their top-up jab, and over 2 million were given it last week. We have also made changes to the national booking service so people can pre-book their top-up doses a month before they become eligible. Last Monday, we saw almost 800,000 bookings in a single day in England. That is a new record.
Secondly, we are taking another step forward. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has recommended offering all adults aged 40 to 49 a booster dose six months after their second dose, using either the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccine. I have accepted that advice, and 40 to 49-year-olds will be able to get their top-up jab from next Monday if they are eligible. The JCVI has also said that in due course, it will be considering whether boosters are needed for all 18 to 39-year-olds, along with whether additional booster doses are required for the most vulnerable over the long term. I look forward to receiving that advice in due course.
Just as we extend protection through booster doses, we are also ramping up our efforts to protect younger people. Our programme for 12 to 15-year-olds is progressing at pace, and yesterday we hit the milestone of 1 million 12 to 15-year-olds being vaccinated in England. We are also offering a vaccine to 16 and 17-year-olds. I would like to update the House on some further steps that we are taking.
In August, we decided, in line with JCVI advice, that all 16 and 17-year-olds should be offered a first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. That is apart from a small number of those in at-risk groups, who were offered two doses. Now, the JCVI has advised that all 16 and 17-year-olds should also be offered a second dose, and that it is even more confident about the safety and benefits of doses in 16 and 17-year-olds. As Dr June Raine, the chief executive of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, said this morning:
“As the data has accrued, we’ve become more and more reassured that the safety picture in young people and teenagers is just the same as what we’ve seen in the older population.”
The JCVI has advised that unless a patient is in an at-risk group, second doses should take place 12 weeks after the initial dose, rather than eight weeks. I have accepted that advice. The NHS will be putting that into action. Once again, those jabs will start going into arms from next Monday. This will extend the protection of a vaccine to even more people and strengthen our national defences even further.
Our vaccination programme has paved our path out of the pandemic and given us hope of a winter that is brighter than the last. Today, we are going even further, extending our booster programme and offering greater protection to young people, so we can fortify the defences we have built together and help our nation to stay one step ahead of the virus.
I commend the statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Like him, I express my sympathies and thoughts to all those affected by the terrorist incident outside Liverpool Women’s Hospital, and to put on record my thanks to the emergency services who responded so professionally.
The Secretary of State is right to warn of covid rates up-ticking. The Prime Minister, at his press conference a few moments ago, has just refused to rule out a Christmas lockdown. Only last week, when he was asked about the over-65s being banned from public places if they had not had a booster, the Secretary of State said:
“I can’t rule that out”.
I have to say that that is quite a remarkable statement from Parliament’s biggest fan of Ayn Rand. The Prime Minister himself has warned of storm clouds over Europe.
Nobody wants to see further restrictions and they need not be inevitable. If the Secretary of State wants to avoid plan B—we understand why—will he at least consider introducing better sick pay and widening isolation support, so that those who are low paid can isolate themselves should they catch the virus? Will he consider better support for public buildings by putting in place high efficiency particulate air—HEPA—filter systems, because we know the virus is airborne and we need to reduce opportunities for us all to be breathing polluted air?
Will the Secretary of State go further to fix the stalling vaccination programme? I have put it to him for a number of weeks now that there are pockets of the country where the level of vaccination at second dose is nowhere near where it ought to be. For example, here in the Borough of Westminster only 52% of residents have had their second dose. In areas where the Prime Minister imposed a local lockdown last year as part of his whack- a-mole strategy, the second dose rate is: 61% in my own area of Leicester, 67% in Burnley, 64% in Sandwell and 69% in Bolton. There is a similar pattern in other areas. What is he doing to drive up vaccination rates in those areas, because nobody wants to see localised lockdowns?
The Secretary of State talks about children’s vaccination rates, but the Government promised that every child would be offered a jab by half-term. Two weeks or so on from that half-term, only about a third of children have been vaccinated. Why are we so far behind on children’s vaccination coverage? Pfizer has been given the sign-off for younger children. Can he update the House on where we are on younger children and vaccination?
The Secretary of State will know that the levels of infection in society continue to put immense pressure on the NHS. With intensive care unit beds filling up, staff are exhausted. Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, just said at the press conference that a number of the women in ICUs are unvaccinated pregnant women, so again, what is the Government’s plan to promote the safety of the vaccine for women who have concerns about fertility?
Some hospitals with the most covid patients, such as those in Birmingham, Leicester and Manchester, are those with the most pressured A&Es. We heard from ambulance chiefs today that 160,000 patients come to harm every year because ambulances are backed up outside hospitals. Thousands of patients will suffer serious harm, with some at risk of permanent disability, and others will die because of the pressures on hospitals. Last week, we heard that patients are waiting, on average, close to an hour for an ambulance when suffering a suspected heart attack or stroke, and all 10 ambulance trusts are on high alert. At what point does the Secretary of State accept that the pressures on the NHS are unsustainable?
After years of flat funding, bed closures, understaffing and deep cuts to social care, does the Secretary of State not accept that the NHS across the piece is in crisis? What is he going to do about it? I know that he will get up and tell us about the extra expenditure and the tax rise that he is imposing on working people, but he failed to secure a new funding settlement in the Budget for the long-term recruitment and training of the staff we need. He failed to secure a funding settlement to fix social care now, when we know that one in five beds is occupied by an older person who could be discharged into social care. As we go into the winter—the “brighter” winter than last year’s, as he described it—can he tell us what his plan actually is to get the NHS through this winter without compromising patient care?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman stated that no one wants to see any further restrictions, and that is absolutely true. As I set out in my statement, one of the best ways that we can all work towards preventing any kind of further restrictions is by making sure that we keep the vaccine wall strong. Although I did not quite hear him say so in his comments, I assume that he welcomes today’s extension of the booster programme, the second doses for 16 and 17-year-olds and the continuing relentless focus on the vaccination programme.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned other things that can help, such as sick pay. That is why we are still offering sick pay from day one; we also have the hardship payments. He is right to point to the importance of ventilation, and there is very clear guidance on other measures, whether that means ventilation or mask wearing in certain circumstances. All of that can help, and guidance is out there to help people and organisations to make sure that they have the very best advice.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of second doses. I think he would welcome the fact that we as a country have got to a place where almost 88% of people who are eligible have had at least one dose and almost 80% have had their second dose. Clearly, there is a gap there, and a huge amount of work by the NHS and others is going into filling that gap. Also, people who have still not even had a single dose remain eligible; our offer of vaccination is evergreen. We are offering the vaccination in vaccination centres, walk-in centres and the temporary vaccination vans, and that is all part of making sure that the vaccines are as accessible as possible. He may well also have noticed the huge communications programme. All the latest data is showing that that is having a huge effect in allowing more people to come forward to access the vaccines if they are eligible.
Vaccination of 12 to 15-year-olds, which he mentioned, is hugely important, and that is why I referred to it in my statement. One million 12 to 15-year-olds out of a total cohort of around 2.3 million, if I remember correctly, have received the vaccine, as have almost 60% of 16 and 17-year-olds, and we have today’s offer of second doses.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the importance of pregnant women in particular coming forward. The MHRA, our independent regulator, could not be clearer about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant women. It clearly helps to protect them. We could not make that message clearer but I am glad that he raised it, because it gives us another opportunity to say so in the House.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned winter pressures. We can all see that there is significant pressure on the NHS at the moment, especially on A&E and other emergency treatment. Many of the challenges of the winter are still to come. I emphasise the importance of the flu vaccine programme—the largest that this country has ever seen, which is hugely important for getting through the winter—and the extra funding in the second half of this year. There is £5.4 billion in extra funding both for the NHS and for social care, because they are inextricably linked, especially in terms of their funding; for example, hundreds of millions are going into the discharge programme. That is all part of giving the NHS the support that it needs this winter.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I welcome the statement; I absolutely agree with what the Health Secretary has announced.
No one can fault the Government’s political commitment to the vaccine programme, which has had a pretty much unlimited budget and has been a huge priority, but my right hon. Friend will be aware that despite that commitment, we have now fallen behind Spain, Portugal, South Korea, Singapore and other countries in the proportion of adults who have been jabbed twice. I am just worried that our regulators have lost some of their fleetness of foot in decision making. It is great that we are giving boosters to the over-40s, but we must now have the data on the under-40s. It is great that we are giving a second jab to 16 to 17-year-olds, but what about 13 to 15-year-olds?
America has already authorised the Pfizer jab as safe for the over-fives. If we are to have a vaccine-led rather than restrictions-led strategy, we need to be absolutely at the front of the pack with approvals. I fear that we are in the middle of the pack, so what will my right hon. Friend do to turbocharge our regulators and the decisions that they are giving him?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend will know that our booster programme is one of the most successful in the world, with more than 12 million vaccines already delivered across the UK; 2 million were delivered just last week. I know he will agree that we need to carry on with the programme at pace. Today’s announcement about the extension of the offer will make a huge difference.
My right hon. Friend points to the importance of the independent advice that we receive from the JCVI. It is important that we get that advice in a timely manner and then act on it without delay. I acted on the advice that I referred to in my statement as soon as I could.
My right hon. Friend is also right to ask whether there could be further extensions to the booster programme or the vaccination programme in general. I assure him that the JCVI very much understands the importance of making decisions in the timeliest way possible.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. He said much today that I can agree with.
Vaccines certainly remain key to our coming out of the pandemic. Research from Scotland shows that vaccines are 90% effective in preventing delta variant deaths and that boosters are 93% effective in reducing the risk of infection, so I am delighted that the Scottish Government will also be following the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to offer booster jabs to the over-40s and second doses to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Excellent though the efficacy of boosters is, however, we must remember that there are many who remain unvaccinated, both at home and abroad. We run the risk of allowing this to become a pandemic of the unvaccinated. What measures are Ministers taking to maximise the uptake of second and first doses for those who have not yet had theirs? What more can be done to further share vaccines globally?
Finally, in the light of the compulsion to have NHS staff in England double-vaccinated, I am concerned that mandating vaccination may increase distrust and harden views, potentially turning those who are vaccine hesitant into vaccine refuseniks. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of that issue? What does he plan to do to overcome it?
Sajid Javid
First, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that one of the biggest successes of our national vaccination programme is the UK-wide approach, which has really helped to build confidence? The way that Scotland, England and other parts of the UK have moved together to accept advice is really important. I hope it stays that way.
The hon. Gentleman rightly asked about the unvaccinated and what is being done. I know that Scotland will have an approach as well, but certainly in England it has been very much about making sure that access is as easy as possible, with multiple sources, from vaccination centres to grab-a-jab offers and walk-in centres. It is also about communications to remind people not only of the vaccine’s importance, but of its safety and effectiveness.
I think that in his question about mandating, the hon. Gentleman was referring to the requirement in England for NHS and social care workers to be vaccinated. That whole issue was looked into very carefully. There was a consultation, which received more than 30,000 responses, and I have explained in detail how the Government reached the decision. I think it is vital for patient safety, and I hope that Scotland is able to take a similar approach and protect its patients in hospitals and care homes in the same way as England has.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It is excellent that the new vaccines are effective and safe, and I welcome this announcement. On the theme of fleetness of foot, however, will the Secretary of State address two important practical matters? First, when will the NHS certification app be updated to record third doses, given that some countries require that for admission purposes? Secondly, when will it be possible for third primary doses to be booked via the NHS website, rather than, as at present, having to be booked through GPs? We are all aware of some of the pressures that GPs face.
Sajid Javid
As my right hon. Friend will know, the reason that third doses, or boosters—however they are classified—are not currently shown on the app is that they are not required for domestic purposes to demonstrate someone’s vaccine status. However, I fully understand the significance of my right hon. Friend’s point. I recognise that this is now a requirement in some countries, and I think it important that we respond. I want to reassure my right hon. Friend, and other Members, that we are considering how best to make such information available, and I will have more to say about that shortly.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The booster programme is critical to ensuring that those who are most vulnerable are protected this winter, and to driving down covid infection rates. In Salford, however, partners receive just £12.58 per vaccination for the programme, which they tell me is not enough to cover the costs of the infrastructure needed to run it, such as venue hire, call and recall, logistics, transport and security. Will the Secretary of State look again at that funding, and ensure that local areas are funded adequately to run the vaccination programme and increase the pace of the delivery of booster vaccines?
Sajid Javid
I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said and I will take that away, but let me give her some reassurances. We work very carefully on the vaccination programme with GPs, local authorities and others. Obviously it is vital to ensure that costs and payments are covered, and we keep that constantly under review.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Pandemics are by definition international, and the UK—along with France, Germany and the World Health Organisation—has rightly called for an international pandemic treaty. Can my right hon. Friend say what form that treaty will take, and within what sort of timeframe? Will it cover, for instance, the availability of personal protective equipment in a timely fashion to those who need it, and the avoidance of the use of vaccines to exert diplomatic leverage, which we have seen in the case of AstraZeneca and the threatened use of article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol?
Sajid Javid
We do support the proposal for an international pandemic treaty, but it is not yet fully supported by many countries, and some actually object to such a move. Many agree on the need for better international co-operation, but not all agree on the form in which it can be achieved. I would love to give my right hon. Friend more detail in response to the questions he has just asked, but I am afraid that the process, which is inevitably an international process, is not as mature as I would like it to be at this point. However, we keep working hard on it.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Like the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), my constituents are concerned about the fact that the third primary vaccinations and boosters are not appearing on the NHS covid pass. GPs in my area are saying that they still cannot record the third primary jab for the clinically extremely vulnerable on the Pinnacle database, and despite my asking twice, patient groups are still waiting to hear whether the Vaccines Minister will reinstate monthly meetings with them. With less than six weeks to go until Christmas, when will the Government fix these bugs in the system and start listening to patient groups?
Sajid Javid
I hope I have understood the hon. Lady correctly. She mentioned “bugs in the system”. She made two separate points there. If someone has been given a third jab, whether a third part of their primary dose, a booster or otherwise, it is recorded in the NHS system. The hon. Lady referred to the Pinnacle system, but it is recorded. I am not aware of any problem with recording it or with the NHS making a record of it; if she is, she should please bring it to my attention. The second, separate point she made was the one my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) made, about when those doses can appear in the app. I refer her to the answer I gave a moment ago.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
When the Secretary of State made his statement last week about mandatory vaccination for NHS staff, he also published an impact assessment, which says that the Department’s best guess is that 35,000 social care staff will leave as a result of being unwilling to get vaccinated. Its own assessment states that that presents a serious workforce capacity risk and says that the Department
“cannot be confident that the system—even with additional funding—will be able to absorb the loss of capacity”,
resulting from the policy. That matters, because the number of patients in my local acute hospital who cannot be discharged because there is no adequate social care is three times more than the number in hospital with covid. If the NHS is going to be under enormous pressure this winter, it looks to me as though it will be, not from covid, but from inadequate social care. What can the Secretary of State say to put at rest the concerns of my constituents, and indeed of my local authority, which has to deliver social care in Gloucestershire?
Sajid Javid
As always, my right hon. Friend makes an important point. I will not go through the arguments why vaccination, whether of social care or NHS workers, is so important, although of course patient safety is central to that. However, he is right to ask what can be done about the pressures on the social care system, and to point to the important question of discharge from hospitals, among other issues. We are giving record amounts of support to the adult social care sector. The funding is a huge part of that—not only funding going into the sector to build capacity, but funding going to the NHS through the discharge fund, which is hundreds of millions of pounds it can use to support early discharge into care homes.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
When the Secretary of State was appointed, he talked about tackling the “disease of disparity” and the inequalities in healthcare that had been exposed by the covid pandemic. Today, the sickle cell and thalassaemia all-party parliamentary group, which I chair, has published a major report on the care of people with sickle cell. The report exposes major inequalities and disparities, leading to people having to fight for the pain relief to which they are entitled, constantly having to explain their condition and developing a degree of mistrust in the healthcare system that is there to help them. We will send the Secretary of State a copy. Will he agree to meet me and representatives of the Sickle Cell Society to discuss the report’s findings?
Sajid Javid
Yes; I would be very happy to have that meeting with the right hon. Gentleman, because this is an important issue. While I have not yet read the entire report, I read the summary this morning, and it raises some important issues. If we are to properly tackle the disparities we see in this country, it is important that we look at all the proper research that has been done on them.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will recognise that the take-up of the covid vaccine, or any vaccine, depends in part on the public’s confidence that, in the tiny number of cases where people are damaged by the taking of the vaccine, they will be properly and swiftly compensated for their injury. As he knows, the vaccine damage payments scheme is useful, but does not cover all the cases of which I speak. Will he agree to a further discussion to talk about how those cases, which may well lead to good legal claims for further compensation, likely from the Government, can be settled as quickly as possible?
Sajid Javid
As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the vaccines are safe and effective, as set out by our world-beating regulator, the MHRA. He makes an important point and I would be happy to discuss it with him further.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Given the importance of the booster programme and the Prime Minister’s comments of a few moments ago, saying that the booster is just as important as the first and second jabs, why did he not foresee the problem with the app? Why was it so complicated to add the booster jab to the app automatically?
While the Secretary of State is resolving that problem, will he also address the problem of under-16-year-olds? They cannot access their vaccine records at all. Many families will be booking trips to visit loved ones over Christmas and those plans could be ruined by these two shortcomings in his covid policy.
Sajid Javid
I know the right hon. Gentleman likes to create problems where they do not exist, but we should not always let him get away with it. There is no problem with the app. If he had listened to me carefully, he would know as well as anyone that proof of a third jab, whether a booster or as part of a person’s primary dose, is not necessary for UK domestic purposes. As I said earlier, we fully understand and recognise that it might be needed for international travel or other international purposes, which is why we will do something about it.
The right hon. Gentleman should not undermine confidence in the app. He called it a problem with the app, but there is no such thing.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
If a member of NHS staff has previously had an episode of myocarditis and is anxious about its recurrence, would that be sufficient ground for an exemption from vaccination?
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I refer back to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) on the crisis of vacancies in the social care sector, which I think is currently at 100,000. Will the Secretary of State say something practical about how we will make sure that we have staff in the social care sector for the coming winter, as we know about the knock-on effects for the NHS and the real worry for families across the country?
Sajid Javid
One practical example is the record funding going into the sector, which I mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). Part of that funding is being used for the largest recruitment campaign the sector has ever seen, and it is already showing results.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows I am a firm believer in the vaccination programme, and I support everything he has announced today. That programme includes the booster, of course, but I am increasingly hearing from constituents that they are struggling to get the booster in Winchester itself. Will he help me to get a walk-in centre or a pop-up facility in the city—we have a number of empty shops, so we will find the space if he can provide the jabs—especially given the over-40 cohort, which includes me, that he has accepted into the booster programme today?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend highlights the importance of access, whether through vaccination centres, walk-in centres, pop-up centres or pharmacies. A record number of pharmacies are working on our vaccination campaign. I would be more than happy to speak to him to see what more we can do.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The London Ambulance Service has had to call on volunteers for support in recent months, and it has nearly 90 drivers from the fire service and the Metropolitan police. Is the Secretary of State aware of that? If not, why not? What is he doing to ensure we have an ambulance service that can cope if we have a spike in covid or additional demands due to severe weather, or both?
Sajid Javid
I am fully aware of the pressure on the ambulance service, A&E departments and the other emergency work done in our fantastic hospitals. It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman that my Department and the NHS discuss this on a very regular basis and take action wherever needed. He will know there is a lot of pressure on hospitals and ambulance trusts, but the funding support and other measures we have taken are undoubtedly helping.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I also welcome today’s statement, which is another important step forward. I will be booking my booster as soon as I can.
It is encouraging news that we have now vaccinated more than 1 million 12 to 15-year-olds against covid-19. As those figures continue to rise, will my right hon. Friend speak to his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education to review the current regime of asymptomatic testing in our schools, which is extremely burdensome, expensive and intrusive, to make sure it does not last longer than needed?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that we work very closely with our colleagues in the Department for Education, especially with regard to that particular age group. The issue on asymptomatic testing is something we keep under review and, as soon as we can remove that, we will.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I want to pass on my thanks to the NHS and all its staff for all that they are doing on the covid vaccination programme. I particularly want to thank my local public health team, who called me after I contracted covid 10 days ago. They were incredibly supportive and thorough, which contrasted with the national team, who put the phone down on me; they expected me to pick up after one ring, which I did, but they put the phone down on me. Is the Health Secretary aware that the national Test and Trace team are expecting the local public health department to pick up the slack during the Christmas holidays as that team go on holiday—the public health department is going to have to pick up the slack when they are not doing their job?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady, like so many in this House, is right to point out the phenomenal work the NHS has been doing, particularly on the vaccination programme, the work NHS Test and Trace does and the work of the UK Health Security Agency on the testing programme.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
In West Dorset, we were very fortunate to lead the way with the vaccinations in the first and second tiers, and I should say that that was mainly thanks to our many GPs across the county who worked tirelessly. But of course our GPs do not just have to do vaccinations; they have to do many other things as well, and currently my constituents, particularly the older ones, are struggling to get the booster jab. Can I ask my right hon. Friend to support me in getting action to make sure we can get that booster jab to my constituents who are not currently able to get it?
Sajid Javid
First, my hon. Friend is right to talk about the demand on GP services, which is one reason why I announced, just a few weeks ago, the winter access programme, with a record amount of support, which will undoubtedly help. On the vaccination programme, GPs across the country are doing phenomenal work, but I want to make sure it is working in every part of the country. If there is more we can do in his area, we will, and I would be happy to meet him.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am delighted to say that I have been boosted, so I am grateful. I am not sure everybody is grateful, but I want to ask about long covid, because there is lots of evidence now that people who suffer from it have had long-term neurological changes and that is sapping the provision of services for other people with neurological conditions. Is it not time we had a strategy for brain injury across the whole of government, including every Department, not just his own?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience on this issue and has talked about it many times in this House. He is right to link this to long covid. I hope I can reassure him. Work is going on in the NHS, in the Department and in some of the research institutes on long covid, which the Government are supporting with millions of pounds, and the NHS is working with people who are suffering from long covid, listening to them about what more we can do.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Last week, while I was on a school visit, I was shocked to hear about the extraordinary abuse a headteacher had experienced from parents opposed to in-school vaccination clinics. I am glad to hear that we are making progress on getting 12 to 15-year-olds vaccinated, but will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging schools to continue to do this and thank them for all the work they have been doing? Can he also tell me what more we can do to reassure parents and students alike that the vaccine is safe, effective and to all our benefit?
Sajid Javid
That is such an important issue in respect of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. One of the strongest reassurances we can give to everyone is that the decision about whether this vaccine, or any vaccine, is safe and effective is made independently of the Government and Ministers by world-leading clinicians in our independent regulator, the MHRA. They look at the very best evidence available and continue to monitor the data and information. As I mentioned in my statement, when it comes to the vaccination of, for example, 16 and 17-year-olds, one reason why the JCVI was very comfortable in recommending to me that we offer a second dose to that cohort was the continuing close working together of clinicians and the MHRA. I hope that helps to reassure my hon. Friend.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I note that when the Government were trying to extend their vaccine delivery programme earlier this year, they were keen to promote the benefit of mobile units, but they did not figure at all in today’s statement. How many mobile units are currently deployed?
Sajid Javid
It is all about making access as easy as possible. As well as the national vaccination centres and the grab-a-jab offers, we do have mobile units. I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly how many are out at any one time—the number changes day to day and depending on location—but they remain an important part of making access as easy as possible for people.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
We have a walk-in vaccination clinic at Longton fire station on Friday, so will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging everybody in Stoke-on-Trent South who has yet to have their vaccination, or who needs their booster, to come forward and come to the walk-in clinic on Friday or book an appointment as soon as possible?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I happily join my hon. Friend in that. If you live in Stoke-on-Trent South, there is a great new walk-in centre, so please go on Friday, because the best way to protect yourself and your loved ones is to get vaccinated.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
John Fagan from the Runcorn part of my constituency did the right thing and went for his booster jab last week, but when he arrived he was told they had run out of supplies. What reassurance can the Secretary of State and the Department give to me, my constituents and the country more broadly that there will be sufficient supplies for the booster roll-out?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not know the details of that particular situation, but I reassure him and the House that, whether for our boosters offer or the evergreen offer of vaccination, the country—the vaccines taskforce—has more than enough supply.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, the roll-out of boosters to 40 to 49-year-olds and the fact that people will be able to book a booster five months after their jab rather than six months. I declare my interest on both counts and thank the Secretary of State very much. Does he agree that given that the booster increases protection against symptomatic covid up to 90%, it is in my and everybody else’s interest to get it as soon as possible, to protect ourselves, our loved ones and the NHS?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: the facts and figures now speak for themselves. He referred to the latest data from the UK Health Security Agency today that shows there is more than 90% protection when someone has had their booster dose; as he says, that is protection not just for that individual but for their loved ones.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The NHS is under severe pressure. Too many people, including those who are vaccinated, are sick and too many people are still dying. Why will the Secretary of State not meet directors of public health, who are tearing their hair out because although the Government have rightly put so much investment into the vaccine programme, they are not investing in other public health measures that would stop covid becoming a disease of inequality?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady will know that, as I said in my statement, the vaccines are absolutely central to protecting us against this virus, but it would be wrong for anyone to suggest that they are the only thing the Government are focusing on. There is of course a lot more; for example, I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to our recent announcements on antivirals.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The enthusiasm of 16 and 17-year-olds in the Aylesbury constituency for having the jab has been extremely impressive. Given that they are a particularly key age group in our fight against covid, will my right hon. Friend thank them for their contribution to tackling the pandemic and can he let them know how soon they can expect to get the second jabs in their arms?
Sajid Javid
The second doses for 16 and 17-year-olds will be available from Monday next week. I also join my hon. Friend in thanking, in particular, the local schools for all the work that they have done in Aylesbury to help with that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his clear commitment to protecting all citizens in the United Kingdom where the control is. I am a type 2 diabetic. This Saturday, between 2 pm and 3 pm, through my local surgery, I will receive my covid booster, as will other priority cases as well. Can the Secretary of State outline what discussions have taken place to ensure that, before over-40s are able to access their booster jabs, the vulnerable groups of all ages, including diabetics, can access theirs in a timely manner throughout the UK? Decisions taken in this House set the marker for other regions to follow, including Northern Ireland.
Sajid Javid
As the hon. Gentleman will know, one reason why our vaccination programme has been such a huge success is that it is a truly UK-wide programme. We are able to do that because of the strength of our Union. I work closely with my colleague in Northern Ireland: we co-ordinate together and share resources. When it comes to supply, that supply is for the whole United Kingdom. In terms of making sure that particularly vulnerable people have access, each of the devolved Administrations has a slightly different approach, but we do work closely together to make sure that the supply is there.
COP26
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Before I begin today’s statement, I would like to say a few words about the sickening attack that took place yesterday morning outside Liverpool Women’s Hospital. On behalf of the whole House, I want to pay tribute to the swift and professional response by the extraordinary men and women of the emergency services, who, once again, showed themselves to be the very best among us.
The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre has today raised the nationwide threat level from substantial to severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely. The police are keeping both myself and the Home Secretary informed on developments and we will, in turn, keep the House updated on the investigation as it continues.
And now, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a statement on the United Nations Climate Change Conference, better known as COP26, which took place in the magnificent city of Glasgow over the past two weeks. It was the biggest political gathering of any kind ever held in the United Kingdom. One hundred and ninety four countries were represented. We had around 120 heads of state and heads of government, 38,000 accredited delegates, and countless tens of thousands more in the streets, parks and venues outside.
It was a summit that many people predicted would fail, and a summit, I fear, that some quietly wanted to fail. Yet it was a summit that proved the doubters and the cynics wrong, because COP26 succeeded not just in keeping 1.5 alive, but in doing something that no UN climate conference has ever done before by uniting the world in calling time on coal. In 25 previous COPs, all the way back to Berlin in 1995, not one delivered a mandate to remove so much as a single lump of coal from one power station boiler. For decades, tackling the single biggest cause of carbon emissions proved as challenging as eating the proverbial elephant—it was just so big that nobody knew quite where to start. In Glasgow, we took the first bite. We have secured a global commitment to phasing down coal. As John Kerry pointed out, we cannot phase out coal without first phasing it down, as we transition to other cleaner energy sources. We also have, for the first time, a worldwide recognition that we will not get climate change under control as long as our power stations are consuming vast quantities of the sedimentary super-polluter that is coal. That alone is a great achievement, but we have not just signalled the beginning of the end for coal; we have ticked our boxes on cars, cash and trees as well.
The companies that build a quarter of the world’s automobiles have agreed to stop building carbon emission vehicles by 2035, and cities from São Paulo to Seattle have pledged to ban them from their streets. We have pioneered a whole new model—an intellectual breakthrough —that sees billions in climate finance, development bank investment and so forth being used to trigger trillions from the private sector to drive the big decarbonisation programmes in countries such as South Africa. And we have done something that absolutely none of the commentators saw coming, by building a coalition of more than 130 countries to protect up to 90% of our forests around the world—those great natural soakers of carbon.
None of this was a happy accident or inevitability. The fact that we were there at all, in the face of a global pandemic, is in itself the result of a vast and complex effort involving countless moving parts. Right until the very end, there was the real prospect that no agreement would be reached. What has been achieved has only come about thanks to month after month of concerted British diplomacy—the countless meetings; the innumerable phone calls; the banging of heads at the United Nations General Assembly, the Petersberg dialogue, President Biden’s climate summit, the Security Council, the G7 and the G20—and the setting of several examples by the UK, because again and again the task of our negotiators was made easier by the fact that the UK was not asking anyone to do anything that we are not doing ourselves.
We have slashed our use of coal so much that our last two coal-fired power stations will go offline for good in 2024. We have more than doubled our climate finance, providing vital support for poor and vulnerable nations around the world. We have made a legally binding commitment to reach net zero—the first major economy to do so. We have set a date at which hydrocarbon internal combustion engines will reach the end of the road. We have shown the world that it is possible to grow an economy while cutting carbon, creating markets for clean technology, and delivering new green jobs that reduce emissions and increase prosperity.
Every one of those achievements was not just great news for our country and our planet, but another arrow in the quiver of our fantastic team in Glasgow—a team led by the COP26 President, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). From the moment that he picked up the COP reins, he has been absolutely tireless in his efforts to secure the change that we need. Although I am pretty sure that what he really needs now is a well-earned break, I do not think that any of us here is going to be able to hold him back as he sets off pushing countries to go further still, and ensuring that the promises made in Glasgow are delivered and not diluted.
But success has many parents, so I want to say a huge thank you to the officials—in our own COP unit, in Downing Street and across Government, in UK embassies around the world and at the United Nations—who pulled out all the stops to make the event work and to shepherd through the agreements that have been reached. I also thank everybody on the ground at the Scottish Event Campus in Glasgow—security, catering, transport, the relentlessly cheery volunteers, the police from across the whole country who kept everybody safe from harm, the public health authorities who kept us safe from covid—and everyone in the Scottish Government. Above all, I want to say a big, big thank you to the people of Glasgow, who had to put up with so much disruption in their city and who welcomed the world all the same. I say to them: we could not have done it without you.
Is there still more to do? Well, of course there is. I am not for one moment suggesting that we can safely close the book on climate change. In fact, I can think of nothing more dangerous than patting ourselves on the back and telling ourselves that the job is done—because this job will not be complete until the whole world has not only set off on the goal to reach net zero but arrived at that destination: a goal that, even with the best of intentions from all actors, cannot be achieved overnight. While COP26 has filled me with optimism about our ability to get there, I cannot now claim to be certain that we will, because we have seen some countries that really should know better dragging their heels on their Paris commitments. But if—and it is still a massive if—they make good on their pledges, then I believe that Glasgow will be remembered as the place where we secured a historic agreement and the world began to turn the tide. Before Paris, we were on course for 4° of warming. After Paris, that number fell to a still catastrophically dangerous 3°. This afternoon, after the Glasgow climate pact, it stands close to 2°. It is still too high—the numbers are still too hot, the warming still excessive—but it is closer than we have ever been to the relative safety of 1.5°, and now we have an all-new roadmap to help us get there.
Aristotle taught us that virtue comes not from reasoning and instruction but from habit and from practice. So the success of the Glasgow climate pact lies not just in the promises but in the move that the whole world has now made from setting abstract targets to adopting the nuts-and-bolts programme of work to meet those targets and to reduce CO2 emissions. We are now talking about the how rather than the what, and getting into a habit of cutting CO2 that is catching on not just with Governments and businesses but with billions of people around the world. It is for that reason that I believe that COP26 in Glasgow has been a success and that 1.5° is still alive. That is something I believe that every person in our United Kingdom can and should take immense pride in, and I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in extending our thoughts across the House to the people of Liverpool who are in shock at yesterday’s events, and pay tribute to the response of the emergency services.
Let me start by paying tribute to the COP President. Whatever the shortcomings of the deal, his diligence, his integrity and his commitment to the climate are clear for all to see. I also pay tribute to his team of civil servants. Their dedication, expertise and service was never in doubt but always remarkable. They knew that COP26 was the most important international summit ever hosted on these shores. Why? The simple maths of the climate crisis. At Paris we set out the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°. That is the tipping point beyond which the world is set to see billions of people facing extreme heatwaves, countless millions displaced from their homes, and the destruction of natural wonders like the world’s coral reefs. The science does not negotiate and no politician can move the goalposts. To have any hope of 1.5°, we must halve global emissions by 2030. The task at Glasgow was to set out credible plans for delivering that.
Although the summit has been one of modest progress, we cannot kid ourselves: plans to cut emissions are still way short. The pledges made in Glasgow for 2030, even if all fully implemented, represent less than 25% of the ambition required. Rather than a manageable 1.5°, they put us on track for a devastating 2.4°. That is why, according to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the goal of 1.5° is now on “life support”. We need to deliver intensive care, and that starts by being honest about what has gone wrong.
International negotiations are complex and difficult, and those who have dragged their feet the most bear the greatest responsibility, but the summit was held back by the Prime Minister’s guileless boosterism, which only served to embolden the big emitters. The Prime Minister praised inadequate net zero plans. He called the Australian plans heroic, even though their plan was so slow that it was in line with 4° of global warming. By providing this cover, the Prime Minister had little chance of exerting influence over the other big emitters, and we saw many more disappointing national plans.
The Prime Minister also dressed up modest sectoral commitments as being transformational. Earlier in COP, the Government claimed that 190 countries and organisations had agreed to end coal. On closer inspection, only 46 of them were countries. Of those, only 23 were new signatories and 10 do not even use coal. The 13 that remain do not include the biggest coal users: China, the US, India and Australia.
As things moved forward with no public pressure, the big emitters were emboldened. They clubbed together later in COP to gut the main deal’s wording on coal. Only someone who thinks that promises are meaningless could now argue that an agreement to “phase down” coal is the same as an agreement to phase it out.
Then there was the long overdue £100 billion in climate finance. It is still not being delivered, even though that money was promised to developing countries more than a decade ago. Failure to deliver has damaged trust and created a huge obstacle to building the coalition, which can drive climate action, between the most vulnerable developing countries and ambitious developed countries. That coalition was the foundation of the landmark Paris agreement in 2015, creating the pincer movement to maximise pressure on the world’s biggest emitters, including China. It is deeply regrettable that at Glasgow, we did not see a repeat. Instead, developing countries were still having to make the case for the long-promised $100 billion in the final hours of the summit.
Given all that, and the imperative to revive 1.5° from life support, what will be different in the next year in the run-up to COP27? Britain has a special and particular responsibility as COP president. First, we need to reassemble the Paris climate coalition and build trust with the developing world. Cutting overseas aid does not build trust; it destroys it. Will the Prime Minister therefore immediately commit to reversing those cuts?
Secondly, there can be no free passes for major emitters, including our friends. We are doing a trade deal with Australia where we have allowed it to drop Paris temperature commitments. That was a mistake. Will the Prime Minister put it right?
Thirdly, the Prime Minister is right to say that we need to power past coal and phase out fossil fuels, but his ability to lead on the issue internationally has been hampered by his actions at home. It has never made sense for the Government to be flirting with a new coal mine or to greenlight the Cambo oilfield. Will he rewrite the planning framework to rule out coal, and will he now say no to Cambo?
Finally, will the Prime Minister sort out the Chancellor? The Budget was delivered in the week before COP26 as world leaders began to arrive on these shores, but it did not even mention climate change. It gave a tax break for domestic flights and fell woefully short of the investment needed to deliver green jobs and a fair transition.
The Prime Minister has been the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. Glasgow has been a missed opportunity—a stumble forward when we needed to make great strides, and more climate delay when we needed delivery—and 1.5° is now on life support. We still have the chance to keep 1.5° alive, but only with intensive care. We must speak honestly about the challenge that we face to rebuild the coalition that we need and to take on the big emitters. We can, and we must, change course.
The Prime Minister
If I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, that was the usual pathetic attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to suck and blow at once. He was trying to congratulate the UK Government on success at COP but somehow attack me, and I think it is pathetic. Let me take the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s points in turn.
On Australia, it has signed up to net zero for the first time ever. On coal, no COP has mentioned phasing out coal before; 65 countries have now committed to phasing it out altogether by 2040, including the four biggest users of coal-fired power stations: Poland, Indonesia and others. He talks about climate finance and the UK Government rescinding their commitments, which is simply untrue. We have doubled our commitments to tackling climate change around the world and helping the developed world, with £12.6 billion, as he knows full well. That commitment way outstrips that of most other countries.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about UK leadership. The UK, throughout the campaign—which has been going on for two years—to get the right result and keep 1.5° alive, has been way out in front under this Government. We were the first major economy to legislate for net zero; 90% of the world has now followed us. At COP, we had one of the most ambitious nationally determined contributions of any country. If it had not been for the UK Government, nothing at all would have been included to do with nature and protecting forests. The world listened to us at COP because they knew that our 10-point plan was not only cutting emissions but helping to generate hundreds of thousands of new high-wage, high-skill jobs. They can see that that programme will enable them to power past carbon and develop their economies.
As a result of everything that we have done at COP, we have been able to keep 1.5° alive. As I listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I feel that he is finding it very difficult to reconcile himself to the fact of a United Kingdom diplomatic and environmental success. If he really meant all those fine words with which he began about UK negotiators and the COP, he should stick to that script, because that was the right one.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. May I first echo the remarks made by my right hon. Friend about the appalling attack in Liverpool? The thoughts of everybody in the House are with the people of Liverpool.
I congratulate the UK presidency on the significant commitments made at COP26, notably by Governments on deforestation and methane but also by individual businesses on their work to achieve net zero. I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that there is much more to be done—he said it in his statement. With the COP presidency, the UK has a critical role over the next year in ensuring that the commitments made are delivered on and in bringing the intransigent countries—notably, China, Russia and India—back round the table to raise their sights on what they are willing to achieve. Will he agree with that and set out what the Government’s immediate plans are for that work?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the vital importance of the private sector. I think that this COP was a breakthrough in many ways, but not least because of the emphasis that it placed on getting the private sector in to help developing countries in particular to meet their carbon targets. She is also right in what she says about the role of the COP presidency, because my right hon. Friend the COP26 President continues in his office for a year, and we will use that period—working with our Egyptian friends, who take over for COP27—to hold our friends and partners around the world to account for what they have promised, because it is only if they keep to what they have promised that we will be able to deliver for our children, and that is what we intend to do.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister on the terror attack that we saw in Liverpool yesterday? We all stand together against those who would perpetuate such crimes.
Let me thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of his statement, and I am delighted that today the Prime Minister has remembered that COP happened in Glasgow, rather than in Edinburgh, as he said last night. Maybe he could have led more from the front at COP, and he would actually have known which Scottish city the conference was taking place in.
In fairness, however, it is right to acknowledge that there was at least one member of the UK Government who committed themselves passionately to the Glasgow conference, and the UK COP26 President deserves credit and thanks for the role that he has played over the course of the last few weeks and months.
We all know that the Glasgow climate pact is far from everything it should be, but it does contain many positives for us to build on. Whether or not it succeeds now depends entirely on whether countries deliver on the commitments they made, and we need to hold them to those. That is the only way to truly keep the 1.5° C target alive, and we must make sure, ultimately, that we accept all of our responsibilities to deliver on that. If that urgent leadership is to be shown, then the example of that leadership needs to begin at home.
The Scottish Government led on climate justice through-out COP. We were the first country to pledge funds for loss and damage to help those vulnerable countries that have contributed least to climate change but are suffering its worst effects. This is about reparation, not charity, so will the Prime Minister reverse his cuts to international aid, follow our First Minister’s lead, and back and contribute to the creation of a loss and damage facility?
The Glasgow climate pact also contains a commitment to increase nationally determined contributions by the end of 2022, so can the Prime Minister confirm that the UK will urgently update its own NDC commitments?
Meeting our targets also means rapidly increasing investment in green jobs. Prior to recess, the Prime Minister made a commitment to go and look again at the issue of investment in tidal stream energy. Now that he has presumably looked into this, can he today commit to a ringfenced fund of £71 million for tidal stream energy as part of the contracts for difference process?
Finally, on carbon capture and storage—I know that the Prime Minister is expecting a question, and I make no apology for the fact that I will keeping asking these questions until the promises made to Scotland’s north-east are finally delivered—let us not forget that the UK Exchequer has taken £350 billion of tax revenues out of North sea oil, and it is now our responsibility to make sure that we invest in carbon capture and storage. Last week, INEOS added its voice to the growing shock and anger that track 1 status for the Acorn project was rejected by the UK Government, so will the Prime Minister reverse this devastating decision and back the Scottish cluster?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I should say, taking his points in reverse order, that of course the Acorn project remains a strong contender, as I have told him several times from this Dispatch Box. He should not give up hope. It is a very interesting project, and we will look at it.
On our NDCs, the UK is already compliant with 1.5° C, as a result of the pledges we have made, both by 2030 and 2035, so if we can deliver on those, then we believe that we will be able to restrain our emissions.
I have told the right hon. Gentleman before that I am interested in tidal power and contracts for difference for tidal power, and he is right that the Government should invest in making sure we have a tidal power industry in this country, as we have wind power and solar power industries, because all the evidence is that the costs come down, and that is the role of Government.
Finally, on the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the whereabouts of COP, as he will well understand, it would never have been in Scotland at all had Scotland not been part of the United Kingdom.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
May I join the warm congratulations to the COP President and his team, and, on the location, acknowledge the role of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in securing COP in the UK and Glasgow, to give us the opportunity for this great exercise of British diplomacy?
Will the Prime Minister recognise that in the year ahead, as well as holding countries to their contributions, there is the important opportunity to make scientific progress and progress in innovation, which will be at least as important in securing the ambitions that were inked in Glasgow, and will he say a bit about how UK leadership over the year ahead can advance our ambitions on that score as well?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend. As he knows, the UK has virtually doubled our investment in R&D, and Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government chief scientific adviser, has said we want to focus on climate change and green technology under the national Council for Science and Technology. That is why we are putting £22 billion into R&D. The opportunities are immense, and the opportunity to reduce the cost to the consumer of heat pumps, electric vehicles and other green technology is also immense.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself and my party with the Prime Minister’s remarks on the horrific attacks in Liverpool?
We had all hoped that the UK would lead the world to a bold agreement at Glasgow, to turn the tide on dangerous climate change. Despite the efforts of the COP President and the excellent UK negotiating team, regrettably, the agreement fell short, potentially dangerously so, yet there is still an opportunity for the UK to drive global climate action by cleaning up the City of London. Fossil fuel investors raise billions of pounds in this very city for coal and oil projects around the world. While China and India stopped a better deal on fossil fuels at COP, they cannot stop the Prime Minister showing leadership here in London, so will he stop dirty fossil fuel money for global coal and oil projects being raised here in the City of London?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that, after UK leadership, we secured at COP an end to the international financing of coal around the world. China has done that, leading to a number of other countries immediately following suit, so progress is being made. As I said in my opening statement, the UK is also abandoning exports of hydrocarbons and we are going to be followed in that by other countries.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is clear that the COP in Glasgow has gone better than many of us feared, but, as I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree, there are no possible grounds for complacency. Will he use the remainder of the UK presidency to redouble efforts to share excess vaccine doses with developing countries? Quite apart from making us safer in the UK, it will also bolster internationalism and British international leadership in the meetings ahead envisaged in the Glasgow agreement.
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed; although vaccines per se were not discussed at COP, there was a long discussion at the G20 in Rome, and the UK has a fantastic record of supporting at-cost vaccines around the world—the 1.5 billion AstraZeneca doses, to say nothing of the huge contributions the UK has made to both Gavi and COVAX to ensure that people around the world get vaccinated, because nobody is safe until everybody is safe.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for the comments he made about the appalling attack in Liverpool yesterday. Having spent some years on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I am aware that in many attacks, those involved—I know it is too early to say at this point—were on the radar of the security services. If that proves to be the case in this incident, will the Prime Minister undertake to look at how those cases are kept under review?
On COP26, I add my voice to those of others who have said that it is really important that those who are currently standing outside the tent of those who agree are brought into it. Can the Prime Minister give us some indication of his strategy for doing that?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. On his point about picking up potential terrorists earlier, he is absolutely right. He will know from his work on the ISC that the potential for cross-referring between the various data points that we have is, I think, the way forward, and that may help us, if we can do it in a sensitive way, to predict more of the problems that have been cropping up.
As for bringing people into the tent, I think the right hon. Gentleman is referring to ensuring that everybody in the developing world feels that they are being properly represented in these conversations. Is that what—
The Prime Minister
I see; he is talking about India, China and others. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the House will forgive me; it was not entirely clear from his question which people he wanted. I want everybody brought into the tent, for the avoidance of doubt.
With India in particular, we need to work with the Indian Government, who are already doing some very impressive things, to show how, with new technology, we can help that country to power past coal. With the One Sun One World One Grid project, it has a huge amount of renewables already going, but the UK can take a leading role, with partners around the world, in building the coalitions of support and investment by the private sector to help even an economy as huge as India’s to make this transition, and make it much faster than people currently think possible. Look at the speed with which the UK has done it; other countries around the world can do the same.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his Glasgow achievements. Can he say what is being done to remedy the international shortage of critical minerals to make semiconductors, without which the achievement of our 2035 targets will be impossible? What more can he do to grow our own silicon valleys to reduce our reliance on China and Taiwan?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The resources are there. There are adequate supplies; the problem lies in the supply chains. That is an issue that we are working on, together with our American friends and other partners around the world, to ensure that there is no disruption in those supplies of critical things, particularly semi-conductors.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
First, may I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma)? He has gained enormous international respect for the diligent, courteous and tenacious way in which he conducted the negotiations as COP26 President.
Given that article IV of the Glasgow climate pact requires us to accelerate the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, can the Prime Minister tell us whether the 130% tax super deduction announced by the Chancellor will now have a climate filter imposed so that the taxpayer does not end up paying the full cost of projects such as the Cambo oilfield, and whether the Government will use the $27.5 billion windfall from the International Monetary Fund special drawing rights to significantly scale up their provision of climate finance to developing countries, as demanded under articles III and V?
The Prime Minister
What I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman is that the 125% super deduction he rightly refers to will be of great assistance to companies across the whole of the UK in investing in new clean, green technology. That is the way forward.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
One of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the COP was getting 130 countries, including the US and the BRIC—Brazil, Russia, India and China—economies, to agree to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. However, we have been here before with the New York declaration in 2014, which was ultimately unsuccessful because it lacked any enforcement mechanism. Will my right hon. Friend say how he thinks we can ensure it will be different this time?
The Prime Minister
Yes. My hon. Friend makes an absolutely crucial point. This time it will be different, because at COP26 in Glasgow about 40 leading global financial institutions pledged that they would no longer invest in companies that supported or made their money out of deforestation. We also had the companies themselves, big commodities companies whose names I am sure my hon. Friend will be familiar with, saying they would no longer invest in products grown as a result of deforestation across the world. The agency for holding those sets of businesses to account, both banks—financial institutions—and companies, will be customers, account holders and consumers across the whole world, who will take their investment away from companies if they fail to honour those commitments. That is a huge change taking place across the world.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
There was a welcome acknowledgement at COP that the world cannot decarbonise without steel, whether it be for wind turbines, electric vehicles, energy-efficient buildings or infrastructure. It was therefore very disappointing that in the Budget there was little to support the steel industry to decarbonise, little help with energy prices, and no mention of the already small green steel fund. What, practically, are the Government going to do to support our industry—nuts and bolts, as the Prime Minister said earlier?
The Prime Minister
It is always worth remembering that steel output fell by 50% under the Labour Government because of their reckless mismanagement of the energy issue. What we have done is put about £600 million into relief for the steel industry to help it to cope with high energy costs, and a £315 million fund to transform steel and help it to move towards clean, green energy. That is what is needed.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister, the COP26 President, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) and all the teams for the enormous work they have done in putting together a great programme as the UK hosted COP26, in partnership with Italy. May I ask the Prime Minister to reassure the good people of South Leicestershire, and for that matter the country, that the agreement his Government have entered into, and the policies and Bills he will bring before Parliament, will not just help to improve the climate, but bring brilliant jobs to the people of South Leicestershire as part of the green deal economy that we are all looking forward to?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend. I should have renewed my thanks for the Italian presidency of the G20 and co-presidency of COP, and to Mario Draghi, who did an outstanding job throughout the period. My hon. Friend is totally right on the green industrial revolution. In the year since the 10-point plan was put forward to business around the world, £15 billion of investment in green technology has been secured in this country and many tens of thousands of high-wage, high-skilled jobs. That is the future.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
New Delhi is now heading into a pollution lockdown because of the emissions affecting the people there. The poorest people in the poorest places all around the world suffer the worst from pollution. Will the Prime Minister tell us what he is seriously going to do to bring China, Russia, Australia and others on board to get rid of their coal production? The answer he gave to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) was less than clear. Will he now be absolutely clear that there will be no British financing whatever for any new fossil fuel industries anywhere in the world?
The Prime Minister
On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, yes, of course that it is right. We are abandoning export finance—I made that clear earlier—for the hydro-carbon industry. That massive change has been difficult because businesses in this country have benefited from export finance for many years, but we are making that change because we want the world to move away from hydrocarbons.
As for what the right hon. Gentleman said about India, I accept the points that he made, but, as I think I said, we will help the Indian Government in any way we can to move beyond coal as fast as they can. Of course, it was disappointing to see the language changed from “phase out” to “phase down”, but we have never had any commitments whatever on coal in COP before. I think that what will now happen is that the global peer pressure on countries to move away from coal will intensify very rapidly and the change will happen much faster than people think.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
After the downfall of the Soviet Union, it was discovered that various multilateral agreements that we thought we had over things such as biological weapons had been systematically flouted. What confidence can we have if open societies observe the rules but closed societies cheat? Is there a regime in play to make sure that we would discover that?
The Prime Minister
One of the things that we agreed at this COP—and one of the reasons why I believe it is so historic—is, finally, the Paris rulebook, which contains, among other things, provisions for transparency and agreement about how we measure what we are trying to do around the world. That is immensely significant and it gives a tool to everybody who cares about it. Even in closed societies—about which my right hon. Friend knows a great deal—where they may not take voters very seriously, there are consumers whom they take seriously and people who are willing to protest, whom they take seriously as well.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The COP26 President has undoubtedly done an excellent job, but frankly, that is no thanks to the Prime Minister, who has consistently undermined climate leadership, whether that is by going ahead with an oilfield at Cambo or cutting aid—1.5 °C is hanging by a thread and the vulnerable countries feel betrayed, so a little bit more humility might be in order. He says that we are not asking others to do anything that we are not doing ourselves. Will he demonstrate that that is the case by requesting an urgent and transparent audit by the Office for Budget Responsibility, independent of the Treasury, of all our own domestic fossil fuel subsidies, with a view to phasing them out as soon as possible—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady, again, rather like the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), is trying to have it both ways: to suck and blow at once. She cannot say that it was a successful COP and somehow attack the UK Government; I simply fail to see the logic. [Interruption.] What we are also doing is moving beyond coal by 2024. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Hon. Members must not shout at the Prime Minister. Everyone will have a chance to ask their question—
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I urge the Prime Minister and other world leaders not to get ahead of public opinion on this. The people of Gainsborough South West ward, which I represent—the 27th most deprived ward in the entire country—are worried not so much about the future of the Great Barrier Reef in 50 years’ time, but about their great big bloody heating bills now. They are heavily reliant on gas, of which we have an abundant supply. Manufacturers in northern levelling-up towns are worried about their competitiveness with China, as more and more regulations are imposed on them. To be fair to India, in Uttar Pradesh, there are millions living in dire poverty whose emissions are very low. Do we represent them? Their whole future depends now—this minute—on fossil fuels; otherwise, they might literally starve. Be realistic.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Of course we must be realistic, but we have seen that it is entirely realistic to move very rapidly to renewable energy and see the cost of that renewable energy fall vertiginously, as it has done—the cost of wind has fallen 60% just since 2015, and solar likewise.
I urge my right hon. Friend to tell his wonderful electorate in Gainsborough that this is a massive opportunity for us. We have first mover advantage, as we did in the first industrial revolution. We are going with this green industrial revolution now; I believe that it will be of massive long-term benefit to people across this country.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to have any hope of keeping 1.5° alive, we need to liberate the COP26 President to lead, with all parties’ support, a kind of revolution across our country, working together across parties to involve every community, every town and every city? If we do not grasp this opportunity with our constituents and the people we represent, we will not get there. It is vital that this becomes a campaign with great leadership, but with the full support of every community in the land.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If he is offering full support to the Government from the Opposition Benches, I think he is absolutely right.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does not the landmark agreement to support South Africa’s just transition show that even economies that are heavily dependent on coal can seize a bright and sustainable future and strengthen themselves as well as the UK economy?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, who is the trade envoy to South Africa. I also thank the Government of South Africa, led by Cyril Ramaphosa, who has taken an extraordinary step and built an international coalition for South Africa to decarbonise its energy system. It will not necessarily be easy, but it is a way that we can have a just transition for South Africa. Countries around the world, including the UK, are coming together to do that. That is the model for progress that we can make with so many of the big emitters; as the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) was saying, that is the way forward with the big emitters around the world.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
All the commitments that countries have made in Glasgow have credibility only to the extent that they are backed up by plans at home to deliver the promised emissions reductions. It is now a question of counting.
Let us take an example. Eventually, all of the 22 million or 23 million gas boilers in this country will have to go. The Government say that their target is for 600,000 heat pumps a year to be installed by 2028. The recently published heat and buildings strategy provides enough funding to help support the installation of 30,000 a year. Why is the Government’s plan for decarbonising home heating so far short of what is required?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need to decarbonise our heating, but it can be done. There is great variety in the housing stock of the UK, and I believe that if we keep on track with investment, supporting and priming the market, we will be able to bring down radically the cost of ground source heat pumps and all the other ways to give people the heating that they need in a clean, green way. That is what we are going to do.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister, the COP26 President and their teams on their historic achievements in Glasgow. For me, it was reassuring to attend the conference and see nature and sustainable farming at the heart of the programme. Does my right hon. Friend agree that food production and looking after the environment go hand in hand—and that that is what our fantastic British farmers do each and every day?
The Prime Minister
I passionately agree: I know that UK farming is getting cleaner and greener all the time. I pay tribute to the UK farming industry, which leads the world in setting standards.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Commitments are one thing; actions are another. For the UK to deliver on its promises and commitments in the COP26 agreement, a transition to renewable energy must occur, and must be supported by the Government. Will the Prime Minister commit himself to at least matching the Scottish Government’s £500 million just transition fund to drive the move to renewable energy and meet the UK’s emissions reduction obligations, while also ensuring that workers are not left behind?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to say that a just transition is vital, but that is why we are investing £12.6 billion around the world and £26 billion in this country, to help the transition to a clean, green economy, while creating 440,000 new, high-quality jobs.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the President of COP26 on their leadership in Glasgow. Does the Prime Minister agree that we can continue to show leadership by continuing to reduce our carbon emissions, getting cars and freight off the roads and reducing the need for domestic flights? We can do that by investing in high-speed rail, investing in east-west connectivity, investing in Northern Powerhouse Rail, and investing in local rail connections such as the Huddersfield-Penistone-Sheffield line.
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his plug for the Huddersfield-Penistone-Sheffield line. As he knows, I am a passionate enthusiast for new rail schemes, and he will be hearing a lot more in the integrated rail plan later this week.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister was sent to Glasgow to keep 1.5 alive, and left it in intensive care. A year ago he committed himself to the BioYorkshire project, Yorkshire’s green new deal, but in a year not a penny or a green new deal job has been delivered. Will he turn his words into action and support the green new deal?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that any Government in history have done more to support green technology and green jobs across the whole country. As I just said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), we are creating 440,000 new jobs as a result of the investments we are making. We are transforming the UK, including Yorkshire, with a green industrial revolution, and that is how we are going to continue.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The Prime Minister is right to say that the whole country should take pride in the manner in which the UK has hosted the COP talks in the last few weeks. One of the elements that distinguished COP26 from previous COPs was the much greater and more meaningful involvement of business. How can we ensure that that continues and becomes one of the defining characteristics of the remainder of the UK’s COP presidency?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I think that that was one of the most important defining characteristics of this COP, and the role of business is now seen to be critical by partners around the world. The new country platforms that we are creating will only be possible with the help of the trillions of private sector investment.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to show that Britain leads by her actions, not by her words, and reopen the UK-Australia trade deal, which notoriously relegated climate commitments to get the deal over the line?
The Prime Minister
Australia has made its first ever commitment to net zero, and if you want to look at UK leadership, Madam Deputy Speaker, ours was the first country—the first major economy—to commit itself to net zero. Now, 90% of the world is committed to it. It is pretty clear, even from the grudging, mealy-mouthed words we have heard from the Opposition, that the overwhelming impression, even on the Opposition Benches, is that COP26 in Glasgow was a considerable success.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The United Kingdom has an enviable record of phasing out coal because of the success of our renewables sector. I should know about this, because, as the Prime Minister has said before, the north Norfolk coast is the capital of the Saudi of wind-powered generation. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend act with extreme speed to get the regulatory and legal framework changed so that we can implement an offshore transmission network and stop the damaging cable corridors that connect piecemeal to our national grid?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have proceeded at such a pace that the cables come ashore in a way that is confused and very far from optimal. We need to ensure that we work with the regulator to develop a proper grid to bring the energy onshore in an organised way, and that work is under way.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I was not expecting that, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I thank the COP26 President’s parliamentary team, who were there in Glasgow, for helping MPs to navigate their way around the event. A number of commitments were made on aviation at COP, acknowledging the need for change to be sustainable for the industry. I have raised many times the financial difficulties the industry faces at present. What will the Government do to support it in decarbonising and meeting jet zero without that becoming too great a financial burden?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady very much. We are supporting the campaign for jet zero; we want the UK to lead the world in making sure that planes can fly without using tonnes of kerosene, and there are many attractive technologies. It will not be easy, but we want the whole world to come together to fix this. We are setting an ambitious target of getting more sustainable aviation fuel into tanks by 2030, and going for electric planes for short haul.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
May I add my thanks to the Prime Minister and the unflappable, unstoppable COP26 President sitting beside him? It is plain to hear that they have really put themselves out there, and they have done the country and the world a great service. The agreement on coal is welcome. They have both been honest that it could have been better, but does the Prime Minister concur that the direction of travel on coal is now crystal clear, and that the pressure on India, China and the other coal-addicted nations will only increase now? Will he commit his Government to using every resource at our disposal to finish the job on coal?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend, who is totally right. The way to finish the job on coal is to show countries that are having difficulties powering past coal that the technology does exist, and to use our new country platforms to bring in the private sector to help us to fix it. That is what is going to happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We have been considering this subject now for an hour, which is the normal time for a statement. As this is a historically important statement, I would like to ensure that everybody who wishes to ask a question has the opportunity to do so, but they really will have to be short questions now. I am slightly concerned about the Prime Minister’s voice; I am sure he is not concerned, but I am concerned about his voice. It would be a terrible thing if he were prevented from other things on which he has to make speeches in the near future because we kept him at the Dispatch Box for too long—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister is not concerned; nevertheless we will be as quick as possible now, because there is other business to get on to.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The Prime Minister probably admits that the weakest link of the deal was the lack of progress on defunding the polluters. The catchily-named GFANZ—Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero—initiative disappointed many. That now means that 1,400 of the world’s 2,000 biggest companies do not have net zero targets. Their combined turnover is nearly $15 trillion, but most pension savers are funding them, because the information is not there in their accounts. When will that great deficit be fixed?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The power of consumers, pension holders and investors is enormous. We are looking at everything we can do to encourage all companies to follow suit. Peer pressure and social pressure will have a massive influence.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Real progress has been made at COP26, and we should all be grateful to its president and the Prime Minister for achieving so much. However, the Prime Minister will be aware that we must keep countries’ feet close to the fire. What reassurance can he provide that the annual progress reports have real teeth, so that leaders can be held accountable for the progress required in the short term, in order to ensure that climate change targets are
The Prime Minister
The most important tool we have now is transparent data. We agreed the Paris rulebook, so people will not be able to evade their obligations. The data will be there for all to see, and we will hold them to account.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I add my voice to those calling for urgent climate justice reparations for the least-developed countries. They have had a collective slap in the face, in conjunction with the cuts in development funding. In the new planning framework, will the Prime Minister be ruling out fossil fuel developments?
The Prime Minister
We want to move beyond coal. We will have no more coal from 2024, and around the world we are no longer investing in fossil fuels.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
At COP in Glasgow, I picked up some frustration from developing countries about the $100 billion of climate finance. Will the Prime Minister outline how, over the next year, the UK will help to set out how this money will reach developing countries? Who will allocate it and make sure that we hold businesses’ and countries’ feet to the fire to make sure it happens?
The Prime Minister
We will make sure that we hold the developed world’s feet to the fire. We got very close to the $100 billion, and we will get there or thereabouts by 2023. Frankly, that is much better than seemed possible earlier in the negotiations.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has dodged the issue of turning the City of London into the capital of green investment. The UK represents 1% of global emissions, but the City of London’s corporations and financial institutions represent 15% of global emissions. Where is his plan to ensure they commit to 1.5° and zero emissions?
The Prime Minister
The City of London is already the global centre of green investment, and its lead is continually growing.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking the COP26 President’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher)? There could have been no better Back-Bench champion to gently corral and encourage us all to fight for the environmental issues she holds so dear.
Will the Prime Minister give further information on the £210 million for small nuclear technology? If we had left it to the Opposition, we would have no nuclear technology or nuclear capacity to speak of.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the COP26 President’s brilliant Parliamentary Private Secretary, and I confirm that we are putting another £200 million into supporting small modular reactors.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The UK’s leadership of COP26 was undermined by climate hypocrisy at home, but we still have the COP presidency and a change of policy now could still influence others. In that spirit, will the Government stop drilling in the Cambo oilfield, scrap plans for a new coalmine in Cumbria and cancel the tax cuts on domestic flights—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
This country has already shown unbelievable leadership in powering beyond coal, and the countries of the world can see that.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend is aware, northern Lincolnshire and the Humber are major centres of our renewable energy sector and can play a major part in spearheading our achievement of the COP26 targets. Will he reaffirm the Government’s support for developing the industry, not just in northern Lincolnshire but elsewhere, which would have the added benefit of levelling up many of our industrial areas?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he is doing to support low-carbon industries across the north-east. That has immense potential throughout the country—he is quite right.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I noticed that the Prime Minister mentioned Aristotle in his statement, so could he explain how breaking his own manifesto promise to the poorest people in the world, those worst affected by climate change, could possibly be consistent with the actions of the virtuous person?
The Prime Minister
Because we have not. What we are doing is continuing—[Interruption.] Opposition Members must really retract this, because what we are doing is not only committing £11.6 billion, which I announced and which was a doubling of the previous commitment, but adding, as soon as we can, as soon as the numbers will allow us, another £1 billion, taking it to £12.6 billion. That is one of the biggest commitments to tackling climate change around the world of any country in the world and the hon. Member should be proud of it.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the COP President on the incredible achievements at the COP summit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is science, technology, research and development that will get us through this mess, but that that is going to need a huge workforce skilled in STEM? Could he update the House on the work the Government are doing not only to improve and enhance careers and training in STEM, but to break down barriers for women and people from marginalised backgrounds to taking on those careers?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is making a very important point. We have not only to train more people up in STEM—and we are investing hugely in skills— but to make sure that people with existing skills in hydrocarbon-intensive means of propulsion are trained to work with EVs and other low-carbon technologies. That is what we are doing as well.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We know that the COP26 agreement is the bare minimum in terms of what needs to be done to tackle the climate emergency already claiming lives around the world. Last week, Wales joined as a core member of the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance. At the same time, news came that the Conservative party, under this Prime Minister, has pocketed £1.5 million in donations from oil and gas interests. He can redeem his reputation by joining Wales, France, Denmark and others as a core member of the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance—will he?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady for that, but we are going beyond hydrocarbons faster than virtually any other country in the world and she should be proud of that.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the COP President for his work. Will the Prime Minister now indicate how he is going to put pressure on the major coal producers and importers, and indeed how he will use UK trade policy to achieve that?
The Prime Minister
We will hold all coal producers, importers and mining countries around the world to their commitments to reduce our global dependence on coal. They have made them in black and white in the Glasgow climate pact and we will hold them to account.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I am sorry to cast a shadow on the mutual backslapping here today, but there has been widespread concern that the Prime Minister simply lacked the leadership we needed to see, given that he had the presidency of COP26 and the G7 chair. Does he not recognise that we are a country that now routinely threatens to renege on its international commitments and that has cut international aid—what it is putting back does not make up for the cut and we are one of the only G7 countries to do that? Does he not recognise that he simply lacks the credibility and trust that we currently need to lead on this issue and that he needs to sort that out?
The Prime Minister
The Opposition have had a very tough job this afternoon, because they have tried time and again to congratulate the UK Government on achieving a success at COP26, while simultaneously attacking the UK Government for whatever failings they see——I think they should stick with their initial script.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I was pleased to attend a part of COP26 as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. It was a particular privilege to meet members of the Ugandan delegation who took part in an event that we hosted. I have to say that the Prime Minister’s statement is completely tone deaf in the face of the frustration and desperation of countries of the global south at the failure of this COP to deliver on the 12-year-old promise of $100 billion a year for climate finance. Will he accept that his decision to persist with indefensible cuts to UK aid effectively tied the hands of his own negotiating committee on this vital issue?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member is talking total rubbish. We have doubled—[Interruption.] No, Opposition Members literally do not know what they are talking about. We have doubled climate finance for developing countries. The reason why the vulnerable countries accepted the deal, finally, was because we have got a commitment to $100 billion. Yes, I would have liked it faster, but it is there in black and white. Maybe she has not read it.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Bristol was the first local authority in the country to declare a climate and ecological emergency. We have set out a city-wide strategy to make Bristol carbon neutral, climate resilient and wildlife rich by 2030—the nuts and bolts, if you like—but Bristol and other cities need investment, and the Government’s funding model currently makes us compete with other cities. The UK Government cannot reach their targets using that funding model, so will they look at it again and help us with the private investment that we need to make a massive contribution to the Government’s own national targets?
The Prime Minister
I thank Bristol for what it is doing. We are committed to regional plans for net zero. It should be possible within the funding envelope that Bristol has, but we will certainly look at it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Department of Energy and Climate Change, which was under Lib Dem leadership until 2015, was a huge driver towards decarbonisation across the board. There are now renewed calls to bring back such a Department, but there seem to be sources in the Treasury who are against such a move, saying that it would become
“the biggest begging bowl in Whitehall outside the NHS”.
Does the Prime Minister agree that we should bring back the Department of Energy and Climate Change, or does he agree with the Treasury?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is totally wrong, because we need to integrate business into the fight against climate change. That is the way to do it, as we have done with wind power, and we also need nuclear power.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Government say they are now following the science—they said it during covid and they are saying it on climate—but over the weekend they managed to alienate the entire scientific community of this nation with leaks to the press saying that the UK is about to be wrenched out of three different multibillion-pound international research and infrastructure projects that tackle exactly those two things, because they are backed by the EU scientific budget. Will the Prime Minister confirm that we need a joined-up approach on these things and that it is not about settling old scores? Can he tell us that those reports are truly media tittle-tattle?
The Prime Minister
I do not know quite what relevance that has to COP, but the UK is investing massively. We have doubled our commitment to R&D, funding for science is going up to £22 billion and we have set up a new advanced research and invention agency, which is based on the model of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and is unlike anything that any previous Government have done.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Will everyone who has a long question written or typed out edit it to half what they have? We must have much shorter questions. The problem is that when people read their questions, they are great big, long questions; “Erskine May” makes it clear that questions should never be read.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
At COP26, the Prime Minister said we were at one minute to midnight; I am afraid his clock might be a bit slow. The action that has been set out is not enough. Aristotle asked whether hope is a waking dream; I would really like to hear from the Prime Minister that he is going to stop Cambo and halt the Cumbria coalmine.
The Prime Minister
The reason why we have been able to get considerable success at COP is because the whole world can see that we are moving beyond coal and the pace at which we have done it.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The review commissioned by the Treasury and carried out by Professor Dasgupta of the University of Cambridge highlighted the importance of nature-based solutions to the tackling of environmental challenges. Will the Prime Minister tell us what the UK Government did at COP26 to pursue those conclusions and whether they will be pursued at the COP15 biodiversity talks?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to Professor Dasgupta. At COP26 we had not only an immense agreement on forests, which are vital habitats for untold manner of wildlife, but a negotiation with our Chinese partners that will continue through till their Kunming biodiversity summit. COP26 achieved an integration of high climate science with nature. It is the first time that has happened.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
A potential barrier to the accelerated move towards 100% zero emission vehicles that the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement is grid capacity, particularly in rural areas such as Carmarthenshire. What are the British Government doing to ensure that the grid will be resilient enough to meet expected demand?
The Prime Minister
One of the most important things is to ensure that we have enough baseload electricity, which is why we are investing in nuclear as well.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In order to meet our commitments on net zero, the Humber energy estuary will play a vital role. So I am at a bit of a loss to understand why, in all the briefings over the weekend about the integrated rail review, we in the Humber will get nothing in terms of greener, faster connectivity. There will be no coast-to-coast Northern Powerhouse Rail, despite what the Prime Minister has promised in the past, and no benefit from HS2 to the east of Leeds. So, Prime Minister, I just wondered whether you could comment on the fact that the Humber is not getting much—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The right hon. Lady must not say, “So, Prime Minister”. She must ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can comment.
The Prime Minister
I congratulate the Humber and the whole region on what they are doing in green technology and carbon capture and storage. We will ensure that this country builds on their lead with clean, green technology around the whole country.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
In the run-up to COP, the Prime Minister spoke about Kermit the Frog. On the first day of COP, he spoke about cows belching before disappearing up a closie for the next two weeks, instead focusing his time on trying to cover up Conservative party corruption. So can I ask the Prime Minister: when the world needed climate leadership, does he believe that he was a help or a hindrance?
The Prime Minister
As I say, the Opposition have struggled all afternoon with the appalling fact that COP26 has been a success. In all humility, they should recognise that, congratulate the negotiators and thank all the countries of the UN that came together to do something very difficult and very remarkable. I am grateful to all the parties involved.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I have been at many COPs and each one agrees on more ambition, but we are yet to see the action that is needed. The world is currently on track for 2.4°—a death sentence for millions and devastation for the planet. How can we believe that this Prime Minister will take the action needed when this Government continue to use loopholes to fund fossil fuel projects overseas, locking communities into that fossil-fuel era for decades?
The Prime Minister
I cannot believe that the hon. Member has been at that many COPs because no previous COP has agreed on anything about coal, or about cars, or about trees. It has not agreed anything like the solid granular commitments that the countries of the world made, including no new support for overseas coal-fired power stations. They did it because this Government are leading the way in cutting support for hydrocarbons overseas and they could see it plain as a pikestaff.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Glasgow is a proud host of COP. I thank my constituents, Glasgow businesses and COP volunteers who made the world so welcome. To all our new friends, Scotland says, “Haste ye back”. Will the Prime Minister act to support and incentivise the investment in innovative start-ups such as Katrick Technologies in my constituency, which is growing in developing world-leading green energy technology in Glasgow?
The Prime Minister
I have seen some wonderful new technologies being developed by people and businesses in Glasgow. Where it is useful and appropriate for us to give support, we will.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I was at COP representing the Inter-Parliamentary Union as the global co-rapporteur for COP26. The global Parliaments delivered a very strong document. While I was there, I met the Speaker of the Tuvalu Parliament, Samuelu Teo, who told me that donor countries had provided enough finance for them to build a seawall, but the consultants from the donor countries could not agree on how to build the seawall. This is one of the really difficult issues—we promise but we cannot deliver. Will we deliver the adaptation measures that small and developing states need so that they do not go under the ocean?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The next Egyptian presidency of COP will focus on adaptation measures and what we all need to do to support them.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Glasgow climate pact included a request that countries return next year with stronger targets for 2030, yet within hours the Australian Government had issued a statement saying that they were not intending to strengthen their target. What will the Government do over the remainder of the COP presidency to ensure that countries such as Australia that do not meet their NDC commitments are encouraged to raise their standards and ensure that they deliver for the world?
The Prime Minister
Australia did make a commitment to net zero. Electorates and consumers around the world are now going to hold Governments to account for the promises that they have made.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
When we consider energy efficiency, the UK has some of the draughtiest homes in Europe. A national retrofit programme would not only drive down emissions, but create thousands of jobs for people around our country and save families £400 on their annual energy bills, so will the Prime Minister tell us why he scrapped his green homes grant?
The Prime Minister
We are committed to retrofitting homes around the whole UK. As I said earlier, the housing stock is very various, so we need different approaches in different places. We are supporting households across the country to go green and thereby to save on their fuel bills as well. That is the Government’s approach.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Rather than self-congratulations today, surely the time to judge the historical significance of the Glasgow COP will be in 2050. Given that climate change is a truly global issue, does the Prime Minister recognise that one of its impacts will be more migration of peoples around the world, and, sadly, more conflicts in many places around the world? In that context, surely the UK should be doing more to lead on international aid and to have a more progressive asylum policy at home.
The Prime Minister
I think the whole House will agree that 2050 is frankly far too late. That is why we are making the commitments that we have made now. The way to avert crisis in the next decade is to make the changes that we are making now. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about climate finance, I simply repeat what I said earlier: I really think that Opposition Members should look at what the UK is spending, as it sets an example and benchmark for the rest of the world to follow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you. I appreciate that this statement has taken a long time, but it is an historic matter and everyone has had their chance to speak.
Point of Order
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I speak further to my point of order on Tuesday 9 November, in which I sought assurances that the long-awaited integrated rail plan—the centrepiece of the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda—would not be leaked to the media while the House was in recess. All or most of the contents of the integrated rail plan have now been reported in the press over the weekend. Yet again, before any statement to this House, there has been selective leaking to the media ahead of the plan’s launch, which Government sources say is not until Thursday. This is despite previous statements from Mr Speaker telling Ministers on numerous occasions—most recently over the recent Budget statement—to end this repeated and systematic abuse of the House.
The Department for Transport now says that it does “not comment on speculation”, but its advance briefings set the speculation running. What further action can Mr Speaker take to address the way in which the House has been treated, and is waiting until Thursday for the House to hear about the rail plan not just a charade now? Will the Secretary of State for Transport now be summoned to this House to make his statement on his wholly, or mostly, leaked rail plan without further delay and before Thursday?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving Mr Speaker notice that she intended to make it.
I have to say, yet again—to repeat what Mr Speaker has said many, many times, and I venture to say too many times recently in the House—that it is a basic point of good constitutional form that announcements about Government policy should be made here in this Chamber to this House of Commons. When the Government have something of importance to announce, the people who should be asking the questions and holding the Government to account are the elected representatives of the people—you, Members of Parliament—not those in the television studios, the radio studios, Twitter or the newspapers. I have no hesitation in reiterating Mr Speaker’s often and very forcefully made point that Ministers who make announcements other than in this Chamber should consider very carefully whether they are adhering to the ministerial code.
I thank the right hon. Lady for bringing this matter to the House. As to her question about summoning the Secretary of State, she is well experienced in these matters, and I think she will know that if she consults the Clerks there will be ways in which she can endeavour to summon a Secretary of State here to this Chamber. I am sure that Mr Speaker will listen to her plea.
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill
Monday 15th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 View all Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 15 November 2021 - (15 Nov 2021)
18:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 229 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 53 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by both Lords amendments. If the House agrees to either Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
Clause 1
Up-rating of state pension and certain other benefits following review in tax year 2021-22
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 2.
Guy Opperman
The Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill is a one-year Bill by reason of the pandemic. Last year, as you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, we changed the law for one year to increase state pensions by 2.5% at a time when average earnings had fallen and consumer price inflation had increased by half a percentage point. If we had not taken this action, state pensions would have been frozen.
This year, average earnings growth is estimated to be unusually high, distorted by the cumulative effects of a natural economic reaction to the coronavirus pandemic and the response to the supportive measures introduced by the Government to protect livelihoods. The figure for average weekly earnings from May to July—the measure used for uprating earnings-linked benefits—has grown at 8.3%, which is over two percentage points higher than at any time over the past two decades. Recognising this covid-related distortion, the Government are setting aside the earnings link for one more year, 2022-23, and continuing the double lock of at least inflation or 2.5%. The triple lock will be applied again in the usual way for the basic and new state pensions from the following year.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Of course I understand why the Government have decided not to increase the state pension by 8%, but is it still their intention that the value of the state pension should, over time, at least keep track with earnings?
Guy Opperman
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we remain committed to the triple lock. This is a one-year-only Bill. This will be a continuation of the policy that the Government introduced as part of the coalition in 2010 and have continued to pursue on an ongoing basis since then. There is no intention to change that.
Guy Opperman
I will make some progress.
It is right that I address these Lords amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, because, as you rightly outlined, they engage financial privilege in that they interfere with the financial arrangements made by the elected House of Commons. That alone, I respectfully submit, is sufficient reason to disagree with the Lords amendments. However, it is also right that I address directly the point that was made by the House of Lords that invites the Secretary of State to measure earnings as if they were not actually growing by 8.3%. I assure the House that there is no robust way of calculating them as if they were not.
The independent Office for National Statistics has responsibility for producing economic statistics to the highest possible standards. ONS experts investigated whether it was possible to produce a single robust figure for underlying earnings growth that stripped out impacts from the pandemic, and concluded that it was not possible. Alongside the actual earnings growth figures, the ONS suggested a possible indicative range of 3.6% to 5.1%. These figures do not have national statistics status. Indeed, the ONS itself includes heavy caveats on the issue and advises caution in approaching it. The Bank of England also cast doubt on identifying a figure that could be relied on. The ONS said:
“There are a number of ways you can try to strip out these base effects, but no single method everyone would agree on. We have tried a couple of simple approaches…Neither approach is perfect…Our calculations of an underlying rate are there to help users understand base and compositional effects, but…there remains a lot of uncertainty about how best to control for these effects.”
It said that the statistics therefore “need to be” treated “with caution”.
We believe it would be reckless in procedure and in law for this or any other Government to set a precedent for uprating benefits or pensions using a methodology that is not robust and for which there is no consensus. That is why the Government have decided to suspend the earnings link in this year of exceptional and anomalous earnings growth. Instead, we decided to apply a double lock underpinned by the established consumer prices index published and approved by the ONS. This approach was also recommended by the Social Market Foundation and other commentators, and very strongly by this House on Second Reading, Report and Third Reading. That is the legislation that this House passed to the Lords, and that is the legislation I would urge this House to send back to the Lords.
I remind the House that over the two years of the pandemic the Government will have ensured that the pensions covered by this Bill will have increased by much more than prices, by reason of the 2.5% increase last year and the link to CPI this year. In those circumstances, I commend this House to reject the House of Lords amendments and agree that we proceed with this one-year Bill by reason of the pandemic.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Whatever else could be said about the House of Lords, it is a place that genuinely contains a great deal of expertise on the subject of pensions. We are fortunate to have that expertise in Parliament and we should be prepared to listen to it. Having studied the exchanges in the Lords, I feel that the Government’s positions on this matter have not held up well under scrutiny, and the debate has moved on considerably since we last discussed it here.
Labour will therefore vote to accept the amendment put forward by the former Conservative Pensions Minister Baroness Altmann, which was well argued and handsomely carried, but which also most closely reflects our own position on these matters. That is to say, we accept, as I have said clearly and repeatedly, the Government’s case that the true figure of earnings growth in the UK is not 8.3%. It would be absurd to maintain that that is what is happening to our constituents’ wages right now. Labour supports the triple lock. We believe the Government’s manifesto commitment should be binding and that the connection to earnings in the uprating decision for this year should remain.
In her remarks, Baroness Altmann made it clear that she was not proposing a specific uprating figure by proposing this amendment. That is important. It seems to me that all Conservative MPs could vote for this amendment, honour their own manifesto commitment, and still address the problem of how the pandemic has distorted the earnings data. It would just require the Government to effectively make an assessment of whether real wage growth is higher or lower than CPI inflation, and, if higher, use that figure.
When we last held a debate on this in the Commons, the Government said that that would not be legally sound, but the Lords debate knocked that down fairly easily. As Baroness Altmann said, for a judicial review to occur, the figure the Government used would have to be found to have been brought about by the Government acting irrationally. That is something we can never rule out with this Government, but it should be more than possible to avoid that. If I may say so, one of the reasons the Government lost this vote so badly in the Lords was their tendency to rely on short-term, inconsistent arguments to bounce from one day’s headlines to another’s.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman criticises the Government for not coming up with a solution, when he is unable in any way to come up with a solution or figure himself, as are the Office for National Statistics, the Bank of England and all other reputable organisations. In fact, the House of Lords did not come up with a figure, so what, pray, if he would enlighten the House, is the precise figure that he would see pensions increase by?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention. I am about to explain why he has got himself and the Government into this position.
Jonathan Reynolds
With respect, the Minister just needs to listen to this point. He stands at the Dispatch Box and, like all Ministers, tells us that black is white. For instance, when the Government reacted to the crisis of their own making—when we saw the pumps run dry and the shelves go sparse—they claimed to the country that this was a secret masterplan towards a high-wage economy that they had had all along. Now, we are having to see the Minister and the Government tie themselves in knots again, because he has been sent here to make the case, which we have heard him put very well, that the figure is too distorted and therefore we need this primary legislation, yet—and this is the problem, Minister—according to the Prime Minister, wages are up, workers have never had it so good and that is why the Government can cut £20 a week from universal credit. They are making two completely opposing arguments. We do not even know whether the Government believe that wages are rising faster than inflation. I politely say to the Minister that they cannot expect to have it both ways.
I will repeat a number of points that colleagues may have heard me say before, but I feel they need to be repeated in light of some of the media comments on the Bill. The uprating of the state pension is relevant to millions of pensioners in this country, but it is wrong to present it as an issue of intergenerational unfairness. That is because these decisions are also fundamentally about how we ensure that the state pension is indexed and retains real value for people who are in work today when they come to retire. This Government have been grossly unfair on people of working age, but frankly that is due to the burden of taxes they have inflicted on workers, rather than through the operation of policies such as the triple lock.
I hope the Minister took on board the comments made about pensioner poverty in this House and the other place. The Government’s use of what they call absolute poverty, which in reality is a measure of poverty relative to a fixed line in 2010, is unsatisfactory because not only does it ignore the statistical evidence, which is that pensioner poverty is now rising after it fell considerably under Labour, it also limits a serious debate on the drivers of that rise. The big picture is that the OBR predicts that as a country we will be spending an extra £6 billion a year, year-on-year, on pension-age benefits every year up until 2024-25. That is the year that the forecasts in the welfare trends report go up to, so it will likely continue to rise after that. Pensioner poverty is going up as spending rises substantially. We should be having a much more substantive debate about that, looking at housing costs, energy prices, food and access to good financial and investment advice. The way in which the Government present their own progress means that any real wage growth over the last decade allows them to claim that poverty has declined, so when the Minister says that 200,000 pensioners have been lifted out of poverty since 2010, the reality is that that is a very poor level of performance compared with all previous Governments. Poverty is always relative, because it is a measure of whether someone has the means to live a fulfilling life in the society of which they are a member. That is not just a left-of-centre viewpoint, but one that until recently was accepted by Conservatives, too.
However, to return to the matter at hand, the House of Lords has sent us an amendment that should genuinely command the support of the whole House. It requires the Government to maintain the earnings link in their manifesto promise, while still making allowance for the pandemic. This Government have dragged politics through the gutter in recent weeks, with stories of sleaze, corruption, contracts for donors and second jobs from Caribbean islands. I could go on, but the point is that public trust in this place matters. When the Government muddy our democracy in the way that they have, they cannot then turn to the public and ask voters to simply take them at their word. For public trust to return, the first step has to be for the Government to keep their promises. Today, Labour will therefore support the amendment that would allow the Government to keep their promise on the pensions triple lock.
The Lords have sent us a very reasonable set of measures, and frankly I see no logical reason not to support them if we want to protect the link between earnings and pensions. If the Government are unable to do so, they should admit what is really going on: they are using the pandemic as a smokescreen to scrap the triple lock and pocket the savings. They should cut the obfuscation, keep their promises and vote for the Lords amendments.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
As the MP for North Norfolk, which has some of the highest numbers of older people in the country, you can understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, why I want to speak briefly in this debate. First, we have come back to basics. I was a finance director and a chartered accountant before I came into this place, so I have a reasonable grasp of statistics, and it is fair to say that this Government have, to the tune of around £400 billion, safeguarded the country through a pandemic that no one ever expected. Not only that, but the national debt sits at some £2.2 trillion, so it is understandable that we are sitting here this evening being extremely careful and prudent about what we do with our public finances.
The electorate, as we have seen many times before, will forgive a Government many things, but they will not forgive a Government being reckless with the public finances. We have to understand that, much as we would like to increase pensioners’ pay, every 1% increase costs the Exchequer a billion pounds. To put that in perspective, with an increase of some 8% to 9%, we are looking at an increase of some £8 billion to £9 billion. I can therefore see entirely how that would sit when we have to look in the eye of a prison officer, a police officer, a teacher, a firefighter or any other public sector worker who has seen their pay frozen for the past year. That is the real context. It is about fairness and a statistical anomaly caused by the dip, coming off furlough on to 100% pay and when the ONS statistics were taken. It has given rise to this one-off statistical anomaly.
What the House of Lords has proposed is sensible, and I took that to the Secretary of State to ask whether we could do something to still honour the framework of the triple lock, while ensuring that we have a sensible parameter to measure it by. The answer that came back was exactly the same as the one the excellent Minister just gave: we need a robust metric. We cannot just move the goalposts and cherry-pick a point in time because the argument does not fit at the moment. Many of my constituents have written to me about this issue, and when a detailed reply has gone back to them, a great number understand why we have this one-off double lock.
In summing up, I say two things to the Minister. First, woe betide us if we do not honour the triple lock next year. We have some of the best public finances recovery in the G7, as the Chancellor said the other week, so we must get back to giving our pensioners the pay increases they absolutely deserve, because they have paid in all their lives. Secondly, it would be wonderful to go into the next election with the resounding message that our pensions are good, honest pensions that people have earned all their lives, at a level that people can be proud of compared with Europe. Too often, our pensioners feel that is not necessarily the case. I would like the Minister to ensure that we put our pensioners at the front of the queue as we come out of this pandemic. I wholly understand what he has said this evening. I will be rejecting the Lords amendment, because it is sensible to maintain the public purse in the best possible way at a time like this, so that our country can rebound from where we are at the moment.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who spoke about the risks of throwing a billion pounds about here and there. I know he was not in the previous Parliament, when the Government were propped up by the Democratic Unionist party, but I recall them having no great difficulty finding a billion pounds down the back of the sofa. Indeed, I think the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was worth about £100 million, which is probably more than Messi.
Unlike the Minister, I am glad to see the Bill back in the House this evening, because the amendments passed by their lordships give the Government an opportunity to perform a U-turn with ermine grace and charm. Before it went back to the other place, the Bill as originally drafted facilitated the British Government breaking yet another manifesto commitment, namely the pensions triple lock, which I remind the House all parties in this Chamber committed to at the election fewer than two years ago. Thankfully, the Bill was amended in the other place, and I am grateful to Baroness Altmann for Lords amendments 1 and 2, which seek to restore the earnings link.
As we are relatively short on time, I will not go over some of the meatier issues that I outlined on Second Reading, including the Government’s repeated breach of their manifesto commitments, the worrying trends in pensioner poverty, pension comparisons with OECD countries and the—at best—disappointing lack of action on pre-existing equalities that are baked into our pension system. In speaking in favour of the Lords amendments, I will outline why the SNP continues to vote to respect its 2019 election manifesto commitment and why the Budget has changed things, which may result in more Opposition Members voting tonight than on Second Reading.
The Minister will have familiarised himself with the House of Lords Official Report, but in the interests of completeness and for the benefit of Hansard, I remind the House of what Baroness Altmann said on the cost of living crisis, which affects all the constituents we seek to represent in this House. She reminded the other place of the Government’s view that
“the 3.1% figure would still protect against rises in the cost of living.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2021; Vol. 815, c. 1140.]
She quoted the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) who said that that figure
“will ensure that pensioners’ spending power is preserved and that they are protected from the higher cost of living”.—[Official Report, 20 September 2021; Vol. 701, c. 86.]
However, the goalposts have moved, and the fiscal outlook is much bleaker. The Chancellor conceded in the Budget that inflation in September was already at 3.1% and would rise further. The Office for Budget Responsibility has gone further, predicting that consumer prices index inflation will reach 4.4% next year. It went on to say that inflation
“could hit the highest rate seen in the UK for three decades”,
which the House will know is about 7.5%. In reality, the Bank of England’s chief economist is forecasting 5%. To be blunt, the facts have changed and the Government must now change their position at least to reflect the fiscal outlook, if not to respect their manifesto commitment.
Pensioners across these islands are not immune from rising energy and food costs, and we know that inflation is biting hard for some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies as we approach a harsh winter. Last month, energy bills rose by 12%, and food bills have also risen, so the Government must think again.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The 12% figure is not reflected in Northern Ireland, where energy prices have risen by some 30%, and the cost of living has also risen by 20%. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for that reason, we must support the Lords amendments for the pensioners?
David Linden
I will avoid going into energy policy in Northern Ireland, given previous actions, but the hon. Member is right to place that on the record. His constituents in Strangford should be grateful to him not just for making that point but for backing the Lords amendments when we come to the Division.
The Red Book suggests that, by scrapping the triple lock, the Treasury will save £5.4 billion in 2022-23, £5.8 billion in 2023-24 and £6.1 billion in 2024-25. The Chancellor is clearly balancing the books on the backs of pensioners who continue to get a raw deal from a pensions system that they have paid into their whole lives. I caution the Minister that that is an electorally courageous move for a party that has generally enjoyed higher levels of support among pensioners. Indeed, I will be particularly interested to see how our Scottish Conservative colleagues try to sell this latest broken promise to the electorate north of Coldstream.
The SNP wholeheartedly opposes the British Government’s triple lock betrayal and urges the House to support the Lords amendments. There may be a couple of hundred extra MPs in the Division Lobby with us tonight compared with the last time the House looked at this in September, but we know that the Tory Government will use their majority to plough ahead and vote down their lordships’ amendments regardless. My constituents in Glasgow East will therefore conclude once again that the House does not work for pensioners and it certainly does not work for Scotland. The only way to do things differently is with the normal powers of independence, and I suspect that this tawdry Bill will only hasten that cause further.
Stephen Timms
In my intervention on the Minister, I asked if it remained the Government’s intention that the value of the state pension should, over time, at least keep track with earnings. He declined to confirm that it did, so it may be that the Government’s policy has changed. Ever since Adair Turner’s pensions report was published in 2006, Government policy has been that the state pension should keep track with earnings, not just with prices as was previously the case. I suppose we must conclude that there has been a change in approach.
Stephen Timms
I will gladly give way to the Minister. Hopefully he will clarify the position.
Guy Opperman
I think the right hon. Member misheard or misunderstood me. This is a one-year-only Bill; after that, we revert to the current legislation and state pensions will increase at least in line with earnings. That is what I thought I made clear.
Stephen Timms
The Minister did indeed say that in response to my intervention, but that does not answer the question. The question was: do the Government intend the value of the state pension, over time, at least to keep track with earnings? I was hoping that he would reaffirm that. I do not think that is controversial—it is a policy long held by the Labour Government, the coalition Government and this Government—and I hoped that he would say that that was still their intention, even though in the current year, for reasons that we all understand, the value of the state pension will fall significantly behind the increase in earnings.
As I hope I made clear in my intervention, I think it is entirely reasonable not to increase the state pension by 8% this year; I completely understand the case for not doing that. It looks as though we will get an increase of around 3%, in line with CPI. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who spoke for the SNP, talked about the likely rates of inflation, and, depending on increases in prices and earnings next year, it is quite likely that the state pension will never catch up with earnings unless there is a catch-up initiative of some kind. The Lords amendments would provide such a mechanism. If there is not a catch-up at some point, that would be contrary to the Government’s long-held intention that the state pension should at least keep track with earnings. The fact that—as the Minister has now told the House twice—it will get back in line with the triple lock next year does not solve the problem, because there is a significant backwards move this year. Will there be a catch-up initiative at some point? It looks and sounds as though there will not.
Keeping the value of the state pension going up in line with earnings was a key pillar of the new pensions framework set out in the report by Adair Turner and his fellow commissioners John Hills and Jeannie Drake, published in 2005 and 2006. The settlement’s key elements were that the state pension should keep track with the increase in earnings over time, and auto-enrolment. It was accepted by the Government then and by every Government since.
The importance of that needs to be spelled out. It is not just about being more generous to pensioners and helpful to older people. It is important because it ensures a sound foundation for pension saving, so that people auto-enrolled into pension saving through that successful initiative, which we have all celebrated, are not being encouraged by the state into a bad deal. If the value of the state pension will no longer at least keep track over time with earnings, some people will be better off spending their money now, rather than saving into the pension pot that they are being auto-enrolled into, and later relying on the means-tested safety net of pension credit.
If the state pension slips behind earnings, modest pensions accrued through auto-enrolment will become worthless, because those who claim them in due course will not get above the means-tested threshold and they will still have to depend on pension credit for their income in retirement, and the fact that they have saved into a pension will do them no good at all. That will be a growing problem if the level of the state pension is allowed to slip behind the increase in earnings.
If that does happen, people who are looking forward and saving but are going to end up with fairly modest pensions should instead spend the money at the time they earn it, rather than save it in a pension that, in the end, is not going to take them above the means-tested threshold and so will not give them any additional income. That is why what the Minister is arguing for is such a threat to the success of auto-enrolment. Auto-enrolment will no longer be a sound basis for pension saving if the level of the state pension is allowed to drift below the level of earnings.
People must be able to trust in the state pension under the policies of the Government. They have been able to do so up to now, and now they will not. That raises a pretty fundamental question about the future of the Government’s pensions policy. There is a real danger in allowing, almost by sleight of hand albeit for reasons that we all understand and sympathise with, the state pension to fall permanently behind the increase in earnings and weakening the pension framework that, as far as we all know, is still the basis of the Minister’s policy.
We should not allow that to happen. We need either a measure, and the Minister needs to reassure us that there will be, such as a catch-up initiative to make sure that the state pension over time—not this year, but by next year or the year after—will keep track with the increase in earnings, or the House needs to accept the amendment agreed with a significant majority in the other place, because that keeps the pension framework in place and keeps it effective. There is a real worry if there is a significant falling behind. If there is a 3% increase in the state pension at a time when earnings have gone up by 8%, that will be a one-off 5% fall in the state pension behind the level of earnings. Depending on what happens to earnings growth, which will certainly not carry on at 8%, and on inflation rises next year, that fall could well be locked in for good and the pension framework will have been weakened.
I hope that I have made it clear why this is actually quite important. It is not just about whether we are being generous enough to pensioners. The question is: are we keeping in place a robust and reliable framework for pension saving based on which people can plan with confidence for the future?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
May I say that we in the Opposition, and I think Members on both sides of the House, take pride in the expertise of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)? Time and again, as Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, he has warned the House —both sides of the House, at times—about the approach that needs to be taken if we are to have a stable social security and pensions regime. I pay tribute to the work he does.
I am an ardent advocate of the coalition Government’s policy on the triple lock. That seems somewhat ironic, given the history of this policy, but I am. The historical background is that I was a total opponent of Mrs Thatcher’s breaking of the link between pensions and earnings. To be frank, the state pension still has not recovered from breaking that link. I was elected in 1997, and at the end of Conservative rule in 1997 the basic state pension would have been 50% higher in value if Mrs Thatcher had not broken the earnings link in 1980.
From 1997, I prepared alternative Budgets to the new Labour Budgets. Gordon Brown had a sense of humour about that, and when I was on a platform with him recently—when I was the shadow Chancellor—he said, “Actually, he’s always been the shadow Chancellor,” because I was producing alternatives to his Budgets. In every alternative Budget, I put forward the restoration of the link between earnings and pensions. I did so because the breaking of that link had undermined the progress we had seen until then in improving the state pension and lifting pensioners out of poverty. That is why I was a strong supporter of the triple lock when the coalition Government introduced it. Despite a decade of the triple lock, however, the basic state pension would still be 37% higher if the earnings link had been maintained. That means that today a single pensioner on the basic state pension would be £2,662 a year better off, and a pensioner couple would be £4,277 a year better off, if the link had not been broken by Mrs Thatcher all those years ago.
According to figures on pensioner poverty from Age UK, there are 2.1 million pensioners living in poverty in our country at the moment, up from 1.6 million in 2014—a 30% increase. What is interesting about this, and not shocking to some in this House, is that the majority of pensioners living in poverty are women. In addition, pensioners from black and Asian communities are about twice as likely to be living in poverty.
What I find interesting are some of the individual examples we can bring to the House about what this means. I remember that, the last time energy prices rose, I had a constituent who used her bus pass to stay on the bus all day to keep warm. Such stories about the reasons why people were living in such fuel poverty were not uncommon. I remind the House that this year fuel bills are increasing on average by £139 and they are expected to rise again next year, so I predict that we will have more of our pensioner constituents going cold this winter and, if we are not careful, in future winters as well, especially as, as has been said, inflation is now likely to be 4% and some are even predicting 5%.
I just wonder what this row is all about, because I support the amendments. I would have given the 8%, because I do not believe that people should break the principle of a manifesto commitment in such circumstances and I believe the additional top-up would have worked. However, the Altmann amendment is moving towards a 5% increase and the Government will award a 3% increase, so the difference we are talking about—this is the argument—is about £2.75 a week. Even if we went to the full amount of the 8%, there would only be an additional £7 a week between the 3% and the 8%. Are we really having a row in this House about robbing pensioners of £2.75 a week? I just find it unbelievable that we can even contemplate that.
I have seen the range of costings, but I have examined the DWP estimates on the effect of the Altmann amendment. They said it would cost £1.3 billion in ’22-23; that was in comparison with the uprating with prices. I was in the House a few weeks ago. We are arguing about an additional £1.3 billion for pensioners. Actually, a £25 billion corporate tax break was given away by the Chancellor in the Budget. It will be £12.5 billion next year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. This debate has to finish at 6.51 pm and I intend to bring the Minister in at about 6.46, so I ask the two remaining speakers to take about six minutes each.
Wendy Chamberlain
When we first debated the changes to the triple lock in September, the Secretary of State suggested we take advice from my friend the former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb—with whom I speak from time to time, the Secretary of State, who is now in her place, and the Minister will be happy to know. We usually do so when he is highlighting cases of people having lost out on entitlements due to failures in DWP systems.
As well as holding the DWP portfolio for my party, I am here to serve the interests of my constituents and I can tell Members that I have not received a single email or letter supporting the suspension of the triple lock. I have, however, received email after email asking me to fight to maintain it and pointing out that our state pension is already the lowest in Europe, with people worrying how they are going to make ends meet this coming winter.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State told us this suspension was to deal with a one-off anomaly caused by the pandemic. I wonder whether she or the Minister actually engaged with the Prime Minister on this in advance of Second Reading, because his comments on the subject do not align with that argument. The Prime Minister has told a very different story, where quickly rising wages are not just desirable but an intended outcome of Brexit. So I have to ask: whose explanation should Parliament believe on these wage increases? Do the Minister and the Secretary of State align with the Prime Minister on this now and if so why are the Government intent on leaving pensioners behind, far too many of whom are already on or below the poverty line?
I am happy to support the Bill as it has returned to us from the other place, which has worked admirably across the Benches to find this compromise. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), reminded us in his considered contribution that this is not just about pensioners now; it is about the young, people who cannot get on to the housing ladder and whose wages have been suppressed. We in this place need to ensure that the decisions we make about pensions now give people the reassurance in future that there will be a sustainable state pension for them to live on. The Bill in its current form acknowledges the distortions to the labour market caused by the pandemic, but also acknowledges that inflation is rising. Under that Bill, pensioners will be able to keep the heat on and afford their weekly shop.
I acknowledge that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) at least tried to justify the Government’s position this evening, but I note that no other Conservative Back Bencher has had the appetite to do so. There is a simple choice before the House today. I cannot support the Government’s amendments, which will cause such harm to so many.
Patricia Gibson
I rise to support Lords amendments 1 and 2. The Tory Government’s abandonment of the link between earnings and pensions, smashing the triple-lock manifesto commitment, is truly disgraceful. We are told this is necessary because this year’s earnings measure is “skewed and distorted”. There are many things swirling around Westminster that are skewed and distorted, but the triple lock is not one of them. The UK Government commitment to the triple lock remains, we have been told today by the Minister, but he will understand that that assurance is met with widespread scepticism because today he is here to tell us why their breaking the triple lock must proceed.
We in the SNP tabled an amendment to this Bill requiring the Secretary of State to assess, and be held accountable on, the impact that the legislation would have on levels of poverty among pensioners in each of the devolved nations. It was shamefully voted down by the Tories, and Labour abstained, which it will have to justify to pensioners across the UK. Pensioners across the UK, and certainly in Scotland, have been watching carefully and will not easily forgive that betrayal.
This Government have not listened to pensioners and they have not listened to Members of this House who have defended the triple lock. I doubt they will listen to the Lords either, but I sincerely hope the Minister will prove me wrong.
We have been told today by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) that this would be “reckless” with taxpayers’ money. I find that insulting and wrong-headed, as will many of my constituents. What we have heard shows that the fiscal restraint we are told is necessary is being balanced on the back of pensioners, such as those in my constituency. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) about how money can always be found, and we need only look at the DUP deal to see that. Money can be found when it is considered necessary.
Politics is about choices and choosing to break promises. Hard commitments made to pensioners about the triple lock are being broken. We are watching and our constituents are watching and they do not approve. The Government tell us that wages are rising, as we have heard, and we know that inflation is rising, so what justification is there to break the triple lock—to change the goalposts in the middle of the game?
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Not only are the Government breaking their manifesto commitment and doing away with the triple lock, but already pensioners—our constituents—are in receipt of one of the lowest state pensions in the whole of Europe. Does my hon. Friend share my confusion that Conservative Members often seem to think that the current state pension is an argument for the Union, as if, if Scotland were independent, it would be even worse?
Patricia Gibson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that one of the so-called Union dividends is a pension that is a pithy amount compared with those in other developed nations.
There is genuine fear that this abandonment of the triple lock will lead to permanent and more damaging actions against pensioner incomes. The state pension is by far the largest source of income for millions of UK pensioners, and the triple lock has kept that secure throughout the pandemic. To break it now, as inflation creeps up and the cost of living becomes increasingly challenging, is a shocking attack on pensioner incomes, and it is part of a wider and increasingly obvious narrative from this Government. It is crystal clear, because we have the evidence. We know that women born in the 1950s had their pension age increased with little or no notice; we have seen unacceptable state pension payment delays for new retirees, causing genuine financial hardship and suffering; we have more than 2 million older people living in poverty; and with the triple lock abandoned, many pensioners are set to be £520 less well off next year. All of that will do untold damage to pensioners.
I again urge the Government to stop attacking pensioner incomes and at least keep one of their promises to the electorate by retaining the triple lock and preventing more of our pensioners from suffering hardship in old age. There is an opportunity today to do the right thing. The Government must take this opportunity, and they must take it with good grace.
Guy Opperman
I thank all colleagues for their contributions. The factual reality of the situation is that this Government are spending £129 billion on pensioners. That is £105 billion on the state pension and £24 billion extra on the various add-ons for pensioners, including winter fuel; free eye tests; bus passes; free NHS, obviously; pension credit—I could go on in great detail. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) asked whether the triple lock will return. I can assure him that that is the case.
John McDonnell
On that point, it is almost as though the state pension is a charitable donation to pensioners. They paid for it, working throughout their lives, through their taxes, their national insurance—their contributions. Some of them served on our behalf in the armed forces. They paid for this; it is not some charitable donation by the Government.
Guy Opperman
There is so much that I could reply to; I could genuinely take some considerable time replying to the right hon. Gentleman. Let us start with this. During the last Labour Government, in which time the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is a former Pensions Minister, another former Pensions Minister who is in the Chamber, and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were Members, did they in any way link the state pension to earnings? Not on one single occasion over 13 years. It is this Government—the coalition Government and this Conservative Government—who have linked it to earnings.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the state pension. That is paid for by the working taxpayer on an ongoing basis. The working taxpayer is paying more for the state pension, and it is a larger state pension than ever before; £129 billion is spent—[Interruption.] A hundred and twenty-nine billion. He does not want to hear it, because it is the largest state pension there has ever been. Thirteen years of a Labour Government, and what did they do? They never linked it to earnings. I remember the 75p increase in state pension by Gordon Brown. It is astonishing, the hubris that the right hon. Gentleman comes up with.
The factual reality is that there was never a situation where the Labour Government did anything like the coalition and Conservative Governments did. I asked the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who represents the Opposition, to come up with a figure. You can search Hansard for as long as you like, Madam Deputy Speaker; answer came there none. There was not a single figure. The factual reality is that the Opposition have no idea how they would approach this, they have not come up with an individual figure, and they are not able to do anything—
David Linden
With a view to trying to bring the heat down just a little, let me ask the Minister this. He mentioned the commitment that the triple lock would return next year. Would he be willing to put on the record that, if the triple lock does not return next year, he will resign from ministerial office?
Guy Opperman
It is in the Bill that it only lasts for one year. The hon. Gentleman should really read the Bill. It is not that difficult; it only runs to two pages and two clauses.
Guy Opperman
No. I have given way once already to the right hon. Gentleman, and I have answered his point on two occasions.
The Bill is for one year only. After that, it will revert to the current legislation, and state pension will increase at least in line with earnings. The triple lock will, I confirm, be applied in the usual way for the rest of the Parliament. I would point out to the House that last year, earnings fell by 1% but we still legislated to allow state pensions to be increased by 2.5%. As a result of the triple lock, as I say, the full yearly basic state pension is £875 more than if it had been uprated solely by earnings. The increase is £2,050 in cash terms.
Guy Opperman
No. This is a two-clause Bill introduced by reason of the pandemic. The law will last for only one year before reverting. I commend the progress made by the Government on this issue, and I invite the House to reject the Lords amendments.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords]
Monday 15th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 View all Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (14 Oct 2021)
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In my previous role as Vaccines Minister, I set out how as a nation we would work our way back to normality by delivering an incredible vaccination programme—the product of evidence, expertise, commitment and, of course, collaboration. I am now here, I am very pleased to say, as Education Secretary, but I make it clear that my first and foremost aims remain the same. I am determined to focus on evidence, data and delivery, and on realising the huge potential in our most valuable resource: the human resource, our people.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Secretary of State refers to evidence and data, which all of us in this House rely on. Given the evidence and expertise from professionals about the move to get rid of the BTEC qualification, is it not time that he rethought that proposal?
Nadhim Zahawi
I hope, as I did in the weekly briefings that I gave as Vaccines Minister, to convince the hon. Lady tonight that that is incorrect. We are not getting rid of BTECs.
I know at first hand how important education is. As colleagues who have known me for a long time will know, I came to this country with my family at the age of 11, without a word of English—and here I am now in this Chamber. With the right education, opportunity abounds.
Unfortunately, we are still feeling the aftershocks of the pandemic and we still have many challenges ahead. We need to recover economically; we need to level up our country. I am glad to say that we are already making headway with levelling up. The Chancellor’s Budget is putting the money where it is needed, with £374 billion of direct support for the economy over this year and last year. The Prime Minister’s plan for jobs is working, with the peak of unemployment forecast to be 2 million lower than was previously predicted. Wages are growing, and we will build on that by having skills at the very heart of our plan.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place; there were many positive elements of his vaccination strategy. I want to ask him about apprenticeships, because he says that he arrived in the UK and has been such a successful individual. Is he disappointed that there has been a 41% drop in apprenticeship take-up? Is that not a bit of a national disgrace?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady may recall that I first joined the Department for Education as apprenticeships tsar; I hope to talk about that later in my speech. I introduced the standards and the levy, and we did incredibly well in pushing quality ahead of quantity. It is very important for this House to focus on outcomes rather than just inputs.
Skills, schools and families—this is our mantra. Skills are about investing in people all across our country, about strengthening local economies, about productivity, about stabilising the labour market and about global competitiveness. They are about shoring up—and shoring ourselves up—for a better, stronger, more prosperous future. This is not a pipe dream; we are getting it done right now.
In January, our White Paper “Skills for Jobs” set out our plan to reform the skills system. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), for his work on that brilliant White Paper; I will not repeat everything that it said, because I am sure that hon. Members will have familiarised themselves with it, but I hope to show how we have acted on it.
First, we have significantly increased investment. We are investing £3.8 billion more in further education and skills over the Parliament by 2024-25. As the Chair of the Select Committee on Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), said earlier this month, that is
“a remarkable amount of money for skills.”
I note the cross-party support for the measure in the Bill. Lord Sainsbury, who led an independent panel on skills on behalf of the coalition Government, is a big supporter of our plans. As President Truman once said, it is amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit. That is what we are trying to do, and I hope that the Opposition will join us tonight: to work together to level up the skills base across our great country.
We are delivering an extra £1.6 billion boost by 2024-25 for 16 to 19-year-olds’ education, including maintaining funding in real terms per student and delivering more hours of teaching for T-levels. There is an extra hour a week for all students in that age group, who have the least time to catch up from covid. Apprenticeships funding will increase to £2.7 billion by 2024-25 to support businesses of all sizes to build the skilled workforce that they need. We are making vital improvements to FE college buildings and equipment across England, and we are delivering on our National Skills Fund manifesto commitment to help transform the lives of people who have not got on to the work ladder and who lack qualifications.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Bill, and I welcome what the Government are indicating that they wish to do, but may I ask a quick question? Only 26% of disadvantaged white British boys and 35% of disadvantaged white British girls achieve five good GCSEs including English and mathematics. What is happening to those young boys and girls who are not obtaining all the qualifications that they need in order to advance themselves and gain employment?
Nadhim Zahawi
The Education Committee did a very important piece of work on that precise subject. We are investing in recovery—investing £5 billion, following the Budget. We are investing in tutoring, and, of course we are investing in the quality of teaching. There cannot be great outcomes without great teachers, and we are providing 500,000 teaching opportunities.
I will now make some headway, if I may. As you quite rightly told me, Madam Deputy Speaker, many other Members wish to contribute tonight.
As well as the National Skills Fund manifesto commitment to help transform the lives of people who do not have the opportunities that many of us in this place have had, we are implementing the policies in the White Paper. For example, we have established eight trailblazer areas across the country where the first local skills improvement plans are being developed by employer representative bodies. They are currently engaging employers, education providers and key local stakeholders to begin the development of these important plans in the context of the skills landscape. The trailblazers are in areas from Kent to Cumbria, and they will generate valuable learning to inform the wider roll-out of these plans across our country.
The Bill also specifies the essential legal framework for our reforms. We are setting ourselves up for success by giving people the skills and education that they need for work by improving the quality of what they learn, and, of course, by protecting our learners from the disruptive impact of provider failure, reducing the risk that they will miss out on vital learning because, for example, the training provider with which they are studying goes bust.
I have seen at first hand the transformative power of education, and I want to take a moment to retell the House about an experience that I had while visiting Barnsley College. It was the first in south Yorkshire to roll out T-levels, and while I was there I met several of its students. I want to tell the House about one of them. I have rarely met a more inspiring individual. He told me that with his T-level—I am quoting him word for word—“I am looking at unis now and thinking which one I am picking, not which one is going to pick me.” Greg is living proof of the transformative effect that our skills programme is having.
I also met students at Barnet and Southgate College, during my first week in my present post, and saw how state-of-the-art facilities were helping those with learning difficulties and disabilities to realise their ambitions. The college is going further by strengthening its ties to local businesses: it has worked closely with its local chambers of commerce to provide a range of services for local businesses as a hub in the college. So our reforms are working, and they are very much evidence-led. They are changing people’s lives and levelling up the country, and the Bill will help to secure them for the years to come.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
This is an excellent Bill which deserves a Second Reading tonight. One college that my right hon. Friend knows well is Peter Symonds, in my constituency, which is transforming lives and T-levels. It has done very well out of the post-16 capacity fund bid, in which, as I found out last week, it was successful, and will build a new 12-classroom block as a result. I wonder whether the Secretary of State, in his new role, will make a glorious return to Winchester to see what excellent post-16 education looks like in the heart of Hampshire.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am well aware of that investment, and I will certainly look at the diary to see whether I can make time for a visit. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—the skills Minister—is gagging to get down to Hampshire and have a look at Peter Symonds College as well.
Skills are very much about providing people with fulfilling and productive jobs, and helping them to improve their lot. One of the key parts of the Bill deals with local skills improvement plans, which place employers, through representative bodies, at the centre—the heart—of the local post-16 skills system. Only through really understanding what is needed in a local area and working in a holistic way with employers, education providers and key local stakeholders can we develop a credible local plan to ensure that skills provision meets local needs.
Mayoral combined authorities which have certain devolved responsibilities for adult education are also critical stakeholders, who will be closely engaged in this process. I am pleased to say that we will introduce an amendment to place the role of those authorities on the face of the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nadhim Zahawi
I will try to give way later. I apologise, but I need to make some headway, because a great many Members want to contribute to the debate.
Local skills improvement plans will help to ensure that the skills system is responsive to labour market skills needs and supports local innovation and growth, with every part of the country able to succeed in its own unique way. This is levelling up in action. As the Prime Minister said at COP26 two weeks ago,
“When it comes to tackling climate change, words without action, without deeds are absolutely pointless.”
In the Bill, we are taking that action by setting out the need to consider skills that support our path to net zero as part of the local skills improvement plans. It is not only good for the planet, but good for business.
Another priority for our skills agenda is for lifelong learning, and delivering on our commitment to the lifelong loan entitlement. The LLE will help to give people a loan entitlement to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education at levels 4 to 6, for use on modules or full courses, in colleges or universities, over their lifetimes. If you had told me when I was apprenticeship tsar under the coalition Government that there would be a Prime Minister who would introduce this measure, I would have bitten your arm off, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot emphasise enough that this is a step change in our system, which will revolutionise the way in which we see education, retraining and upskilling in our country. Some 80% of the workforce of 2030—which is not a long time from today—are already in work, so we need to be able to adapt to the future economy and those skills needs.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The fact that we are talking about further education and the skills guarantee is a paradigm shift, and it is very welcome, but what are we doing to ensure that those who do not have a level 2 qualification, or who have difficulty with reading, can access the guarantee?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will address that level 2 issue later in my speech.
The LLE will give us the flexibility to be—I hope—responsive and agile, and will enable people to succeed at any stage in their lives. It will also give them the option of building up their qualifications over time, with both further and higher education providers. They will have a real choice in how and when they study to acquire new, life-changing skills. The LLE will help to create the parity of esteem between further and higher education that we so desperately want to see and so desperately need.
I am pleased to inform the House that since the Bill’s introduction, the Government have introduced further measures to help eradicate that scourge of honest and faithful academia, essay mills. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for his work on this topic, and I know that he will appreciate these measures. It is high time that we stamped out a dishonest practice that both undermines our further and higher education systems and puts students at risk of exploitation.
Any reform of our system must also reform our set of technical educational qualifications, to close the gap between the skills gained through a qualification and the skills employers tell us they need.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. We have worked together on education issues in the past, and I hope to do so in the future. May I press him further on the point my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) made about BTECs? He may not intend to abolish them, but will not effectively defunding them have the same effect? Is that not why so many former Conservative Education Ministers made that point in the Lords?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose opinion I value highly. He and I have worked on education for a number of years on a cross-party basis. The important thing to remember is that the Sainsbury review was clear that for T-levels to succeed, where there is duplication and lower quality, we need to remove lower quality; that does not mean getting rid of high-quality BTECs. I will say a little more tonight that I hope will reassure the House on how we are doing that without kicking the ladder of opportunity away from anyone who deserves that opportunity. I hope I will be able to allay some of his fears.
Going back to the reform of our system, we are extending the powers of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to approve a broader range of technical educational qualifications. The institute will ensure that the independent voice of employers is embedded throughout the process, while working in harmony with Ofqual to ensure quality.
I want to be perfectly clear: the Bill focuses on the approval and regulation of technical qualifications, rather than the funding of technical or academic qualifications. However, when it comes to both academic and technical qualifications, what we are looking for the most is quality. There is no point in a student taking a low-quality level 3 qualification that does not equip them with skills for a job or help them to progress into higher education. That is even more important when it comes to disadvantaged students.
We have more than 12,000 qualifications at level 3 and below. By comparison, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland, all widely regarded as having high-performing technical education systems, have around 500 or fewer. Our qualifications review is vital to ensuring that what is on the market is the best it can be. I am clear that T-levels and A-levels should be front and centre of the level 3 landscape, but I am convinced that we need other qualifications alongside them, many of which exist now and play a valuable role in supporting good outcomes for students. It is quite likely that many BTECs and similar applied general-style qualifications will continue to play an important role in 16-to-19 education for the foreseeable future.
Our reforms to the qualifications landscape are rightly ambitious, but we know that we would be wrong to push too hard and risk compromising quality. That is why I am announcing today that we have decided to allow an extra year before our reform timetable is implemented. The extra year will allow us to continue to work hard to support the growth of T-levels and give more notice to providers, awarding organisations, employers, students and parents, so that they can prepare for the changes.
I am a firm believer in T-levels. As I have said before, I want them to become as famous as A-levels, and I want to ensure that we get them right. As many young people as possible should have the advantage of studying for and successfully completing a T-level. We hear consistently that some students are put off taking a T-level because they are worried that they will fail if they do not reach level 2 in English and maths. We want to change that and bring T-levels in line with other qualifications, including A-levels. We are absolutely clear that English and maths should remain central to T-level programmes, but we do not want to unnecessarily inhibit talented students from accessing T-levels simply because of the additional hurdle that reaching level 2 in English and maths represents. That is why I can also announce today that we will remove the English and maths exit requirements from T-levels. That will bring them in line with other qualifications, including A-levels, and ensure that talented young people with more diverse strengths are not arbitrarily shut out from rewarding careers in sectors such as construction, catering and healthcare. The institute is taking immediate steps towards that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Fewer than 1% of college students are on a course with coverage of climate change. Unless we embed climate change and the environment into our post-16 education, the Government’s plans to get to net zero will simply not be possible. Bath College is offering some of those courses and doing something about it. Will the Secretary of State commit the Government to putting its weight behind courses that embed climate change into the curriculum?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We must have very short interventions at this stage, because we have a lot of people who want to contribute to the debate.
Nadhim Zahawi
We are doing much of what the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) asks for, including in the local skills plans, where net zero will very much be part of the planning and development process. I will make some headway, per your instructions, Madam Deputy Speaker, because there is a lot to get through tonight.
I also want to ensure that all students from the first two cohorts are not unfairly disadvantaged by the ongoing challenges that covid presents for T-level delivery. We have therefore recently announced a small number of temporary flexibilities on how industry placements can be delivered for those groups, including allowing some virtual working.
We are working to improve technical education at all levels, including level 2, which has been neglected for far too long. Getting level 2 and below right is key to ensuring that students have clear lines of sight to level 3 apprenticeships and traineeships, and, for some, directly into employment. We will consult on proposals for reform later this year, but we will work at speed.
It is in the interests of learners that we take a fresh look at the system and make it easier to navigate, with better outcomes for learners, employers and our economy. When I was apprenticeship tsar, I saw how clearly people in other countries understood their system and how that made a world of difference. Everyone understood it: the student, their family and their employer.
Since the Bill’s introduction in May, it has been subject to thorough and significant scrutiny in the other place. I express my thanks to all those who contributed, but especially to the Minister for the School System, who took on this Bill just before Report and did so brilliantly. My noble Friend brought forward some Government amendments on Report, including clauses on essay mills and an amendment to allow 16-to-19 colleges to become academies with a religious designation —something I know my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) will be very happy about. Important and sensitive issues were raised in the other place, and I can be clear that we are listening and taking careful consideration of the proposals made there. Not all changes are right for legislation, but I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of many of the proposals.
It is a privilege to be able to take this Bill through the House. I know there are many exciting and thought-provoking debates ahead of us, but, most importantly, we must remember why we are doing this: to deliver high-quality qualifications, designed with employers, to give students the skills they need. With the support of hon. Members on both sides of this House, the Bill will signify a major milestone in our plan for jobs and our economic recovery. The Bill will set us up for the future we want and, crucially, the future we need. I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I will have to impose a time limit. We will start at five minutes.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the Secretary of State.
I place on record my thanks to Lord Watson, Baroness Wilcox and Baroness Sherlock for their work on the Bill. I hope the House will protect some of the improvements made to the Bill, on a cross-party basis, in the House of Lords.
Over the past decade we have repeatedly heard from Conservative Members that skills matter and that further education and training are essential to our economy and our country’s future, and we heard it again from the Secretary of State tonight. We agree, but the result of that rhetoric under successive Conservative Governments, is that we have 188,000 fewer apprenticeship starts, college numbers down 26%, 9,000 fewer further education staff, adult learner numbers down 25%, and funding of adult skills still at only 60% of what it was in 2010. As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) acknowledged, successive Conservative Governments have left further education overlooked, undervalued and underfunded.
I assure the Secretary of State that we will not oppose the Bill, as amended and improved by the noble Lords, this evening. After a decade of Conservative damage to the sector, I desperately want the Government to get skills policy right. Labour believes in a high-skill economy that delivers the opportunity for workers to train and retrain, and to gain and sustain fulfilling, rewarding jobs in which they take great pride.
That is why my Labour colleagues and I, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), have long championed further education and lifelong learning. In 2019, Labour’s lifelong learning commission set out an ambitious approach that would give all learners the chance to make the most of their learning throughout their life. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) has set out plans to buy, make and sell more in Britain, as it would support industry to deliver quality jobs in every part of the country. And it is why, at our party conference this year, the Leader of the Opposition set out Labour’s plans to ensure every young person leaves education with skills for the future, ready for work and for life.
Labour would embed the digital skills that young people need across all subjects, by providing every child with ongoing access to a device and delivering professional careers advice and two weeks’ worth of work experience. We would reform the citizenship curriculum to give young people the life skills they say they want: how to open a bank account, what “tax” means and what they will have to pay, and how to sign an employment contract—or, as one young person put it to me, how to be an adult. I think we all need a bit of that sometimes.
Labour would deliver this by engaging with employers across the public and private sectors, and I thank those who joined me and the Leader of the Opposition at our roundtable earlier this month. We would work across Government to tackle the challenge of four in 10 young people leaving education today without qualifications essential for the modern economy. At the current rate under the Conservatives, reducing that even to three in 10 young people will take 300 years. Labour will not stand for that.
We would also ensure that every adult has the opportunity to retrain and reskill where necessary, to address technological change and globalisation and tackle the climate crisis that will see the workplace constantly evolve. That level of ambition is lacking in the Bill.
Labour agrees that we need world-class vocational training routes, and we welcome the introduction of T-levels. We want them to succeed, but they will not be right for all students. By forcing students to specialise too early, there is a danger of reducing, not enhancing, student choice. The Department’s own impact assessment demonstrates that promoting T-levels through the over-hasty defunding of most BTECs risks holding young people back from achieving the qualifications they need.
It is welcome to hear the Secretary of State confirm that there will be an extension of one year before the defunding of courses takes place, but he knows that is a very short time for people to come to terms with the new T-level offer. He will also know there was cross-party support in the House of Lords for Labour’s amendment proposing a four-year moratorium on defunding. I urge him to look again at the time needed to enable these reforms to be embedded successfully and sensibly.
I noted what the Secretary of State said about removing the requirement in T-levels for GCSE English and maths, which will open up these qualifications to more students. Will he, or perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), in winding up, say what support will be on offer to students who lack these important GCSE qualifications, as literacy and numeracy skills will clearly remain important? As the measure may well open up T-levels to more young people, what is being put in place to ensure there are sufficient work placement opportunities with employers to accommodate the potential larger numbers?
It is important that we get these qualifications right, because vocational qualifications change lives. From what the Secretary of State said this evening, and indeed from what we have been hearing from Ministers for some time, we effectively have a planning blight hanging over BTECs. When he talks of some low-level qualifications at level 3 being abolished and replaced with T-levels without specifying which qualifications he means, he undermines confidence among young people, teachers, parents and employers in all the applied general qualifications.
This matters most to students in the most deprived communities. The Social Market Foundation has found that 44% of white working-class students enter university with at least one BTEC, and that 37% of black students enter university with only BTEC qualifications. Removing opportunities for those students does not sound anything like levelling up, so it is important that we have clarity from the Minister about how their interests are to be protected.
I heard the Minister suggest at the Federation of Awarding Bodies conference last week, and the Secretary of State repeated it tonight, that it will be important to keep open routes to university that include vocational qualifications such as T-levels. This comes as a surprise to the Labour Front-Bench team, and I think it will come as a surprise to universities, which have not necessarily signed up to admit students on the basis of T-level results. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister say a little more about how they intend T-levels to be a route to higher education?
Like the Government, Labour recognise the crucial role of employers in identifying skills needs and delivering training, so it is right that employers are key partners in local skills improvement partnerships, but the partnerships must be designed in the context of local economic and regeneration strategies driven by metro Mayors and local leaders. There was cross-party support in the Lords, as the Secretary of State knows, for Labour’s amendment to make mayoral authorities and local further education providers part of the local skills improvement partnerships. I am glad he has agreed tonight that metropolitan mayoral combined authorities should have a role, but he needs to go further. What about authorities outside metropolitan combined areas? What role does he now foresee for local enterprise partnerships in setting the skills agenda?
The Government may have abandoned their own industrial strategy, but at local level there is recognition that the Government and employers need to be co-leads, alongside local colleges and providers, in bringing together knowledge and expertise to meet the needs of the local economy.
I welcome the concession from Baroness Barran, especially following the conclusion of COP26 at the weekend, on local school improvement plans having due regard to meeting environmental goals. I hope we can agree, too, on welcoming the amendment to include special educational needs awareness training that is relevant to students of initial teacher training FE courses.
The Bill has reached us from the other place in an improved state, but the Government must be more ambitious. The Secretary of State spoke tonight of the Government’s plans for the lifelong learning entitlement and the Minister in the other place promised a consultation ahead of further primary legislation. It would be helpful tonight for the House to have a timetable set out for that to happen. In the debate on the Address this year, I raised concerns that waiting until 2025 for the lifelong learning entitlement to come into effect was far too slow for workers who have seen their jobs change or disappear and need urgent support to retrain. With the prospect now of further consultation and further legislation, I fear we will see even further delay.
On the wider question of the lifetime skills guarantee, which we would like to see in the Bill, will the Minister explain in winding up why 9 million jobs, a third of all jobs across the country, are in sectors excluded from the guarantee? Such sectors include retail and tourism, which have been hardest hit during the pandemic and, incredibly, lecturing and teaching. Will he explain why it excludes 65% of people over the age of 16 who already hold a level 3 qualification, preventing their retraining to gain new skills? Will the Secretary of State commit to the amendment originally tabled by Lord Johnson that would ensure a review of the impact on re-skilling of funding restrictions on those who wish to get a qualification at a level equivalent to or lower than that they already hold?
Most concerning—the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) alluded to this—is the lack of an offer in the Bill to workers needing support to gain level 2 or other qualifications to get them in the pipeline to progress their learning to level 3 and beyond. Nine million adults lack basic literacy or numeracy skills and, despite the announcements in the Budget last month, those people are excluded from the Government’s flagship policy—why? What are the Government doing to tackle the disastrous fall in apprenticeship starts since the apprenticeship levy was introduced? Why have plans for apprenticeships not been provided for in this Bill?
The prospect of further Government delays to the lifelong learning entitlement brings me, finally, to the wider proposals in the Augar review. Current and future students have seen regular backroom briefings to the press about potential fee cuts to and attacks on the quality of their courses, and regressive changes to their loan repayments that will leave them even worse off. Will the Secretary of State now bring these damaging rumours to an end and come forward with constructive, progressive proposals to support university students, so that all who wish to and can benefit from higher education have the opportunity to do so?
Young people starting work today will still be working in the 2070s and I do not think any Member of this House could claim to know what skills they will need then. It is imperative that we give them the skills to adopt new ways of working and adapt to an ever-changing and uncertain world. At the same time, we must equip our education system with the capacity for adults to train and retrain, move between jobs and industries, and gain new skills and knowledge throughout their lives. As I have said, we will not be opposing the Bill today, but nor do we think it sufficient. I urge those on the Conservative Benches to be more ambitious, to listen to colleges, universities, employers and Labour, and to match the aspirations young people and adult learners have for themselves. The Bill must set out a pathway to the future that is fit for individuals, employers and our economy. The next generation, businesses and our whole country deserve better than this.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I would like to put on record that I strongly welcome the principles behind the Bill and the additional huge investment—a 42% cash-terms increase—in skills announced in the Budget. For too long, further education and skills have been the Cinderella of our education system. I have always said that it is worth remembering that Cinderella became a member of the royal family and I believe that with this Bill the Government are banishing, or beginning to banish, at least, the two ugly sisters of snobbery around skills and under-funding. We know that funding per FE student aged 16 to 18 fell by 11% over the past decade. For that reason, I ask the Government to consider the amendment tabled by Lord Clarke, which would mean that, as with universities and schools, money would follow the pupil for FE colleges that set up approved courses. In other words, the Government would provide for automatic in-year funding for FE colleges that offer approved level 3 qualifications from approved providers.
Participation in adult skills and lifelong learning is at its lowest level in 23 years. Nine million working-age adults in England have low literacy or numeracy skills, and 6 million adults are not qualified to level 2. The lifetime skills guarantee offers an exciting opportunity for a level 3 qualification to millions of adults, which I really support. Again, I ask the Government to consider funding for those without even a level 2 qualification, but that at least includes a mechanism for progression to level 3.
We must take this opportunity to improve careers education and guidance and I welcome the inclusion of clause 14 on careers. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, just two in five schools were complying with the Baker clause. My Committee’s report on disadvantaged white working class boys and girls, which has been mentioned already, looked at the underperformance and recommended that compliance with the Baker clause be linked to Ofsted inspection outcomes, with schools not given a good or outstanding rating unless they comply with the clause.
Alongside the lifetime skills guarantee and the lifelong loan entitlement outlined in clauses 15 to 18, which I support, and the increase in the level 2 take-up, which I mentioned earlier, I ask the Minister to level up adult learning for the most disadvantaged by also rocket-boosting community learning. Perhaps, as we suggested in our Select Committee, we could have an adult community learning centre in every town.
To further incentivise businesses to train staff, perhaps the Government should also consider a long-term plan to introduce a skills tax credit to revitalise employer-led training. We must do more to boost apprenticeships, on top of what the Government have done. We have had millions of apprenticeships since 2010, with 90% of those who complete getting good jobs and skills after. However, perhaps the Government could consider reforming the existing levy on employers in a strategic way to close the skills deficit and ensure that more young people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, can access this opportunity. Lord Clarke has introduced amendment 25 and I ask the Government to look at it favourably, so that companies are more incentivised to hire young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
I also ask the Government to use the Bill to look at the £800 million diversity and inclusion fund spent by universities and re-boot it to ensure that access and participation is prioritised towards students from disadvantaged backgrounds doing apprenticeships. Over the next decade, universities could work towards having 50% of their students undertaking degree-level apprenticeships. My Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry on prison education and the Government could consider changing the legislation so that prisoners can do prison apprenticeships.
I welcome what has been said on BTECs. The Education Datalab found that young people who took BTECs were more likely to be in employment at age 22 and at that age were earning about £800 more than their peers taking A Levels. So these are qualifications with good outcomes and we must make sure not only that T-levels are successfully embedded in the system, but that quality BTECs should remain for all students to access. Finally, I urge the Government to look at the EBacc and ensure that design technology and computer science are included as an option as part of that. However, I look forward to working constructively with them on this excellent Bill.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Having spent most of my working life in further education, I am delighted to speak in this extremely important debate. My constituency of Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough is home to two excellent colleges that are well attended by local people of all ages who undertake qualifications of all types. It gives me no pleasure, however, to report that my constituency also has one of the highest instances of child poverty in the country. It is my firm belief that good education provision is one of the most powerful tools to eradicate poverty, so it is essential that people who live in my constituency can access high-quality education.
I am pleased to hear that, according to the Secretary of State, there is still a promise to keep BTECs, because the previous Ministers and Secretary of State were completely unable to commit to that, but I do have some sense of cynicism about the matter. The roll-back of BTECs would reduce student choice, degrade the variety of qualifications that employers can look for in potential employees and deny existing employees the opportunity to upskill. The education system helps to close the skills gap and also needs to play its part in the levelling-up agenda. I have always been unconvinced that the way to do that is to remove a successful qualification that is being taken by almost a third of 16 to 18-year-old level 3 students.
The success of BTECs as a driving force of social mobility cannot be ignored. The Social Market Foundation found that almost half of white working-class students had at least one BTEC on entering university and that almost two fifths of students from diverse backgrounds enter university with only BTEC qualifications. That clearly means that students from disadvantaged backgrounds could be adversely affected were the proposal on BTECs to go through. Surely pathways should be extended and not closed off.
There are many concerns about what the T-level curriculum will look like and who will be able to access T-levels. If the changes took place tomorrow morning, only 40% of Sheffield College’s 16 to 19-year-old level 3 students would move to a T-level. The rest, who are studying other advanced generals, would be displaced without a full-time level 3 programme.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady might be aware that T-levels are already up and running, so she has the opportunity to see the depth and breadth of the T-level curriculum. Perhaps she could take the opportunity to see at first hand the benefits it will bring to her constituents.
Gill Furniss
I have spoken to the principals of Sheffield College and Longley Park sixth-form college in my constituency and they are extremely concerned about the proposals.
Four of the five most popular courses at Longley Park sixth-form college are applied generals. Such qualifications can help young people to gain entry to university or, indeed, enable them to access employment or further training. Longley Park is a sixth-form college at the heart of a council-housing estate in a deprived area that ensures that 1,200 young people a year enter adulthood with a level 3 qualification.
It seems that the Bill attempts to solve a problem that many local colleges have already addressed. For example, Sheffield College has 2,500 employer partners. Having successfully built these relationships over many years, the college offers a varied choice of qualifications and employment opportunities to students and prospective students of all ages across the city. That is why it is of great concern that under the Bill the Secretary of State will choose the employer representative bodies. There is very little detail on how the Secretary of State will make such decisions. If the Government are serious about levelling up, the Bill must ensure that local leaders get a say in how local ERBs are formed and who serves on them.
Over the past 15 or so years, the number of adults in further education has fallen by half. Over that same period, funding has been cut by two thirds. Boosting the number of adult learners is key to driving down poverty and fulfilling the levelling-up agenda. The lifetime learning guarantee is welcome, but I agree with the Association of Colleges, which wants to see the scheme broadened to include a wider range of courses and the ability to undertake a second level 3 qualification, so that people can retrain and reskill. There are also concerns that the guarantee has no statutory footing. I urge the Government to demonstrate their commitment to the guarantee and to give it a wider scope on a statutory footing in the Bill.
Ultimately, the post-16 education sector is ready to deliver a boost in skills and to play its part in levelling up. However, the sector cannot do that without the significant investment it has been calling for over the past decade. I hope that the Bill progresses through this House in a collaborative way and that the Government will listen sincerely to Opposition Members who want to help to improve it and to make sure that our education system works for the needs of learners, the economy and local communities.
Gill Furniss
I will carry on.
In conclusion, for the Bill to be successful, the Government must ensure that colleges receive the funding that they need and the recognition that they are experts in their field and are already committed to the skills agenda. The big question is whether the Government share their ambition. I urge the Minister to confirm that they do and to do so with actions, not words.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
We talk about levelling up, and there is surely no better way to level up throughout the country than through investment in our human infrastructure—in the people across communities in the north, south, east and west—and that is what this Bill is all about doing and delivering on. At the heart of that has to be an understanding that employers play a critical role. This is not an issue that we have been debating for just the past five or 10 years; indeed, the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal party have discussed it for the past 100 years. We have recognised that there are skill gaps in our country that we have needed to address and that other countries have had a competitive advantage in the way they have dealt with skills and made sure that their workforce have been better able to respond than ours have.
One key thing is the need to ensure that all the qualifications that are undertaken, whether at colleges or universities, are based on employer-led standards. There should be no shame in saying that what not only our young people but people of all ages learn will equip them with the skills needed for them to walk into work. That is our duty, it is what we want to give to everyone in our country and it is why the Bill is so incredibly important.
If we look at Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and so many other countries around the globe, we see that one area in which they are so much stronger than we are in this country is qualifications above A-level and below degree level—the higher technical qualifications at levels 4 and 5. If we do not plug that gap, we will continually be out-competed by other nations. Some 10% of our workforce between the ages of 18 and 65 have a level 4 or 5 qualification, compared with 20% in Germany and 34% in Canada. We need to address that, which is why the lifelong loan entitlement is so critical. But as well as bringing that forward, we need to get it right.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman’s point about employer-led qualifications and an employer-led direction. I am sure he will take this opportunity to commend the Northern Regional College, which has just today started a pioneering new project that will bring employers on board with students and lead directly to proper employment with the manufacturing taskforce in Northern Ireland.
Gavin Williamson
I very much join the hon. Gentleman in commending the Northern Regional College for its work. We see such work right throughout the United Kingdom, but the Bill will give us the opportunity to really power that work forward in colleges and, hopefully, universities right across England. That is going to be key. We have to look at how we start to close the competitive gap with other countries. We need to make sure not only that all our qualifications have employer-led standards but that we drive people up the skills ladder as we go. We have the opportunity to do that.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister sums up, he will touch a little on the LLE, which is really important, and that he can reassure me from the Dispatch Box this evening on this point about those who make use of it. One key element of the LLE is the ability to take qualifications, whether a full degree or a level 5 or 4 qualification, in a much more modular way. In the interests of students, it would be useful if the Minister could spell out from the Dispatch Box that students who take a full level 6 qualification, which is done in a modular way, would not be paying any more than £9,250, which is what someone who is taking a classic and standard degree qualification pays. That would greatly reassure many people, and I hope that the Minister is able to do that from the Dispatch Box this evening.
This is not about pitching colleges and universities against one another. An interesting point was made on this by a number of Lords in the other place: for us to be able to deliver on the Government’s aspirations for more level 4 and level 5 qualifications, universities need to play their part. Indeed, they have an incredibly important role to play in that delivery. Putting this skills Bill into statute, making sure that we actually put employers at the heart of decision-making and that they have a clear say would be truly transformative.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I would like to put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend for his time as Secretary of State and for listening to me pecking his head for years about further education. Was he truly inspired by the colleges and students that he met around the country, since his work was a lot of what got us to where we are today?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend and I went to the same college, and we were both very much inspired by that.
Across the country, so many colleges are doing an amazing job, but what we have been seeing over the past year and more is investment flowing in that direction. None the less, let us not underestimate how important it is that employers are involved in this. They need to have a say and an influence, and they need to be able to design the qualifications. If we look at T-levels, we can see that they have been designed hand in glove with employers to make sure that when those youngsters leave college or school, they can step into the world of work and succeed. That is the hallmark of a great qualification, and that is what we should be proud of.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
To borrow a phrase, “The best way to level up our country is through education”. Education, coupled with opportunity, is how we give our nation’s children the best chance in life. Each young person is different. Under the current system, students can decide whether studying A-levels, T-levels or a BTEC is best for them. Yet, under the Bill, the Government plan to scrap BTECs. That is what is behind this: cut the funding and scrap the opportunity. BTECs have been a lifeline to many young people in my constituency. Indeed, when I was a governor for many, many years—40 years, in fact—it was a joy to see the number of young people who carried on in education when BTECs were introduced. I am sure that the same is true in many other Members’ constituencies.
It is estimated that, currently, at least 30% of 16 to 18-year-old students have chosen to study a BTEC. This Bill will eventually take that choice away. If the Government are as committed to levelling up as they constantly claim, then why are they looking to scrap one of the best tools to achieve this?
BTECs have been the engine of social mobility. Some 44% of white working-class students who enter university studied at least one BTEC, and 37% of black students enter university with only BTEC qualifications. There is no levelling-up agenda if the Government scrap the BTEC lifeline.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I suspect that we may have been listening to a different opening statement from the Secretary of State, because I quite clearly heard his commitment that BTECs will remain where they are high quality and where there is a need for them. Does she remember that being a part of what he said?
Ms Rimmer
The Government are taking the funding away, and it is that that will stop young people getting these qualifications. People need to wake up to what is happening. The Government are taking the funding away. They are not cutting the opportunity straight off—it will just drift away. Young people will not go forward to T-levels. They will drop off and leave at 16. They will not go into further education. That is what will happen and that is what is intended.
T-levels are a welcome introduction, but they are not the same as BTECs. I have been implored by Carmel College in my constituency, one of the finest colleges in the country, to stress the following point: scrapping BTECs will lead to more young people dropping out of education altogether. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) seems to be sniggering on the Back Benches, but there is nothing to snigger about. I see young people achieving opportunities now when they did not in the past before BTECs. We cannot treat all young people the same; they are not all the same. For some young people, A-levels are best. For others, T-levels are the way to go. Many also find that BTECs are the route for them. We must protect all three routes. After all, our education system should be there to help young people excel in a way that suits them best. The Government should not be attempting to force them down a path that is not right for them. This is all about ending an opportunity for young people whom the Government do not value as much. There is no chance of levelling up with the Government at present.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Let me start by thanking the Secretary of State for what I thought was a rather conciliatory speech. Hopefully, it will set the tone for this evening’s debate on a Bill that has already gone through the other place. We have seen a number of amendments tabled, not least the one on essay mills—I am very grateful to the Government for adding it to the Bill. That was the result of a cross-party effort, involving not just myself, but Lord Storey who has led the charge in the other place, I think, for the past five years. I hope that, in this place, we can try to build some cross-party consensus in order to improve the Bill, as the Lords have done.
In that spirit of cross-party consensus, I would like to reflect on the words of the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who set out very clearly the challenge with the lifetime skills guarantee. At present, it is not a guarantee for all those who need lifetime skills. As the Secretary of State clearly set out in his speech, 80% of the adult population in 2030 are already in work. If we wish to grip the challenges that climate change presents and grip the challenges of the systems-based approach that will lead to net zero across all parts of this country, we will need new forms of skills, reskilling and upskilling in green technologies, in retrofitting boilers and in all those things that, at the moment, we struggle to be able to do. We will need those reskilling and retraining opportunities. Those will come only if we take this moment to expand the lifetime skills guarantee and, importantly, as the Secretary of State said, the lifetime loan entitlement, because nothing flows without the finance. We need to ensure that that is available to those who have a level 3 qualification or above. We must look to abolish the so-called equivalent, or lower, qualification rule.
I want to declare my interest as having established a new Lifelong Education Commission with ResPublica. I am not paid for doing it, but I want to make sure that it is on the record that I have this interest in running the commission. The commission has published its first report, which looks in particular at what is needed when it comes to the frameworks. It is very easy to announce the lifetime skills guarantee—it sounds great. It is very easy to talk about a lifelong loan entitlement—it sounds marvellous—but unless we get the partnerships right in order to be able to deliver and implement this locally, they are just words. They are just a framework. I desperately want this to succeed.
I have been in this place for 11 years and, if I am honest, one of the greatest failures of my Government has been the decline in adult and part-time learning due to a lack of funding. We now have an opportunity to learn a lot of lessons from what went wrong there.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Would he consider and welcome the improved approach to collaboration that the Treasury Bench has taken this evening, with the involvement of metro Mayors and combined authorities? Does he also agree that if we want to have a truly locally driven skills agenda, we need to involve local enterprise partnerships? They are often a much better voice for local employers than the chambers of commerce, which can be quite variable— not in the case of Suffolk, I hasten to add, but more generally.
Chris Skidmore
My hon. Friend’s intervention brings me to my second point, which is about the need to take a truly place-based approach to these reforms, if they are to succeed. We cannot necessarily legislate, top-down, and expect the reforms somehow to be successful. We have to involve local communities, because they know what will work in their local ecosystems. Many points have been made today about the role of employers. I would also say that universities are missing from the local skills improvement plans. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), made a point about the involvement of universities; they should be written into the Bill as part of the local skills improvement partnerships.
I know that we have had a review of the form and function of local enterprise partnerships. It may be that the levelling up White Paper brings further light on their role. There is enormous variability in the actual skills base of local enterprise partnerships to understand what is needed when it comes to delivering local skills. If we are going to level up, we want to ensure that we level up the capacity and capability of local actors to deliver on the ground, so ensuring that we get the correct place-based approach is important. I do not mind which actors locally are involved in the partnerships. I just think that it should be up to local communities to help forge the approach.
Let us look at what is happening in the Health and Care Bill, for which I have sat on the Bill Committee. We have seen that local approach with integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships. The Government are trusting them to come up with their own membership; it is not prescriptive. We have to try to demonstrate the same level of trust in education at a local level as we are doing with health through that Bill.
Margaret Greenwood
The right hon. Member is talking about the Health and Care Bill and trusting that this will all be okay; it is as if fingers have to be crossed and things are devolved down to a local level. Given the very high number of Members of Parliament with financial interests in private health, this is a dangerous road to go down. Will he revisit the view that he has just expressed? That Bill is a privatising Bill that is going to make it harder for people to get healthcare. It will open up the whole thing to the private sector in a way that we really need to object to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before you respond to that, Mr Skidmore, the time limit will be four minutes after you have finished your contribution.
Chris Skidmore
It is not an amendment for this Bill so I am simply not going to respond to that point.
I will finish by reflecting on the wider tone in which we take this debate forward. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, talked about the need for partnerships between universities and further education colleges, and about ensuring that we do not pitch one against the other. That is absolutely right. This is a tertiary education Bill that is meant to be uniting, not divisive.
The Education Secretary, in his opening remarks, talked about President Harry Truman’s comment that it does not matter who takes the credit, as long as something is delivered successfully. I would like to quote another US President, Abraham Lincoln, who said:
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”
I think that that applies when we look at the role of universities and further education colleges. We need them to work together in a sustainable ecosystem. We cannot allow the Bill to divide and rule, or somehow to allow for FE colleges to be compared unfavourably or favourably against universities.
We need higher technical education to succeed. To do that, we need flexible pathways that will allow the individual learner to move between FE and higher education—and sometimes back again—across the country. We will only ensure that those flexibilities exist if we support every part of the education sector and every institution. It is the institutions and their strengths that will deliver success in this vital Bill.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I welcome the fresh focus from the Government on skills and further education. FE has long been the forgotten sector in education, with adult education funding having been halved over the past decade. Vocational training and qualifications have for too long been incorrectly treated as inferior to academic qualifications, which is why the Liberal Democrats have long promoted the policy of personal education and skills accounts, also known as skills wallets, which take a grant-based approach to support lifelong learning throughout adulthood. Vocational skills and lifelong learning have never been more important than now, in our post-Brexit—and soon, hopefully, post-pandemic—economy, as our country faces immense skills shortages in a number of sectors. However, I fear that the Bill introduced in the other place lacked ambition and attempted to slip under the radar the devastating assault on BTECs about which we have heard.
I want to touch on three points, all of which concern areas where non-Government amendments were made in the other place. I hope that the Government will not seek to overturn those amendments. As many Members have stated, BTECs are immensely popular, with more than a quarter of a million students taking these qualifications in any given year. They are disproportionately taken up by students from poorer backgrounds and ethnic minorities, and those with special educational needs and disabilities. It was therefore pretty shocking that the defunding proposals were slipped out at the start of the summer holidays, alongside a shocking impact assessment and in the face of opposition—with some 86% of respondents to the Government’s consultation opposing the plans. Even the former Conservative Education Secretary, Lord Baker, described the plan as “absolutely disgusting” in the other place, saying that it would deny “hope and aspiration” to many people from more disadvantaged backgrounds.
I urge the Minister to retain in full the amendment made in the other place to phase out the funding over four years, rather than over one as the Secretary of State announced today. Withdrawing funding sooner would narrow choice and force students into unsuitable qualifications. The Conservatives claim to be in favour of choice and competition, so I find it surprising that they want to force BTECs out of the market by defunding them. Lord Willetts made a similar point in the other place.
Let me turn to another amendment that I hope the Government will not overturn, regarding the penalty for benefit claimants who choose to continue their education to improve their job prospects. I very much hope that the Government will retain the Bishop of Durham’s amendment on universal credit conditionality, which is now clause 17. In taking away the £20 universal credit uplift and reducing the taper rate, Ministers have made much of the importance of making work pay, and getting people off welfare and into high-quality, well-paid jobs. However, the current system puts in place a range of barriers and disincentives to education for those on universal credit, which flies in the face of the Government’s ambitions. I therefore hope that they will retain the amendment.
Finally, I turn to the local skills improvement plans. I very much welcome the Government’s amendment in the other place to ensure that climate change and the environment are at the forefront of local skills improvement plans. That is critical if we are to be at the heart of the green industrial revolution. However, I urge the Government to keep in full the amendment made in the other place on the involvement of local authorities and regional government in the development of local skills improvement plans alongside ERBs.
I welcome the Bill, but I hope that the Government will go further and maintain a number of excellent amendments made in the other place.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is wonderful to see the focus on adult education in the Bill, but I agree with some of the comments that there should not be an arbitrary distinction between an area that happens to have a Mayor and combined authority and an area that does not. I do not see why Suffolk should not benefit from devolved adult education in the same way as Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, which happen to have a Mayor.
For the skills improvement plans, some areas will have an effective chamber of commerce that can work well, and other areas will not have an effective chamber of commerce but a much better local enterprise partnership. A little flexibility on that point would be welcome. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) about the relationship between further education and higher education and the role of higher education in these plans. Fortunately, we in Ipswich benefit from a very strong relationship between the University of Suffolk and Suffolk New College. In Ipswich and Suffolk, the University of Suffolk has a critical role to play in degree apprenticeships and skills, and it is playing that role through the town deal and other Government support.
On the broader point about having one ecosystem, that is also linked to breaking down the barriers between schools, further education, higher education and business, and getting to the point where there is one ecosystem with no silos. That is ultimately what we want, linking not just young people but all people with local opportunities for higher-wage jobs so that they can get on. In terms of the importance of levelling up, in certain deprived areas, if there is only one, academic, pathway, a certain number of people might crack that pathway, but they often leave the area and never come back. It is vital that there is also a technical route that links in with local opportunities, because a lot of people who succeed in that route will be role models in their area and play a role in levelling up whole communities.
How is Ipswich currently benefiting from this movement in direction and strategy in further education? There are bad things and good things—mostly good. Through the town deal, we have £1.2 million going into a maritime skills academy that will train the next generation of boat builders—a highly skilled profession. In the past, most of the people who worked at Spirit Yachts were from outside the area; now, through the Government project, they will be from the local area, which is good thing. There is also the £2 million tech camp, with net zero, sustainable methods of construction—the first of its type in the country. The University of Suffolk’s £2.5 million integrated health and social care academy, achieved through the town deal, is very much to be welcomed. Last week, we learned that Suffolk New College, which I think is the best further education college in the country, has approximately £4 million of post-16 capacity funding from the overall fund of £85 million. Suffolk New College is one of 39 further education colleges to benefit from that funding, so although I have not had confirmed exactly how much we will get, I suspect that it will be about £3 million or £4 million, if I am being ambitious.
I very much welcome the Bill. We have to have multiple pathways to enable people to get on, and we have to have a proper approach to adult education, but flexibility is a must.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Having gone to a further education college myself, I am a strong supporter of further education and alternative routes to higher education or skills. As chair of the all-party group on social mobility, I think that both FE and alternative routes are the route to better social mobility. Since becoming a Member of this House in 2015, I have spoken numerous times, including in my maiden speech, about the importance of devolution in England and post-16 education. We need to match up the opportunities that exist in my very wealthy city with the lack of opportunity that too many of my constituents face. It remains a dreadful waste of their human potential.
In terms of supporting FE and apprenticeships, I have served as chair of the APPG on apprenticeships and I run an annual apprenticeships fair because I think that is the route up the ladder. It is a crucial step up, particularly for those who have a poor experience of school or no history or experience of higher education. The lack of a proposal or support in the Bill for lower level apprenticeships is a major mistake. The Government need to think again and try to match up some of those aspirations, particularly around level 2 and level 3.
On BTECs, I cannot say better than what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer). BTECs are a hugely valuable bridge of hope and encouragement. Frankly, we cannot keep experimenting with these kids. We would not be doing this with A-levels; nobody messes with A-levels in the way mess with the opportunities for these kids. We need to give them some security, and security of having people to teach it as well, as well as employer confidence.
I have often spoken about how poor career support is. These are confusing pathways for young people, particularly the young disadvantaged, and we need to make that better, but six years on, we still seem to be talking about the importance of career support. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State and await with interest further detail about managing that pathway and making it simpler. I think he understands that and we have to see whether he can deliver it.
As others have said, the Bill has been much improved in the Lords, and I support the amendments made there. On local ecosystems, I agree with my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). We have heard some interesting discussions about the Secretary of State’s power grab and permissiveness at the local level. The Government have not got this right and there surely is some cross-learning to be done, because what is worrying about this Bill is the Secretary of State’s powers. There are no real criteria for when or how he or she can sack the local chamber of commerce person or the principal of the college if he or she thinks they are not performing. We have a similar problem in the Health and Care Bill. It would be good if the Government talked to different parts of their own side about that.
Fundamentally, we cannot deliver any of these things without a strong further education sector. The problems that we continue to have in Bristol are largely financial involving the college, but it has been “requires improvement” for some time, and that needs to change, because it means we cannot cohere the ecosystem and support other providers, such as the Knowle West Media Centre in my constituency, which I visited last week. Such organisations are at the forefront of digital innovation and supporting young people from the community into these larger providers. I await with interest how local accountability through the West of England Combined Authority will work, because it is clear to anyone that the FE funding model is broken.
With the amendments from the Lords, this is a better Bill for Bristol South, but many questions remain about the criteria for success. What is the Secretary of State’s real involvement? How can we support the local ecosystem? Being caught between the LEP and chambers of commerce is like being caught between a rock and a hard place, so that needs a great deal of examination. Democratic accountability is important, but crucially we need encouragement, support, ease of access and opportunity for our young people and those who have fallen behind at an earlier point in their lives. That is the only way we can ensure better social mobility.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I am delighted to speak today on this very important Bill. With the impact of covid-19, which exacerbated the skills shortage, the need to adapt to meet net zero by 2050 and the opportunity to flourish as an independent trading nation, the need to support skills across the UK is clearer than ever as we try to level up the most deprived areas of the country.
We talk about levelling up, but we are T-levelling up with this Bill. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on T-levels, I and the other members of the APPG heard at first hand from T-level students about the huge impact these qualifications have had on their lives and in assisting them to achieve their career aspirations. We heard from inspiring T-level students from Grimsby Institute, Walsall College, Fareham College, Blackpool and the Fylde College and Cirencester College, showing the huge impact these qualifications are having across the country.
I also had the huge privilege of meeting students at Bury College alongside the former Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan). We attended lessons to discover how students on the college’s brand new T-level courses would benefit from these innovative technical qualifications. Although there is more work to be done, such as ensuring there are no gaps in T-level provision in constituencies across the country, I am delighted that this Government have introduced the new qualification, effectively adapting to the needs of a modernised 21st-century British workforce.
Secondly, I emphasise the importance of improving literacy rates in the UK. Improving skills and introducing T-levels is a great step forward, but how can people access them without literacy? It is vital that literacy skills are embedded in a post-16 skills strategy. Research from KPMG has estimated that literacy failure costs the UK economy £2.5 billion each year. If we prioritise literacy skills in the post-16 space, it could have a significant economic benefit.
A quarter of all 15-year-olds have a reading age of 12 or below. That puts them at a disadvantage in their GCSEs, meaning they are unlikely to get the grades to progress to further education. Literacy should therefore be prioritised in the post-16 skills agenda to give students the vital skills they are missing, which will help them progress to further educational opportunities and enhance their future employment opportunities. That is particularly important when 70% of employers rate literacy skills as one of their three most important considerations when recruiting school and college leavers.
The National Literacy Trust has responded to that research with its flagship literacy and employability programme, “Words for Work”. It gives young people from disadvantaged communities the literacy and communication skills they need to reach their potential. It would be great if the Government recognised the importance of such programmes, which bring schools, colleges and businesses together to give young people the skills they need to succeed in the workplace.
Last, I pay tribute to the College of Rugby in Whitefield, which provides education, skills and training in the setting of a working rugby club. It also provides external qualifications, such as refereeing and first aid. It is great to see such institutions striking a realistic balance between sport and educational development. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what we can do to support unique institutions like that?
I support the Bill, which sets out to deliver high-quality, skills-focused education, eliminate the barriers that hold people back, and provide a ladder of opportunity across the entire country as we build back fairer.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Tahir Ali will be the last speaker on four minutes. I am afraid that, to get everybody in, we will have to drop it to three minutes.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I share the experience of the Secretary of State, having come to this country unable to speak a word of English—but I was only 13 months old. I am proud to be a product of BTEC, and not BTEC politics but BTEC engineering. I am probably right to surmise that Government Members who hold BTEC qualifications will be lower in number than those who are Etonians.
As a product of BTEC engineering, having secured an apprenticeship, been enrolled on to a course and achieved grades at merit or distinction, I was encouraged to study at undergraduate level at a local university. I was the first in my family to attend university, and my graduation was one of the proudest days for my parents. Thirty years on, my son, Tayab Ali, left school with good GCSEs but did not want to do A-levels. Like his father, he did BTEC engineering, which he completed in 2019 with grades of distinction star, distinction star, distinction. After covid, he secured an apprenticeship and is now studying for a degree paid for by his employer, just like mine was.
Not everyone takes the A-level route of some academics. As someone said earlier, no one would mess with A-levels, so why are we talking about scrapping BTECs and promoting T-levels instead? That risks holding back 80,000 students from achieving a level 3 qualification. My son would not have been able to achieve such a qualification. BTECs are valued highly by employers and universities, with 230,000 students having achieved a level 3 BTEC qualification this year alone.
The DFE wants to remove funding from any BTEC qualifications deemed to overlap with A-levels or T-levels, which seriously risks affecting students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds pursuing those qualifications, and disproportionately impacting those with special educational needs and those from Asian ethnic groups.
It is no surprise that 86% of respondents to the DFE’s consultation disagreed with the plans to scrap BTECs. I urge the Government to abandon their plan to withdraw support and funding for BTECs and to provide the best range of options for all young people to consider.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I welcome the Bill and the intention to create better technical and vocational pathways for young people and give them clear careers advice, so that they end up on the right route for them rather than on whatever all their mates are doing. The lifelong learning guarantee and finance are hugely important, particularly in these post-covid times of massive skills shortages. With more people changing roles and careers in an ever-changing economy, it will be more important than ever to ensure that we support adults as well as young people to train and upskill. I also welcome the huge boost in funding for technical skills and vocational learning in the Budget. There are some fantastic examples of this in Mansfield. West Notts College and Nottingham Trent University have a partnership around health in particular, where they are joining up post-16 and HE, technical and vocational routes into the local hospital, which is our biggest employer. That is a really great example that we could definitely build on. As a county council, we want to add into that social work and social care, and make sure that we have that output from our local organisations and education providers. That is exactly the kind of example of providers working with business to create the kind of roles that we need in our local area, which I think is really important. Mansfield is benefiting from additional funding, too, at the minute.
The Secretary of State picked up on some of the things I was going to ask, and either my telepathy is working better than I thought or he is as wise as I am. I was going to ask him not to bin BTECs in their entirety, but to rationalise them and to make sure that we keep the best ones as clear routes to post-16 education for young people, which he has committed to do. I was going to ask him to be more flexible about T-levels and the entry routes into them, because clearly we should not be preventing people who want to do a T-level in early years education from accessing it because they were not very good at trigonometry. That really does not make any sense, so I am glad that he has committed to doing that.
If I were to ask anything else of the Minister who is on the Bench at the minute, it would be to talk about the level 3 entitlement. I think that is really important and would be really beneficial, but in communities such as mine, where 25% of people leave school with no level 2 qualification, being able to access level 3 will still be challenging. I wonder whether we could offer any additional support to help people to get into that and expand it to perhaps some of the areas where that is the biggest challenge. If he wants to pilot something, I know a place that would really welcome it.
On some of the powers that the Bill looks at to review provision and how it engages with business, I mentioned the positive example in Mansfield. Nottinghamshire is currently having conversations with Government about devolution and about county deals. We talk about adult skills in that budget. I wonder what scope there is to look at post-16 in that conversation, too, to join these things up—as we are doing at West Notts College with Nottingham Trent University—and to look at how we can embed social care interventions and youth work into that to do something really positive for young people’s life chances. I would welcome a conversation with the DFE about that as part of those talks, but I really welcome the scope and the intent of the Bill, which I think will make a huge difference to the people in my constituency.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Of course, I welcome the reforms in the Bill that attempt to improve the quality of post-16 education, but the sector has been underfunded and indeed under-appreciated for too long and that must change.
I am relieved that peers have succeeded in amending the Bill to specify the Department for Education must not withdraw funding for BTEC qualifications, as currently planned, until there is strong evidence that they no longer meet employer and indeed students’ demands. Therefore, it is important that this House backs the Lords in that key amendment. BTECs are vital for allowing students to combine practical study with academic learning, and it would be incredibly short-sighted if that opportunity were taken away. I hope the level of support shown during this debate for BTECs will convince the Government to change their mind on this.
I now turn to the introduction of local skills improvement plans; I will call them LSIPs. These are a welcome measure in the Bill that aims to create a stronger link between local skills needs, as identified by employers, and the courses offered by colleges in the area. However, there is currently no reference to special educational needs or to disability employment anywhere in the legislation, which I find rather shocking. Some 21% of all students in general further education colleges have a learning difficulty or disability, rising to 26% among 16 to 18-year-olds. That equates to around 240,000 16 to 19-year-olds with SEND across all further education colleges. There is no mechanism in the Bill to encourage or require employers to use local skills improvement plans to help address the disability employment gap, which stands at nearly 30%. While a requirement in draft guidance for college governors to assess the quality of courses for students with SEND every three years is welcome, that on its own is not enough to have an impact on disability employment rates.
There are three key changes that would significantly improve the Bill for disabled people. First, the Bill must require evidence informing the development of LSIPs to include information directly relevant to improving local disabled people’s employment prospects. Secondly, LSIPs must include positive actions to improve the employment prospects of people with disabilities. Thirdly, members of employer representative bodies must be responsible for creating skills improvement plans that must demonstrate a commitment to equality and diversity, so they can create an inclusive plan for all, especially disabled people. I will be tabling amendments that would ensure the Bill fulfils these three key points to improve outcomes for SEND students and disabled people, and I hope the Government will look favourably on them.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
As we all know, the future is all about a good education and having the right skills. If we are to have a prosperous and successful nation, we need our education and training systems to be first class and competitive. The same applies to individuals: if they are to thrive, they must be provided with the opportunities to do so. Education and skills can be a great leveller. A modern economy also demands a much higher degree of skilled workers than ever before. The jobs of the future will require people to be better trained and have the requisite skills, and we must also be aware that the skills and jobs of tomorrow may be very different from those of today.
We also know that rising living standards and greater wealth only come from a more productive economy. Improving our national productivity will require innovation, investment and a skilled workforce. In January, I will be hosting my eighth skills fair in Carlisle. It was first set up at the behest of local employers and training providers in the area and is supported by such businesses as McVitie’s, Nestlé, Pirelli and Center Parcs. The key point is that they wanted a skills fair, not a jobs fair; those and other businesses recognise that it is skills that matter. I therefore fully support the direction in which the Government want to go and the improvements they want to see.
I appreciate that the Bill covers a number of policy and administrative areas, but I want to pick up on just two points. First, it is absolutely right that all pupils and students are made aware of all the training and educational opportunities and possibilities open to them: academic, technical and apprenticeships. We are fortunate to have a quality university sector and the university option is clearly important, but other training opportunities are of equal importance. Indeed it is arguable that technical training and apprenticeships are almost more vital if we are to improve the performance of our economy. That will be required if we are to become competitive in the global economy so it is absolutely right that all institutions have a duty to make sure that students have all options.
Secondly, it is vital that employers, and indeed local leaders, are at the centre of the skills system—and it must be local employers. They know what skills are needed and the training and courses required, they know the local economy and they know where the jobs of tomorrow are likely to be created. A real partnership between business and training providers can be the blueprint for a better skilled and trained workforce that benefits the individual as well as our country.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Since 2010, Conservative-led Governments have cut adult education budgets by half, damaging the life chances of people right across the country. They have pursued an ill-conceived austerity agenda and our society is the poorer for it.
Being able to read and write is essential to full engagement in society. Illiteracy blights lives. It prevents people from getting decent employment, is the source of immense disadvantage in navigating the various social structures on which we all rely at some points in our lives, whether that be housing, health and care services, education or social security, and it leaves people vulnerable to exploitation.
These profound disadvantages are experienced by the more than 7 million adults in England who, according to National Literacy Trust estimates, have very poor literacy skills. That is 16.4% of the adult population. Tackling the crisis in adult literacy therefore must be a priority for Government.
The Government made an announcement in the autumn Budget about funding for a new UK-wide numeracy programme to improve basic maths skills, but I ask the Minister where the money is to address the crisis in adult literacy. As the Workers’ Educational Association has pointed out, little in the Bill directly supports learners who want to study below level 3. Without targeted support for community learning below level 3, there will be limited pathways for the most disadvantaged learners—those furthest from the workforce—to progress into further education and/or work.
It is also important that the Government consider the barriers potential learners face. When I was an adult education tutor I met many people who wanted to improve their situation and career prospects but who were unable to get the education they needed as they were constrained by social security rules. The amendment tabled by the Bishop of Durham in the other place requiring the Secretary of State to review universal credit conditionality to ensure that adult learners who are unemployed and on universal credit remain entitled to universal credit if they enrol on an approved course is incredibly important. Nobody should be barred from education because of their employment status.
It is really disappointing that the Government intend to press ahead with plans to defund the majority of BTEC qualifications in spite of the high value placed on BTECs by students, employers and universities. Around 230,000 students achieved their level 3 BTEC qualification this year. It is notable that the Department for Education’s own impact assessment concluded that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds will lose out the most from the move to scrap most BTEC funding. At a time when we have deep inequality in the country, more than 14 million living in poverty and a serious depletion of opportunities for adult education as a direct result of Conservative Government austerity, that cannot be right. Adult education has the power to transform lives and to embed in communities a culture of learning that we shouldall be able to enjoy. It is important that the Government ensure that opportunities are available to people regardless of where they live and their employment status, and that financial barriers are removed.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
It is an absolute joy and delight to be here to talk about this Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. It speaks to places such as Great Grimsby. To level up properly, we really need to support technical education. That is something we have needed to do for decades now. Despite the caricature by Opposition Members, I got a BTEC myself and I taught in further education for 22 years, but not all BTECs are equal; some are very high quality, and some are not such good quality. That is why we need to take a really good look at the whole provision.
I taught in further education when new Labour had its mantra of “education, education, education”, and I can tell the House that that actually decimated technical education. HNCs and HNDs virtually died overnight, and towns such as Great Grimsby, which has fantastic further education provision—we have the Ofsted grade 1 Grimsby Institute and the Ofsted grade 2 Franklin Sixth Form College—were utterly gutted by what happened in education then. That proves that this is about not the amount of funding that we put in, but where we put it and where our priorities lie.
It is absolutely key that we put employers at the centre of this policy. That makes employers realise that they have the power, and they will work with our educators to make sure that we are getting the right kinds of qualifications. In Grimsby, our biggest employer is our seafood sector, but we have a dearth of qualifications in that sector. That is why it is fantastic that we are developing our apprenticeships provision, which is utterly needed.
However, I want to make sure that we include everybody in our local skills improvement plans. That includes all types of employer—our large employers, our small and medium-sized enterprises, our sole traders—as well as our educators. I was happy to see in the Bill that we have not specified the type of designated employers’ groups that should come together. As other Members have said, we have some weak groups and some strong groups, and we need to make sure that we are able to account for that. I am heartened that the Secretary of State will sign off the LSIPs, because that will make sure that we align them with the skills we need locally and not the skills that suit the providers, which is what has happened for the last few decades.
As a further education ambassador, I am delighted to work with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and I look forward to seeing the Bill go through the House.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the staff at Christ the King Sixth Form College, which I have recently been in contact with. They really do go the extra mile to support young people in my constituency with vocational and non-vocational skills and learning.
I am very supportive of the aims of the Bill, but in content it is just too weak to meet the task facing us. It tries to make up for over a decade of neglect with too little action. We have a serious shortage of skilled workers in certain British jobs. Eleven years of short-sighted education policy in this country has contributed to that issue, but education is not the only factor. Due to the disastrous Tory Brexit agreement, we are now experiencing a wide variety of economic issues. Only now are some people realising how important EU migrant workers were. We are all now feeling the effects of the worker shortage and supply chain issues. Only now are some people realising that they were wrong in their attitudes of superiority over that workforce and eating humble pie.
Of course, the Government should be turning their attention to further education to try to fix their crisis, but taking a bulldozer to the current BTEC system is not the answer. BTECs have helped so many students, in my constituency and beyond, to pursue their potential in vocational subjects. It is indeed important to open alternative pathways for young adults who do not feel that the traditional sixth-form education is for them. Sadly, the numbers show that pupils with different skills and interests from the standard academic subjects have been failed by successive Tory Governments. A staggering four in 10 young people are currently leaving education without level 3 qualifications. When we consider that those Governments have slashed further education by a third since 2010, it is not that much of a surprise.
The Bill is not popular across the board. Some 86% of respondents to the Department for Education’s consultations were against the proposals for qualifications to overlap A-levels and T-levels. The Secretary of State said that he will look at the data, but he is obviously not looking or paying attention to that data. Even Margaret Thatcher’s Education Secretary, Lord Baker, has spoken out against the proposals, so why are the Government persisting with scrapping the BTEC system when students and professionals alike are so against that?
If the Government really want to strengthen the workforce of the future, they will invest more money, more resources, more teaching, more child and adolescent mental health services, more student choice and more financial support for students. Let us improve what we have, not defund it and not move towards scrapping it all together.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I, too, warmly welcome the Bill, with the emphasis it places on lifelong learning. Although 50% of people go to university, all of us will be working for something like 40 to 50 years, so it is very important that people have the opportunity to acquire new skills during their lifetime. I therefore join voices from across the House in whole-heartedly welcoming the direction of travel in the Bill.
I particularly welcome the Bill’s emphasis on place and local economic links, with links to local employers and a greater emphasis on local governance. My local schools with sixth forms will also welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement this evening of the extension of funding for certain courses to 2025. One local high school has written to me to emphasise that its students value taking courses in sport, business, travel and tourism, sound engineering and IT. This is, therefore, a very positive Bill.
I want to use my time to raise a local case, which the Minister was kind enough to discuss with me recently, where the direction of travel is completely wrong: the case of Malvern Hills College. It is a wonderful college, which has been in the town of Malvern for nearly 100 years. About five years ago, it was acquired by Warwickshire College Group. Warwick, of course, is quite a long way from Malvern. The group, which has a lot of disparate sites, took the unfortunate decision to close the college. The college has been going for nearly 100 years and is very valued by the local community. The community has put in place a covenant on the site, which is that it should be used for educational purposes only.
I urge the Minister, in his response, to see whether he can use the powers in the Bill to examine that very unfortunate decision and push back on Warwickshire College Group’s plans to close an institution that for nearly 100 years has been enhancing the skills, the lifetime learning and the life chances of people in Malvern. There will be a demonstration to show support for the college, and 5,000 signatures have already been added to the petition.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I speak as a vice-chair of the all-party group on sixth-form education and as a proud governor of Luton Sixth Form College.
Under the Conservative Government, further education and training have been treated as an afterthought for over a decade. Post-16 and further education budgets have been slashed by a third since 2010. According to the Learning and Work Institute, last month’s Budget will restore funding to only 60% of the 2010 level, leaving a £750 million gap. Students make choices at 16 that will affect the rest of their lives. Sixth forms and colleges are there to guide them by recognising their strengths and shaping their development, including helping with appropriate choices about the right course of study.
BTEC qualifications are a key option available to students. They allow students to shape their learning, combining academic learning and practical skills and a range of assessment types. For example, the health and social care BTEC is a practical, work-related course that provides students with the option of formal study in future to become a nurse, midwife or social worker or of a more practical option through an apprenticeship or becoming a healthcare assistant. In towns such as Luton, the ecosystem is excellent: people can study a health and social care BTEC, study at the University of Bedfordshire in Luton and then progress to work at the Luton and Dunstable University Hospital.
Defunding—in effect, scrapping many BTECs—will leave many students without a viable pathway after GCSEs, hampering their progression to higher education or skilled employment. Disadvantaged young people are most likely to suffer. The Department for Education equalities impact assessment concluded that
“those from SEND backgrounds, Asian ethnic groups, disadvantaged backgrounds, and males”—
are—
“disproportionately likely to be affected.”
I am fully aware of how the proposals will impact on students at Luton Sixth Form College, where over 70% of students are not white and 70% receive bursaries, such as free school meals. UCAS data from 2020 shows that 92% of BTEC students accepted university offers.
Fundamentally, this is a class issue. Working-class students who are more likely to study BTECs and do not have the personal networks to support a future career will lose access to a route to higher education and employment. BTECs are engines of social mobility. Research from the Social Market Foundation found that 44% of white working-class students who enter university studied at least one BTEC, and 37% of black students enter with only BTEC qualifications.
It is impossible to square the Government’s stated ambition to “level up” opportunity with the plan to get rid of most BTECs, including all larger versions of the qualifications that are deemed to overlap with A-levels or T-levels. In his closing remarks, will the Minister explain how this ill thought out decision fits with the Government’s claim to level up in education?
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
This is a very exciting Bill and I support it, but I think that the Government are missing a big opportunity here if we are waiting until post-16. Only 49.9% of young people achieved a GCSE in English and maths of grade 5 and above in 2019-20, with many being forced to take them over and over again in post-16 education, so I am really pleased to hear the news today that that will stop. By that stage, many of them are already disengaged and we will have lost many of them from education and skills training.
I think we should be looking at a 14 to 18 curriculum across the board in the Bill. We already have university technical colleges, which follow that model. I point out that UTC Portsmouth has 34 local business partners that are already helping to shape its curriculum and that, last year, 100% of leavers got jobs. It is getting young people into what they are really interested in learning from 14 rather than making them fit into our present assessment system until they are 16.
We have a shortage of skills, which is keeping our economy back and making us less productive and less competitive compared with our international peers. Most, if not all, of our competitors do not pause education at 16 with exams, which incidentally take out six to seven months of what should be a productive learning year, so why do we?
We should get rid of GCSEs and replace them with a school leaving certificate at the end of schooling or training at 18. It should include academic, technical and vocational qualifications, with a wider spread of learning to equip young people for the skills that we need today. Training young people from the age of 14 will make sure that they are engaged, because they will know that what they are studying will help with future employment. We need to put technical and vocational education on a par with academic qualifications, making sure that we work with businesses, universities and young people to design a curriculum that works for everybody and helps young people to contribute to the community, as well as preparing them for the life of work.
Charities such as Oarsome Chance in Gosport are taking young people from the age of nine who are at risk of exclusion and disadvantage, including some from Meon Valley, and giving them skills for future employment, including life skills. These young people struggle with attaining GCSE level 2, but the charity gives them an alternative education provision that re-engages them and helps them to find a route to employment. That should not be left to charities, however; it should be in our mainstream education system.
Failing at 16 has a major impact on any young person, so I plead that the Government look again. The Bill is an excellent start, but skills learning for young people’s employment future should start at 14, not 16.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. As a strong supporter of further education and community adult education, I am pleased to be holding a jobs and skills fair in Roehampton on Friday, to which I invite all hon. Members including the Minister. I also invite the Minister to come and speak to schools and to South Thames further education college, because I feel that there is a huge disconnect between what I have been hearing from them and what has been stated about the Bill.
I went to South Thames College this morning to talk to teachers and students. They are extremely worried about the significant pay gap of £9,000 between further education teachers and schoolteachers, which affects recruitment, retention and the ability to employ industry experts for technical subjects. However, their main concern is about the scrapping of BTEC qualifications. Going ahead with those plans will undermine the ambition of the Bill fundamentally, so they need to be revisited. The Secretary of State says that he will extend the transition period and change the requirements for English and maths; those measures are welcome, but they are absolutely not enough to make up for the difference between BTECs and going on to T-levels.
We need a two-route model for technical education, keeping T-levels with BTECs alongside them. Let me set out some reasons that schools have given me. First, T-levels have too high an entry barrier simply to replace BTECs. South Thames College has 4,500 students, but 2,000 would not have the qualifications for T-levels. What would happen to them? Scrapping BTECs is taking the rungs out of the ladder of opportunity, mainly for disadvantaged students in our communities.
Another fundamental difference is that BTECs are made up of units. That enables learners to take English and maths alongside the course, which will simply not be possible with T-levels; it also enables learners to work alongside their studies, which will not be possible with T-levels either, meaning that many students will be shut out of further education. BTECs can have a good impact on mental health because of the varied assessment outcomes and measures, which will not be possible with T-levels.
T-levels are not deliverable at the scale needed by the schools and colleges that I have talked to, because of the number of work placements required. They will cut off a route to university that is currently taken by many medical students, and they will undermine some apprenticeships. I urge Ministers to stop this hammer blow to social mobility, stop the biggest threat to post-16 education, and keep funding for BTECs in the long term, alongside T-levels.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
We are very lucky in Loughborough, because we have a thriving education sector. In many ways, education is our industry, and productivity and outputs are second to none. I consider that the Bill will ensure that the opportunities that we already strive for in Loughborough are spread throughout the country.
One aim of the Bill is to place employers at the heart of our skills system, establishing a skills accelerator to enable employers and education providers to collaborate to ensure that skills provision meets local need. Loughborough already owns the T-shirt on this, from A-levels, university courses, apprenticeships, BTECs, traineeships and the lifetime skills guarantee to the town deal-funded careers and enterprise hub in the centre of town. Loughborough College is also in the process of building a T-Level centre—thanks to Government funding—and we are hoping that the joint bid with Loughborough University, Loughborough College, Derby University and Derby College will be successful and enable an institute of technology to be established. Our local providers aim to skill young people and upskill adult workers specifically for our businesses and organisations.
Last week I met the BTEC uniformed services students at Loughborough College and saw the skills they were gaining and the development path they were on, just as it was when a member of my own family completed the course. Every one of them is a credit to their course and will go on, I am sure, to be highly competent professionals in areas such as policing and the armed services and in other related roles, following their lifetime ambitions and goals and helping to fill the crucial roles that our country needs. I wish them all the very best for the future. I therefore welcome the confirmation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the Government continue to recognise the importance of BTEC qualifications.
The Bill will also make it a criminal offence to arrange contract cheating such as essay mills, and I particularly want to thank Loughborough Students’ Union for all its work and campaigning in bringing about that amazing reform.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
This Bill is an opportunity for us to give further education the attention that it deserves, but if we are to realise the full potential of further education, we must make up for years of cuts under successive Conservative Governments. It is the worst-funded sector in our cash-strapped education system, particularly for adult learners. We have already had many debates on this subject. Jayne Davis, the new principal of the excellent Bath College, told me that further education in this country was at a “tipping point”. The sector does not need catch-up funding; it needs a long-term funding strategy.
Further education must be at the front and centre of our covid recovery, creating a workforce that has the skills we need to fill the gaps in our national and local economies. I need no excuse to talk once more about the fantastic efforts of Bath College, Bath Spa University, Bath and North East Somerset Council, and the Institute of Coding. Together, they were quick off the mark in response to covid, to get the I-START project up and running. The project enables our workforce to upskill through blended, flexible modules. Those who have spoken today about a flexible education system should look no further than Bath for an example of what can be achieved through collaboration between our local authorities and all parts of our education sector.
A key opportunity for further education is to be at the forefront of our efforts to reach net zero. Currently, fewer than 1% of college students are on a course with broad coverage of climate education. Unless we embed climate and environment in our post-16 education curriculum, the Government’s plans for net zero will simply not be possible.
Bath College is doing that already, and now the Government must step up as well. This Bill should be helping students—their voice must not be lost along the way—but the Government’s proposals to defund BTECs, about which we have heard a great deal tonight, will leave many students without a viable pathway at the age of 16. Current estimates suggest that at least 30% of students in England currently studying at level 3 are pursuing a BTEC. Withdrawing support from BTECs could lead to those students studying for a qualification that was not right for them, or dropping out of education altogether.
T-levels are a welcome development, and I hope they will give future generations the technical skills that they need to succeed in their careers, but BTECs do that as well. Creative subjects such as performing arts are among the first courses that fill up in our local college. BTECs are important to those who study for them, and they are also important to Bath. We must not take choice away from students.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). While she was speaking, I was struck by something that she did and so many others have done during the debate: she paid tribute to the educational establishments in her constituency. This is what is bringing us all together. We all want this to work. We all know how important skills are to our future and our future generations.
I am proud to support the Bill, and I will pick two main reasons—I could go on, but we have a time limit. The first element is the Bill’s commitment to ensuring that skills, education and training respond to the needs of the local economy, something my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) referred to. For Milton Keynes, that means delivering new skills in our local industries, such as tech and finance. I have talked at length about the robots, the driverless cars and the e-scooters that make Milton Keynes the wonderful place it is. Basically, we will be enhancing and future-proofing our reputation as a hub for innovation and technology.
The second element is the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement or LLE, which will open so many doors to people across Milton Keynes. It will allow people to pursue a career that was previously out of reach: if we add in that first element of ensuring that we are on top of future skills requirements, it will allow people to pursue careers that we have not even thought of right now.
I am proud to say that Milton Keynes is already leading the way on this matter, as we are home to the wonderful Open University. Previous speakers have mentioned modular learning, including, I think, the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson); the Bill is an amazing step towards our goal, but in my remaining minute I will share a few concerns.
First, I am keen to see provisions relating to local school improvement plans take into account the role of online and nationwide skills providers such as the OU in Milton Keynes. The OU is one of the top five skills providers in 90% of the English parliamentary constituencies and plays a formidable role in our levelling-up agenda, so it is important that those plans are as inclusive as possible.
Secondly, the funding provided by the LLE, while welcome, must address the disparity between those who can study full or part-time in a traditional sense and those who can only undertake modular study. I urge the Government to produce further guidance on that.
I would be remiss if I did not mention—I hope the Minister knows this is coming—that as part of how this Bill sits we need a new university in Milton Keynes. I ask my colleagues at the Department to reconsider and re- engage with the idea of Milton Keynes university, MK:U.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I begin by paying tribute to everything that Wirral Met College in my constituency does to equip young people with the skills they need to thrive in a fast-changing world. Even during the darkest days of the pandemic, when colleges across our country were forced to shutter their doors, educators never wavered in their commitment to their students, but our colleges and sixth forms simply cannot be expected to survive on goodwill alone.
Since 2010, the post-16 education sector has been decimated by sweeping funding cuts. Further education budgets have been slashed by a third, while spending on adult education has fallen by more than half in real terms. Even with the recent announcement of additional funding in last month’s Budget, Government spending still falls way short of what it was when Labour was last in power. The Government can talk as much as they like about the importance of lifelong learning, but their promises will always ring hollow while spending levels remain so woefully inadequate.
I hope the Minister will soon come before the House to explain what steps the Government will be taking to undo the catastrophic legacy of 10 long years of austerity on this critically important sector. I know that many of the young people I represent feel deeply concerned by the Government’s proposals to defund the vast majority of BTECs. Those qualifications have proved a precious resource for the hundreds of thousands of young people who complete them each year, and no one has benefited more from their introduction than young people living in the north end of my constituency, one of the most deprived areas in the whole UK.
Ofsted and the Government’s own equality impact assessment have warned that those are the young people who stand to lose the most from the Government’s reckless plans to replace BTECs with unproven T-levels. That is why I warmly welcome Lords amendment 29, which will maintain approval for BTECs until such time as T-levels are fully rolled out. With employers, educators, trade unions and a host of former Education Secretaries calling for the retention of BTECs in their entirety, the Minister must explain why he is so intent on pushing ahead with these reforms when there is such broad consensus about the damage they will cause.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I welcome this Bill. Some may say it is not before time, but it provides the means both for addressing the problems that have hung over the UK for too long and for meeting future challenges. It is, in many respects, a landmark Bill, and thus it is important that we get it right so that it can herald the start of a new era that provides people of all ages, whatever their background and from wherever they come, with the opportunity to realise their full potential.
As we have heard, amendments have been made in the other place, often on a cross-party basis. I urge the Government not to seek to strike them out too hastily, as many of them improve the Bill. Such is the strategic timing of the Bill that, from my perspective, the amendment in the names of the noble Lords Clarke and Layard, to place the lifetime skills guarantee on a statutory footing, is well merited.
With the welcome reduction in the taper rate of universal credit announced in the Budget, the Government have placed much emphasis both on the importance of making work pay and on the current high level of job vacancies. Unfortunately, many people are currently some distance from the workplace and are not able to take advantage of these opportunities. However, many of them would be able to do so if universal credit conditions were reformed so that they could more readily access education and training. With that in mind, I urge the Government to consider carefully the amendment tabled by the Lord Bishop of Durham.
The opportunities that the Bill provides are immense, but they will not be realised without proper investment in our often unsung but nevertheless impressive national network of colleges. The funding announced in the comprehensive spending review is welcome, but it should be viewed as only a start.
In recent years, one of the great success stories in north Suffolk and east Norfolk has been the significant progress made by East Coast College with its campuses in both Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. The college is a pivotal player in the strategy to remove pockets of coastal deprivation and to realise the full potential that the zero-carbon economy presents in sectors such as offshore wind and nuclear at Sizewell C. To play this role fully and properly, East Coast College and colleges across the country must be properly resourced. A resilient college network is vital if we are to achieve the aims of this Bill.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Government for this Bill, which is a positive step in the right direction. It is England-centred, and therefore it will not affect us directly in Northern Ireland, but in my intervention on the Secretary of State I referred to the underachievement of disadvantaged white British boys and girls, which has been replicated in Northern Ireland.
My colleague Peter Weir MLA was an assiduous Education Minister, and he introduced a strategy to address the underachievement of young protestant males in our school system. They were failing to be educated, and they left school without qualifications. We must be cognisant of targeted need, and we must respond to that need appropriately. Peter Weir sought to do so and, before he left his post as Education Minister, he launched the “A Fair Start” report and action plan to address it. Across the UK, we need to ensure that every child, regardless of their background, class, creed or colour, has a fair start, and I commend the report to the Minister.
I support the Chancellor’s decision to support apprentices with a £3 billion investment to build a high-wage, high-skill economy. It builds on the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee, which directly invests in 16 to 19-year-olds and will see the numbers double and the number of skills bootcamps quadruple. It is a positive strategy, and there is funding to make it happen.
I have served on Glastry College’s board of governors for 34 years, and I have seen many boys go through the school, both those who are academically qualified and interested, and those who have more practical skills. Many who struggle in academia excel with their hands. We need the skill of the steelworker to form the bolts and screws, and we need the skill of the surgeon to complete the hip replacement. We also need those who are educationally disposed to take other opportunities. Both are essential for success, so we need to build up both forms of education, academic and practical. I am very supportive of the enhancement of apprenticeship places and incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises, the employers, to take on apprentices as a way to combat the underachievement in those fields that must be targeted. I believe that the Minister needs to work alongside colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make sure that our young people have the skills for tomorrow that we wish them to have.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
On Friday, I had the great pleasure of speaking to and listening to about 200 businesses at the Warrington Business Exchange. It was the first time they had come together for about two years. The No. 1 issue they raised with me was skills, and I was delighted to say to them that we have an oven-ready Bill to satisfy all of their needs.
Having worked as an employer for many years, I can say that one of the greatest issues that businesses face is finding individuals who have the skills to take their businesses forward. Most of us who have watched the news over the past six months or listened to the radio know that we have a skills issue in this country. That is not new. The challenges of preparing young people for that giant leap from education into the world of work have been there for many years, so the Bill is very welcome. It really does address some of the key issues that employers and young people face, which is why I welcome many of the reforms it introduces.
In particular, we need to make sure that the 50% of young people who do not go to university are not deprived of the chance of a great education, a vocational education, that will help them to be the best that they can be in their life. This Bill and policy sit at the heart of levelling up; this is part of the outcome that will drive opportunity for young people around the country.
Let me spend a moment talking about some of the things that Warrington is doing with its towns fund deal. The Government have allocated £22 million to Warrington. A proportion of that is going to help with skills for specific sectors, with £1 million going to tackle the skills shortage in the health and social care sector, with an academy being set up at the Warrington & Vale Royal College; and £3.3 million going to set up an advanced construction and engineering academy in Warrington, specifically business-led, to broaden the offer and help to ensure that we get young people trained up for our local economy.
Finally, I wish to touch on T-levels. So much has been said about phasing out BTECs, but I want to talk about phasing in T-levels. Warrington’s Priestley College has led the introduction of T-levels in the north-west of England, and I talked to the senior team there who have worked on T-levels. They have introduced courses on science, healthcare, education and childcare, and digital production, and they are absolutely committed to ensuring that they go further and faster with T-levels, because they have seen the difference that this makes to young people. So when I hear Opposition Members talking down the opportunity that T-levels bring, I say to them, “Go and look at some of these colleges and see the opportunities that they bring forward.”
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I congratulate the Department for Education, Ministers, former Ministers and the former Secretary of State on their work to get the Bill over the line. I have been amazed to listen to Opposition Members rewrite their education history. Labour’s “Education, education, education,” sounded good, but it actually focused on getting 50% of kids into university, regardless of the degree, and forgetting about the rest. It made jobs bad and uni good. The reason I know that is because in the 1990s I left home at 15; I did not do very well at school and did not go to uni, and I was made to feel bad about that. Time and again, I was told that I would not succeed, but now I am here, causing you lot trouble.
I cannot describe what a difference it makes for young people in Stroud to hear that their training courses are being discussed by Ministers now. Which skilled people did we miss during the lockdowns and realise that we cannot live without? It was local chefs, beauticians, hairdressers, carers, brickies, childminders and creatives, every single one of whom got their education at colleges. My wonderful South Gloucestershire and Stroud College and the Association of Colleges recognise the significance of the Government’s now recognising colleges’ central role at the heart of our economic recovery. We are using colleges to address long-term regional inequalities and the transition to net zero. This has not happened before.
When the Minister sums up, I would like to hear more about putting the lifetime skills guarantee on a statutory footing and extending it to include level 3 courses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said. I would like to know whether the Government are looking at the creation of maintenance support systems, as proposed in the Philip Augar report, and whether they will create a duty for schools and universities to collaborate with colleges and employers in the development of skills plans. Stroud is already modelling putting employers at the heart of FE: the growth hub and the GFirst local enterprise partnership are already based in our college, and our wonderful University of Gloucestershire already collaborates with colleges and employers.
As I said in my essay for the Conservative Environment Network, I believe there is a green skills emergency. I meet vocational FE students in Stroud all the time and they want to create the businesses that fix our planet, our homes and our cars. Currently, only 5% of mechanics can fix electric vehicles; we have to change that. The think-tank Onward knows that we need 170,000 more green-skilled workers to qualify for retrofitting and renewable heat each year. This has to change: if we do not have the skilled people, we will not be able to save the planet. It really is that simple. I am therefore pleased to note that the Government are considering amending the Bill to require the local skills plans to include the UK’s net zero target and other environmental goals. That is really important if such plans are to be approved. The Government are genuinely changing lives with this Bill, and I thank the Secretary of State very much.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to wind up for the Opposition after a good debate on this Bill, with some excellent speeches and important contributions from Members in all parts of the House. I repeat the tribute by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) to our colleagues in the House of Lords, who adopted a constructive, cross-party approach to the Bill.
I hope that the Minister has taken note of the contributions to this debate, because much of real value was said by Members on the Opposition and Government Benches. Indeed, two contributions from Conservative Members were—I suspect inadvertently—very revealing. The right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) revealed that adult education funding is currently at its lowest level for 23 years. That set me thinking about what might have happened 23 years ago that meant that adult education funding was at such a low level but improved substantially over time, only to reach its nadir now. Of course, a Labour Government happened 23 years ago, and it has taken 11 years to unwind that Labour Government’s investment in adult education to the current nadir.
The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), also made a revealing contribution: he said that levelling up is all about investment in human beings—people in every area throughout the country. Of course, he was one of the Secretaries of State who was in power while there was a 40% reduction in adult education. He presided over that. I absolutely agree that if levelling up is to mean anything, it has to mean investment in people, which is precisely what we have not seen under this Government.
A number of Members spoke powerfully about the role of BTECs. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) spoke of Lord Baker’s description of the defunding of BTECs as “act of educational vandalism”. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) spoke up for her local college and about the number of students at that college who would miss out. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) spoke of the importance of the BTEC pathway, particularly for disadvantaged students. And my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) spoke passionately and movingly about his own journey as a BTEC engineering student who went on to be the very first person in his family to go to university, and his pride at seeing his son follow in his footsteps.
This question is really important, because the Government have set out to trash the reputation of BTECs and then come back and said, “Actually, we’re only going to get rid of some of them—only the low-quality ones.” The damage is being done already. Students are on those courses now: 230,000 students who are doing level 3 BTECs are being told that those are poor-quality qualifications. Why make that announcement and create all that uncertainty and then say, “Oh, we’re going to do a review and then we’ll look at the evidence.”? This whole approach has been wrong. I welcome the more conciliatory language that we are hearing from the new Secretary of State, but the damage has been done, and we need to quickly hear from him which of those courses will be carrying on, which ones will not and what is the plan for those students who will not be doing T-levels.
The real worry is that this will result in fewer students from more deprived communities achieving vocational qualifications at level 3. Pulling up that drawbridge will, without question, restrict opportunities, particularly for white working class and black, Asian and minority ethnic students from those communities. The Secretary of State repeated the description of BTECs as a low-quality qualification, so if we are hearing a change of tone, we need to know whether we are seeing a change of policy.
There was a lot of discussion about local skills improvement plans. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) spoke about the extent to which special needs students are missing from LSIPs, which is an important point. We very much welcome the Secretary of State’s climbdown on the subject of metro Mayors and their responsibility in terms of LSIPs, but if the responsibility of those elected to local government in metro Mayor areas is accepted, as was said by the hon. Members for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), what of areas that do not have metro Mayors? Why is there no local democratic accountability for those areas? It occurs to me that the vast majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends represent areas that have metro Mayors, but the majority of Government Members do not, so they will have no democratic accountability whatsoever. The point made by the hon. Member for Ipswich about the variation in chambers of commerce—some are very good and some are much less good—was well made.
Mr Perkins
Let me crack on. If I have time, I would be very happy to hear from the hon. Gentleman.
The Government have indicated that they will seek to overturn Lord Baker’s amendment on careers guidance, which would have allowed a range of educational and training providers access to every student in years 8 to 13. The House will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has committed a future Labour Government to guarantee face-to-face professional careers guidance for every pupil, and compulsory two-week work experience. The Government should seek to match that ambition.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) spoke about students considering careers that they had not even heard of previously. That is incredibly important. It is one of the reasons why careers guidance is so crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South spoke about the fact that poorer children do not have the networks on which the more affluent children are able to rely.
We absolutely support the Government’s intention to introduce a lifetime skills guarantee. It is a return to what students would have been able to enjoy under a previous Labour Government. However, as has been said, there are currently 9 million jobs in our economy that will be excluded. Anyone who has a level 3 qualification already and wants to retrain in the future will be excluded from doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) and the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is growing very nicely into his beard—[Interruption.] It is always a pleasure to see someone who has aged almost as much as I have in the past 11 years. He made what I thought was a mature point, bestowing on us his status as a greybeard, that this is not actually a guarantee. The fact that it is not on a statutory footing means that it is only an aspiration. It is an aspiration that we welcome, but the word “guarantee” means something. If we cannot guarantee that this will be available to so many students, as I have already laid out, it is not a guarantee at all.
We welcome the funding changes that the Secretary of State announced, but one of our key criticisms of the Bill is that much of it is ill-defined and not fully thought through. The fact that we have an announcement that there will be an extension while the Government work out which courses are needed and which ones are not is exactly why these announcements should not have been made until the Government had done their research.
Christian Wakeford
T-levels are obviously a fantastic idea. We have already heard from the Secretary of State that there are more than 12,000 qualifications. Does the hon. Member agree that that is far too many and that, based on international comparisons, fewer than 1,000 would be really sensible?
Mr Perkins
It is an interesting point. The Government have said that there are too many qualifications. They have spoken about scrapping BTECs and are undermining them by saying that they are low-quality qualifications. Now they are going to go away and find out which ones they want to get rid of. That approach seems like it is the wrong way around. Why do the Government not identify the poor-quality qualifications and then start announcing their policy? That is where they have got it wrong.
Let me turn to the need to have maths and English as an exit-level qualification for T-levels. The Secretary of State is right to change his approach to the issue, as we have been calling for, but given that maths and English were an entry requirement for all students who are currently doing T-levels, the pilot is going to be misleading. The people who are doing T-levels currently—we will be investigating their outcomes in the pilot—will be different from those who will be able to study T-levels after this change. It is important that that is carefully considered.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) was absolutely right to speak about the universal credit amendment. We keep hearing the Government talk about the importance of people on universal credit being able to get into work. If we want universal credit to be a pathway towards helping the country to solve the skills crisis, people need to be able to afford to develop their skills. The hon. Gentleman was therefore right to say that the amendment should seriously be considered.
There were a couple of other very relevant contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) raised the important issue of FE lecturers’ pay. So many really good-quality FE lecturers have been forced to leave the profession because of real-terms pay cuts over many years. The skills drain has had a massive impact on our further education sector.
The hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) told us that he has been racing around employers in his constituency and telling them that there is an oven-ready Bill that will address all their skills needs. Well, he might be well advised to move office and not tell people where his new one is, because they might end up disappointed that he has slightly overpromised in that regard.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) blamed the Labour Government for the fact that she was made to feel bad when she left school at the age of 15. I notice that she was 15 in 1996, so it was a Conservative Government who made her feel bad. I am sorry that she had that experience, but she is knocking at the wrong door.
The hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) addressed the problem faced by many hon. Members—a reduction in the time limit—by doing a seven-minute speech in three minutes. In the event that he ever loses his current job, he might want to consider being a horse racing commentator. But he had a lot to say and it was important.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) spoke about the scale of the cuts, and the collapse in investment in further education and adult education.
This is a small Bill, which is limited in scope. It leaves out apprenticeships and is silent on the role of independent training providers, which provide the majority of workplace learning. It lacks strategic vision, and is undermined by its lack of scale and urgency. There are some aspects that will make small improvements—we are not hostile to all that is in there—but it lacks the scale of reform and investment required to deliver the promised skills revolution.
The skills Bill is in danger of going down as an historic missed opportunity. The Government should recognise that the amendments introduced by their lordships strengthen the Bill; recognise that apprenticeships are central to skills in this country, and do more to increase the numbers studying and offering them; encourage a collaborative approach that recognises a role for all communities, whether they happen to have a metro Mayor or not; and address the chronic underfunding that has characterised the last 11 years in further education. If this Government took the approach that Labour is calling for today, they would have a chance of enabling England to compete with the very best skills systems in the world. It is the very least that English workers and employers deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)
As someone who has spent the majority of his life in education or education policy, it is a real honour to be presenting this Bill on Second Reading. The Bill forms a cornerstone of some historic reforms that we are bringing to the skills agenda in our country: reforms that will help us more closely align skills training with the needs of employers; reforms that will help us to help all students, at all ages and stages, find more reliable routes to employment; and reforms that will help us level up our country and build back better.
This has been a long journey, and I want to thank some of the people who have been involved in it: not least, in the other place, Lord Sainsbury and Baroness Wolf, who have done enormous work to get us here, but also my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), the former Secretary of State, who gave such an impressive speech, and my hon. and glamorous Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), the former Minister for apprenticeships and skills. I also feel the need to mention another noble Lord in the other place who wrote a report for the Government in 2012—Lord Lingfield, who is genuinely one of the unsung heroes of education reform over the past 30 years. I put on record my debt to him and to his thinking. All of their work—the cross-party work that we have heard so much about tonight—has shown us the importance of building a skills system that can work for everyone.
There have been some powerful speeches, many delivered at high speed, and some important arguments made. I will try to deal with as many as I can in the time I have available. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the outset, our reform agenda is about both local prosperity and global competitiveness. It is about the needs of labour market and the needs of the student, and it is about our collective need for a more prosperous future. That is why this Government are putting the money down to get the job done: £3.8 billion more for FE and skills over the Parliament, the biggest increase in over a decade; £1.6 billion more for education at 16 to 19; £554 million for adult skills, a 29% increase in real terms over four years; and £2.7 billion for apprenticeships by the end of this spending review period—all this and more, to give people the skills the economy needs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chair of the Education Committee, said that skills had often been the Cinderella service; well, tonight it continues its journey to the ball. But if it is Cinderella, I wonder who the fairy godmother is. Is it my right hon. Friend himself, is it the Secretary of State, or is it the Chancellor, who provided this money? The Opposition have talked about the state of funding over time. I taught history for quite a long time, and one of the things we learn when we study history is that the left loves to rewrite it—when it is not destroying it. Some Conservative Members remember why there was a need for austerity in 2010. Indeed, in a powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) talked about a time when the Opposition were in power and things were not quite so rosy as they seem to remember.
Kate Green
This is not rewriting history but merely to point out to the Minister, who may not remember, that when Labour left office in 2010 the economy was growing, and what happened then was that it was thrown into reverse by the Government of the time’s austerity policies.
Alex Burghart
Rewriting history yet again: everybody knows that the last Labour Government left the economy of this country in the gutter and it required a Conservative Government to pick it up and to create the jobs miracle that we saw before the pandemic.
We want the skills system to become more responsive to the needs and knowledge of employers, creating dialogue between skills providers and industry. That is why the Bill establishes the employer representative bodies and local skills improvement plans.[Official Report, 19 November 2021, Vol. 703, c. 6MC.] Employer representative bodies will hold the ring locally on the needs of local employers, finding out what skills they are looking for and working with colleges to make sure that those skills are built up. For the first time, employers in an area will know exactly who to go to when they want providers to respond to that need. That is what I have heard when I have gone around the country in my first few weeks in this job. The other day I went to Doncaster and heard the people who are masterminding the first LSIP say that for the first time people know to come to them in order to speak to providers and get skills put on the table.
Using that sort of intelligence, ERBs will produce local skills improvement plans to nudge local learning in the right direction. An ERB is a body with a plan to help the next gigafactory, the next offshore wind farm, the next nuclear plant and the next electric vehicle factory to find the workers with the skills they need; a body to help the retrofitters, the digital networkers and the constructors of HS2 to get the skills that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) talked about in terms of the green revolution and our net zero plans; and a plan to help local areas get the skills they need to harness the talents of the people to build the infrastructure of tomorrow, led by employers, supported by Government and driven forward by our excellent further education colleges.
However, our work to align the needs of the economy with the desire of students for modern skills does not stop there. To do all this, we need technical qualifications that meet the needs of employers. T-levels—the new gold-standard qualification at level 3—have been drawn up with the input and expertise of more than 250 employers to ensure that they provide students with the right skills for the workplace—skills that will be relevant and recognised in the real world. This, we must remember, was done following the recommendations of the Labour peer, Lord Sainsbury, to whom I again pay tribute.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) spoke—I refer to him because my father-in-law was from Birmingham, Hall Green— powerfully and movingly about his experience and his son’s. I have no doubt that he and his son would have been able to do a BTEC in engineering, flourished through it and been able to enjoy some of the great advantages I have seen when I have visited colleges in south Essex, Walsall and south London, where students are studying T-levels and thriving.[Official Report, 19 November 2021, Vol. 703, c. 6MC.]
The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) made a very good speech. Putney does not have T-levels yet, but she should visit one of her neighbours that does. She will see teachers and students who are inspired, working with employers, getting excellent work placements and seeing their destination as work. These are high-quality qualifications that will meet the needs of the local community.
I was pleased to hear the Opposition support our changes on level 2 English and maths as an exit requirement for T-levels, because we want these new gold-standard qualifications to be open to as many people as possible. What we see emerging is a new pathway to work for everyone at 16-19. For students at level 3, there will be world-class qualifications designed with employers leading to degree-level apprenticeships, work and, yes, higher education, because more than 50 universities already accept our T-levels. For students who are at level 2 at 16-19, there will be, thanks to our forthcoming consultation on level 2 and below, world-class qualifications designed with employers leading to traineeships, apprenticeships or work, or, indeed, the opportunity to take up the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee at level 3 and get the skills they want, that they might not have had the chance to gain at school.
I say to the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) that there will be choices for everybody and opportunities for everyone to progress towards work. Skilling up will not end when someone leaves college. We have bootcamps of the type I have seen in Salford and Doncaster. We have the multiply programme for numeracy skills—the great half-a-billion-pound project initiated by the Chancellor at the spending review. For literacy, which was understandably raised by a number of Members, I remind the House that full funding for adults who do not already have a GCSE pass is already available. We also intend to help people who have level 3 to progress. That is why the Bill lays the foundations for the lifelong loan entitlement, which gives adults who want to get a higher technical qualification the opportunity to invest in their future, to retrain and upskill.
This is a landmark Bill that will further the cause of skills in this country. It will give students the skills they need and that the economy wants, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 7 December 2021.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State; and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Nadhim Zahawi.)
Question agreed to.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees under the Act.—(Nadhim Zahawi.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hon. Members
Object.
Delegated Legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Arms and Ammunition
That the draft Antique Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 14 September, be approved.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Building and Buildings
That the draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Construction Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 16 September, be approved.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Sir William Cash, do you still wish to make a point of order?
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
In the circumstances, Mr Deputy Speaker, the answer is no at this moment in time.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have just passed motion 6 on the Committee on Standards, which is probably one of the most significant motions that the House has considered in the past two weeks. It has been brought forward under Standing Order No. 9(6) and there has been no opportunity to debate it in the House at all. I look for your advice on how we can get the Leader of the House to come to the House and explain what he is doing.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Somebody shouted “Object” and I took the objection. It will now be up to the Government to reprogramme that motion.
Amnesty International Offices in Hong Kong
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
We in the United Kingdom cannot divorce ourselves from the deteriorating human rights situation in Hong Kong; nor can we ignore the legal, moral and historical responsibility that the UK has for the people of Hong Kong and their right to live in a free, democratic and autonomous city. Yet I fear that the prevailing view in government and among those with commercial interests in Hong Kong is not to challenge China as strongly as we should and almost to turn a blind eye to the ongoing crackdown on the pro-democracy movement, on the free press and on civil society in this once proud possession of the British Crown.
The announcement by Amnesty International on 25 October that it intends to close its two offices in Hong Kong as a result of the national security law should concern us all. It is further evidence of the shrinking space for civil society in a city that once boasted to be an open international financial centre. Sadly, Amnesty International is not alone: at least 35 civil society organisations have disbanded since the introduction of the national security law.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for all that he does and for this debate in particular. Does he not agree that the closure of not only Amnesty International’s offices in Hong Kong but those of all human rights organisations that are highly—and rightly—critical of the horrific human rights abuses still taking place in China typifies the disregard that China has shown to the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration and the 1992 United States-Hong Kong Policy Act? Does he agree that through this debate and the Minister’s response we must make it clear that the House stands with Hong Kong’s citizens and those who fight for freedom in a democratic, peaceful way?
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I of course agree with everything he said.
I was going to go on to say that other organisations have been forced to close as well, including Human Rights Watch. In the last few months, I believe that Beijing has weaponised this draconian law to force the disbanding of the Hong Kong Professional Teachers Union, the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, the civil society group that organised the annual Tiananmen Square massacre vigil, and the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund, which provided the financial assistance and paid the legal fees of protesters.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate on such an important subject. Would he agree with me that civil society organisations play a very important role in modern democracies? We do not of course always agree with what civil society organisations say, but they play their role and have their function. This removal, in effect, of organisations such as Amnesty International from Hong Kong is further evidence, if any further evidence is required, that Hong Kong is no longer functioning as a modern democracy or an open society in any meaningful sense of the words.
Andrew Rosindell
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. I believe that the way China has treated Hong Kong is a betrayal of everything we thought we had agreed with China. My hon. Friend makes the point very clearly, and I intend to emphasise this still further as the debate progresses.
Let us make no mistake about this: the dismantling of civil society organisations is another step in the Chinese Government’s relentless pursuit of the destruction of Hong Kong’s autonomy and the freedoms that were previously guaranteed by the one country, two systems model and the Sino-British joint declaration that underpinned it. Despite previous claims that the national security law would be used sparingly, would not be applied retrospectively and would not impact on the rule of law, we have seen the Chinese Communist party use the smokescreen of state security to arrest journalists, former pro-democracy lawmakers, activists, students, trade unionists, lawyers and even speech therapists.
This month alone, Beijing and the Hong Kong Government warned the Foreign Correspondents Club that it risked closure and possibly violated the national security law for publishing a survey of its members on press freedom. The Justice Secretary stated that gestures, words and signs could lead to convictions, and the Security Minister cautioned that Hong Kongers who cast blank ballots or boycott the upcoming Legislative Council elections could be violating this draconian law.
No one looking at these developments can be under any illusion whatsoever that the old Hong Kong that guaranteed freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of religion or belief, and upheld the rule of law, exists today: that has gone. The two trials we have seen under the national security law have already demonstrated the export and establishment of China’s judicial system in Hong Kong, with suspects denied bail on spurious grounds, judges hand-picked by Beijing and one individual receiving a sentence of six and a half years in jail simply for carrying a flag with a pro-democracy slogan on it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as recently as Saturday, a judgment was handed down that dealt with the question of joint enterprise, which shows that the national security law is actually building a significant body of jurisprudence. In these circumstances, does he agree that it is now wholly inappropriate that United Kingdom lawyers and especially judges should be party to this sham of democracy?
Andrew Rosindell
The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I was going to say later, and he is entirely correct that we should not be giving any legitimacy to this regime any longer.
The crackdown is clearly undermining the business environment in the city and Hong Kong’s status as a global financial centre, as British-based banks and businesses fear the extension of Beijing’s foreign anti-sanctions law which would require them to ignore US sanctions, and new requirements under the national security law force them to become even more complicit in the crackdown by disclosing the property of suspects. The growing number of US firms reported to be leaving the city and the warnings about the Hong Kong Government’s dwindling surplus are key indicators of this contagion.
So, what should the UK as a co-signatory to the joint declaration do in response to what the former Foreign Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) has labelled China’s “ongoing non-compliance” with upholding its international commitments to the people of Hong Kong?
First, the Government need to look at what more can be done to support civil society in Hong Kong, which is currently under dreadful assault. In particular, the Minister should outline what plans the Government have to ensure the flow of information and reporting on the human rights situation now that both Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have been forced to close down.
Secondly, Ministers must reconsider the participation of sitting UK judges on the Hong Kong court of final appeal. As the human rights situation continues to deteriorate at a worrying pace, it is clear that these judges are powerless to moderate Beijing’s behaviour. Instead, they are offering political cover for a Government in Hong Kong who have lost all legitimacy.
Thirdly, Ministers need to stop dragging their feet when it comes to using the Magnitsky sanctions against the Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible for these abuses. What signal does it send to our closest allies and partners in the region when the UK is unwilling to sanction individuals who have violated an international treaty with the United Kingdom and are systematically abusing human rights?
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend, who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee with me; he does a great job and it is wonderful to sit on that Committee with him. Sadly, I am one of the people named by the Chinese authorities in the course of some of the cases against democracy activists, which pains me greatly. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we need in relation to China, and indeed Russia, and which we are still slightly waiting for, is an integrated policy that does not turn a blind eye to these awful human rights abuses, but integrates them into the intelligent and balanced response that our state needs, including on human rights?
Andrew Rosindell
I am proud to serve with my hon. Friend on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and he speaks very wisely about this topic. I am sorry that his name has been published on this list; I am sure that after tonight mine will be on the list as well. I have twice been refused entry to Hong Kong, and the time has come for all Members of this House to be on that list, and to speak up against this totalitarian regime which is undermining the incredible freedoms, liberties and democracy that were left after the United Kingdom looked after Hong Kong as a Crown colony. The betrayal is unforgiveable, and this House must be united in its stand against the regime in Beijing and all the damage it is doing to the lives and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong.
Finally, the Government must look again at the question of young Hong Kongers who are currently barred from the British national overseas visa scheme. Like many Members, I fully supported the introduction of the scheme, but it cannot be right that nearly 200 Hong Kongers are now in the UK asylum system, many of whom have at least one parent who is BNO. This needs to be reviewed.
As the Minister may be aware, there is a new clause to the Borders and Nationality Bill, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and also carries my name, that would require the Government to register a Hongkonger who can prove that they have one BNO parent for the BNO visa scheme. I hope that the Government will look favourably on that new clause and consider adopting it as we approach Report stage of the Bill.
In addition, there are 301 ex-Hong Kong servicemen seeking right of abode, which a further amendment to that Bill would grant. The Minister will know that I chair the parliamentary campaign for the right of abode for Hong Kong ex-servicemen, and I urge her please to look at this issue with some urgency. Justice needs to be done, and we have a duty to these loyal Hongkongers, who have served Queen and country and now look to Britain to give them the same loyalty in return. It is not much to ask, and I urge the Minister to take action immediately.
The human rights crisis in Hong Kong is far from over. In the next few weeks, we will see the national security trials of student activist Tony Chung and the former owner of Apple Daily, Jimmy Lai; further civil society groups will undoubtedly close; Legislative Council elections will take place under Beijing’s new system, and the threat of further national security legislation looms. The question on everyone’s minds is, what will the UK do about this? We cannot stand by in silence. We cannot watch it continue and take no action. I genuinely hope that the Minister will provide some of the answers to the questions I have posed. It is indeed Her Majesty’s Government’s duty to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to his work on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I thank all those other hon. Members who have intervened tonight. The Minister for Asia, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), would have been delighted to take part in the debate, but she is currently hosting the premiers of the overseas territories at a Joint Ministerial Council event, so I will respond on behalf of the Government. I will make some background points and then address some of the specific questions that my hon. Friend raised.
This continues to be the most concerning period in Hong Kong’s post-handover history. I acknowledge and share the deep concern of this House. The Chinese and Hong Kong authorities have taken a number of actions to stifle dissent and to suppress the expression of alternative political views in Hong Kong. Those include the imposition of the national security law in June last year, the mass arrest of politicians and activists, the disqualification of electoral candidates, and changes to Hong Kong’s own election processes.
On 25 October, Amnesty International announced that it would withdraw from Hong Kong by the end of this year. Amnesty says that the national security law is making it impossible to work freely without fear of Government reprisals. We have also seen the enforced closure of other non-governmental organisations and prosecution of their members under that law. Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong authorities have used the law to curtail freedoms, to punish dissent and to shrink the space for opposition, free press and civil society.
Since 2016, the UK has declared four breaches of the Sino-British joint declaration in response to Beijing’s actions. The joint declaration was registered with the UN on 12 June 1985. It is a legally binding international treaty that remains in force today. The joint declaration made it clear that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms would remain unchanged for 50 years from 1997. China undertook to uphold those freedoms of speech, of the press and of assembly, but the mainland Chinese authorities have shown an increasing propensity to breach their obligations in relation to Hong Kong. The national security law imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing in June 2020 contains a slew of measures that directly undermine those rights and freedoms. China’s own basic law for Hong Kong makes it clear that the territory should put forward and enact its own security legislation, but the direct imposition of the national security law clearly contravenes that.
Last year, China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee imposed new rules to disqualify elected legislators in Hong Kong. Last March, the National People’s Congress unilaterally decided to change Hong Kong’s election system. The changes give Chinese authorities greater control over who stands for elected office. Last month, 55 district councillors were disqualified and over 250 were pressured to resign for political reasons. This is a systematic and determined effort by Beijing to bring Hong Kong under its control, erasing the space for alternative political views and for legitimate political debate.
The UK Government are committed to holding China to account. We responded quickly and decisively to the enactment of the national security law. Following its introduction, the UK declared China to be in breach of the joint declaration, and we have declared two further breaches since then—that is three breaches in the space of just nine months. The UK now believes that China is in an ongoing state of non-compliance with the joint declaration.
Vicky Ford
China is paying a huge price for taking those actions against Hong Kong, not least China’s reputation on the international stage and let alone the impact it is having on the people of Hong Kong, which I will come on to now.
Last year, the UK introduced a bespoke immigration route for British nationals overseas and their dependants, providing a path to citizenship. The route opened on 31 January 2021. By 30 June, nearly 65,000 people had applied for the BNO route. We also suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong indefinitely and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. All of that answers my hon. Friend’s question about what price China is paying.
We have led action in the international community through our G7 presidency. In June, 44 countries supported a joint statement on Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet at the UN Human Rights Council. In July, we co-sponsored an event on Hong Kong during the UN Human Rights Council, speaking alongside a number of UN special rapporteurs. In October, we delivered a national statement during the United Nations Third Committee, reiterating our deep concerns about the deterioration of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong under the national security law. The Chinese and Hong Kong authorities can be in no doubt about the seriousness of our concerns, and those of the international community.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister will have seen this weekend that China is not always that bothered about its reputation on the international stage. Surely the removal of the Amnesty International office in Hong Kong ought to be the canary in the mineshaft? Amnesty is not an organisation that gives up easily in these contexts and the fact that it has removed its office should be a warning. Is this not the point, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) said, where we really begin to get serious in relation to Magnitsky sanctions?
Vicky Ford
Let me turn to exactly that point and to the specific points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, starting with sanctions.
Since establishing the global human rights sanctions regime in July 2020, we have imposed sanctions on 78 individuals and entities involved in serious human rights violations or abuses, including in Belarus and Myanmar, as well as in Xinjiang in China. On 22 March, the former Foreign Secretary announced that under the UK’s global human rights sanctions regime, the UK imposed asset freezes and travel bans against four Chinese Government officials, as well as an asset freeze against one entity responsible for enforcing the repressive security policies against many areas of Xinjiang. Those measures were taken alongside the US, Canada and the EU, sending a clear message to the Chinese Government that the international community will not turn a blind eye to such serious and systematic violations of basic human rights. Those listed face travel bans and asset freezes across the US, Canada, the EU and the UK. Together, we make up a third of global GDP, which amplifies the impact and reach of our actions.
We will, of course, continue to consider sanctions, but I cannot speculate here who may be designated for sanctions in future, as that very speculation could undermine the impact of the designation, if it happens—I hope that my hon. Friend understands exactly what I mean by that point. We will continue to consider them, but we cannot speculate because to speculate would undermine the impact.
My hon. Friend mentioned the participation of British judges in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. British judges have played an important role in supporting the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary since handover, but it is for the judges to make their own decisions about their continued service in Hong Kong. It is right, however, that the UK Supreme Court, in discussion with our Government, continues to assess the situation in Hong Kong.
My hon. Friend raised concerns about young Hongkongers accessing the BNO scheme. I reiterate that nearly 65,000 had applied for the BNO scheme by June, which shows how valuable it is. The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic and moral commitment to those who retained ties to the UK by taking out BNO status at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997. Those with BNO status and eligible family members can come to the UK to live, study and work on a pathway to citizenship. Those who are not eligible for the BNO route may consider other UK immigration routes that are available. These include the new points-based system and the youth mobility scheme, which is open to those aged between 18 and 30.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of those who had served with the armed forces—loyal Hongkongers who served Queen and country—and, like him, I have huge respect for the service they have given. He mentioned amendments that have been tabled to the Nationality and Borders Bill. I am afraid I cannot answer those questions on asylum and immigration here at the Dispatch Box because they will be for the Home Secretary to answer, but I thank him for putting those matters on the agenda this evening.
Let me be very clear: there is a stark and growing gulf between Beijing’s promises on Hong Kong and Beijing’s actions. We will continue to stand up for the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. We will continue to bring together like-minded partners, call out violations of Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms, and hold China to the obligation that it willingly undertook to safeguard the people of Hong Kong and their way of life.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Food (Promotion and Placement) (England) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain distancing as far as possible. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. 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 on the estate or at home. It would be a kindness to email any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate with Ministers electronically.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Food (Promotion and Placement) (England) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This statutory instrument introduces restrictions on promotions of less healthy products sold in-store and online in England. It requires businesses in England with over 50 employees to restrict promotions of less healthy products. Promotions of less healthy products will be restricted by location, which will apply to store entrances, aisle ends and checkouts, and their online equivalents. Promotions of less healthy products will also be restricted by volume price, which will restrict buy-one-get-one-free and three-for-two offers. The restrictions apply to the products that are of most concern in relation to childhood obesity, while allowing the healthiest products within categories in scope to be excluded.
The aim of this policy is to reduce the overconsumption of products that contribute to children being overweight or living with obesity. We aim to achieve this by shifting the balance of promotions towards healthier options and maximising the accessibility of healthier promotions.
The instrument applies only to businesses in England. However, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been engaged throughout the consultations. Subject to Parliament’s approval, the regulations will come into force from 1 October 2022. The Government announced their decision to introduce legislation to restrict promotions in our healthy weight strategy in July 2020. These regulations and other proposed measures will support people in achieving and maintaining a healthy weight. The policy will play a vital role in ensuring that we achieve our ambition of halving childhood obesity by 2030.
Obesity has huge costs to society. The indirect cost to the UK economy of obesity-related conditions is an estimated £27 billion each year. Improving poor health outcomes is a key part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Children living in the most deprived areas are more than twice as likely to be obese than those living in the least deprived areas. We know that tackling obesity will have a positive impact on children’s health, and may therefore help in improving health disparities across the country.
The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the impact that obesity can have on people’s health. People who contract covid-19 are more likely to suffer worse symptoms and are at increased risk of dying if they live with obesity. This demonstrates why tackling obesity is an immediate priority to support individuals and the NHS. Data shows that children and adults in the UK are consuming too much sugar, saturated fat, salt and calories. However, they are not consuming enough fibre, fruit and vegetables.
The shopping environment plays an important part in the way that products are marketed to us, with simple factors such as the location of products significantly affecting purchases. UK food and drink promotions reached record levels in 2015 and were the highest in Europe, with 40% of the food and drink people purchased being on promotion. The latest data shows that we buy almost 20% more as a direct result of promotions. Less than 1% of food and drink products promoted in high-profile locations are fruit or vegetables. Research shows that promotions can influence food purchases and often determine eating habits. Currently, such offers tend to be widespread for less healthy, processed and treat-type products, at the expense of healthier choices.
Children are vulnerable to the techniques used to promote sales. Although promotions appear to be mechanisms to help consumers to save money, the data shows that they increase consumer spending by encouraging people to buy more than they had intended. Consumers typically do not stockpile their extra purchases to take advantage of the lower price; instead they increase their consumption.
Some businesses already have policies in place to restrict promotions. While we are grateful for their action, such commitments are not implemented consistently or at scale, so they do not support a level playing field for either businesses or consumers.
The introduction of legislation will help to ensure that healthier food is more accessible, ultimately saving families money and supporting people to lead healthier lives. We recognise that smaller businesses may find implementing the restrictions more challenging, which is why we are requiring only medium and large businesses to restrict promotions. Guidance to support the regulations is being developed with input from businesses and local authorities, and will be published to support implementation after Parliament has approved the regulations. We understand that the change is significant and want to ensure that businesses are supported to comply.
One in three children leaves primary school overweight or obese, and around two thirds of adults are above a healthy weight. The need for action is clear. We know that people struggle to choose healthier options in the face of endless prompts to consume less healthy food. We are tempted to buy foods that are not on the shopping list, but hard to resist. These promotion restrictions mark the start of a change in this environment to empower people to make healthier choices.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer.
The regulations are the latest part of the Government’s obesity strategy to come through the system. The official Opposition have so far been quite gentle with the Government about the strategy because, although it is modest and misses many impactful elements, we want it to happen, so we have sought not to scare off the Government from acting. That is also true for issues of promotion and placement, but it is hard not be a little disappointed, as I shall set out shortly.
The case for change in this area is strong. The UK has among the highest childhood obesity rates in western Europe. One in four children is overweight or obese when starting primary school, and the number is one in three by the time they move on to secondary school. These children are more likely to become obese adults—at present, one in four adults is obese—and therefore to be at risk of diabetes, heart disease, fatty liver disease, cancers and mental health conditions. The situation is worse in poorer communities such as mine. Indeed, one in three adults in the most deprived areas is obese, compared with one in five in the least deprived. The discrepancy among children is even more alarming: more than twice as many children are obese in the most deprived communities compared with the least, and that gap has nearly doubled under this Government.
It is important to state that any health improvements arising from the regulations, or indeed from the entire obesity strategy, will be knocked into a cocked hat by the impact of the cut to universal credit, which will push those with the least back on to cheaper and less healthy food options. There is therefore a disconnect between the regulations and the rest of the Government’s policies.
The regulations control high fat, sugar and salt food and drink. Such products can be part of a balanced diet, but their regular overconsumption has a significant impact on people’s health and wellbeing and leads to the diseases that I listed. There is no doubt that in-store promotions are incredibly effective in influencing what people buy. As the Minister said, people buy 20% more than they intended due to promotions. Again, that hits the poorest hardest, because they do not realise savings from that approach; they just consume more.
Cancer Research UK has shown that greater volumes of HFSS are likely to be purchased by those who are overweight or living with obesity, so there is a direct correlation between promotions and obesity. It is therefore right to take action to address the situation, not by limiting people’s freedom of choice, but instead by supporting them to make healthier choices. The public are aware of the issue and support change. I note from the regulations’ impact assessment that the majority of consultation responses were positive about such an approach, and academic evidence supports it.
I want to explore some practicalities with the Minister. First, this is to be enforced by local authority trading standards. The Government have slashed resources for trading standards over the last 11 years, including only three weeks ago in last month’s Budget, so I hope the Minister will tell us what assessment she and her officials have made of the capacity of local authority trading standards to enforce any of this. Similarly, I have received many concerns—I am sure other Members have too—from representatives of the business sector about questions that they think the Government have not yet addressed. Indeed, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores have compiled a list of 25 priority questions. I hope the Minister will commit today to engage properly with those organisations and to address each of those questions.
I have some questions of my own for the Minister. The new rules will apply, as she said, to medium and large entities. This is a mirroring caveat to those introduced in the Calorie Labelling (Out of Home Sector) (England) Regulations 2021, which we dealt with in the summer. They made sense in that case because requiring smaller businesses to calculate the calories in their products and provide bespoke menus to demonstrate that would have been an onerous responsibility. That would apply to the placement element of these regulations, because if a business is smaller it will be harder not to have things near the till. That seems fair. But why does it apply to promotions? Why is it more onerous for small businesses rather than medium businesses or franchises to not provide a three-for-two or a buy one, get one free? I think of my own childhood: if we wanted to buy cigarettes before we were allowed to, we knew the shops that would sell them to us. Similarly, I fear that children will know, because they are crafty, the difference between an independent shop that can sell two for one and a chain shop that cannot. That will create a market disruption that will undermine the goals of the regulations. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
On the timeline, the Minister said that she wants to support businesses to make sure that they can do this. There is a strong sense from the sector that October 2022—less than a year away—will be too soon to implement it. It will be costly and complex, and businesses are asking for a six-month delay. Normally, my instinct would be to say, “Well, in the case of health and wellbeing, we need to get on with it and business will be creative and find a way.” But in this case, we have asked these same businesses in the last year to reconfigure their stores to make them covid secure for staff and for customers, and they have stepped up and done a magnificent job. We are now asking them to do a secondary configuration, still within the covid-secure measures, and perhaps then another reconfiguration after covid security is no longer needed. That is quite a big ask, and I am keen to hear from the Minister whether the Department has considered that. If not, will she engage with the industry to talk about the timelines?
The detail of the regulations will be in the guidance. We respect that some of the more technical issues, such as what constitutes a specialist store or what is a meal deal—an existential question for the 21st century—will not be on the face of the regulations, but we are asking business to make a really significant change in 11 months’ time and we still cannot tell them now what changes we will ask them to make. They will need to know the details to give them even a fighting chance of making that deadline. In which case, can the Minister say when the guidance will be published, because the sooner that can be done the better?
My final point is one of great frustration that the regulations are not as good as they could be for many of the reasons that I have just mentioned, including handling the issue through secondary legislation. Recently, I and other colleagues—including the Minister, for a while—spent weeks just down the corridor dealing with the Health and Care Bill in Committee for sitting after sitting between the beginning of September and the end of October. Part 5 of the Bill included elements of the obesity strategy, especially the advertising ban, and that gave us the opportunity to table amendments, take evidence and have full discussions of those provisions. We will have similar opportunities to improve them in the remaining stages and in the Lords. Why were these draft regulations not treated in that manner? If we had done that, we would have pursued many amendments, because there are holes in the regulations. Instead, however, we have been given a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.
We will not vote against something that we think will have a positive impact on the public’s health, but I hope the Minister—she is relatively new to her role and I know her well from our east midlands work—will be reflective about her practices and those of her Department. The ban on flavoured tobacco was pushed through in a similar manner, but fundamental questions were not really addressed. There was not an awful lot of engagement with business or political colleagues, and the thing has not worked—there are workarounds—because the regulations contained gaps that Ministers could easily have been helped with. However, due to a lack of flexibility and pragmatism those gaps were not closed and the ban has not worked, and Ministers will eventually have to return to the matter. I fear that today’s draft regulations will face the same fate, because the workarounds are quite clear.
I will not impede the proposal’s progress today, but the Opposition are disappointed, and I hope the Minister may address some of our disappointments in her closing remarks.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
I have a couple of questions because I am slightly confused as to the definition of “prepacked” with regard to prohibited goods. The draft regulations refer to various categories of food, including
“Category 3: Breakfast cereals including ready-to-eat cereals”.
What is meant by “ready-to-eat” when it comes to “other oat-based cereals”? Oat-based cereals, such as oat flakes and Oatibix, are actually very good for people, so I wondered whether they are included in that category.
Maggie Throup
I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North for his contribution and support and my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey for his query.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North asked several questions. On the cost to the consumer, as I said in my speech, promotions tend to be a mechanism to help consumers save money, but data shows time and again that they increase consumer spending by encouraging people to buy more than they intended and to buy items that they did not intend to purchase, which also increases their consumption.
On enforcement, the Government are committed to ensure that enforcement of regulated policies is proportionate and fair and to support local authorities and the judicial system with any additional costs they incur as a result of enforcing these powers.
On striking a balance, this is about trying to support the consumer while also supporting businesses, which is why we felt it was fair to exempt smaller and microbusinesses and apply the regulations to medium and larger businesses only, basing the definition on floor space as well. That approach is more measured than having something apply across the board. It is important that we get this right, as the hon. Gentleman said, to ensure that we have an impact on the nation’s health while allowing businesses to implement the measures proportionately.
The hon. Gentleman asked about implementation and the guidelines. Obviously, we will publish the guidelines once the legislation has been passed, and it is important to ensure that we continue to involve the different parties to get things right. There has been a lot of engagement already, and we must ensure that it continues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey asked about prepacked products. Such products have the contents printed on their packaging, whereas it is hard to know the contents of some non-prepacked products. Once again, this is about taking a measured approach.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, this legislation is part of a range of measures that form part of our healthy weight strategy, which will empower people to live healthier lives. They want to do that, and the strategy will help them. This policy is a critical part of that strategy.
Our published impact assessment shows a positive net present value for the policy, outlining how the health benefits outweigh the costs to business, which I hope reassures the hon. Gentleman. Our estimates show that the policy will have a net benefit to society of around £7 billion pounds over the next 25 years. The location restrictions alone would provide NHS savings of over £4 billion pounds. It is estimated that an average person will consume 50 to 70 fewer calories a day as a result of the restrictions. Small reductions in calorie intake, sustained over time, can help to address the significant incidence of overweight and obesity. We are committed to making the healthier choice the easy choice for families.
I understand that these are novel requirements, and we want to ensure that we are supporting businesses to implement them. We took the decision to extend the implementation date from April 2022 to October 2022 as we believe that strikes the best balance between allowing businesses enough time to prepare while not significantly delaying the health benefits, so the implementation date has already been extended once. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders in preparation for implementation, as I have indicated, and further evaluate the impact of the promotion restrictions to ensure that they achieves the health benefits and policy aims effectively.
Our ambition is to halve childhood obesity by 2030 and reduce the gap in obesity between children from the most and least deprived areas. All of us need to get behind that ambition and play our part in making and facilitating healthier decisions, providing healthier options, and creating healthier environments. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Caulfield
The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), is hosting a roundtable with organisations including the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses to improve support for and understanding of the menopause, which will make recommendations to Parliament in November… The Women and Equalities Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North, is about to hold an inquiry on menopause and the workplace. I look forward to its recommendations…I wish briefly to touch on the women’s health strategy, because I mentioned it in the debate last week. It will be published towards the end of the year.
[Official Report, 29 October 2021, Vol. 702, c. 538.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield)
Errors have been identified in my speech.
The correct information should have been:
Maria Caulfield
The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), is hosting a roundtable with organisations including the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses to improve support for and understanding of the menopause, which will make recommendations to the Department for Work and Pensions in November…The Women and Equalities Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North, is currently undertaking an inquiry on menopause and the workplace. I look forward to its recommendations…I wish briefly to touch on the women’s health strategy, because I mentioned it in the debate last week. We are aiming to publish it towards the end of the year.
Maria Caulfield
For a woman currently prescribed HRT on a three-monthly interval, moving to a 12-monthly repeatable prescription will make a saving of £66 a year.
[Official Report, 29 October 2021, Vol. 702, c. 539.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield).
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct information should have been:
Maria Caulfield
For a woman currently prescribed HRT on a three-monthly interval, moving to a 12-monthly repeatable prescription will make a saving of £56.10 a year.
Petitions
AQUIND Interconnector Project
Haworth Post Office
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Road Traffic Offences: Fatal Collisions
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I draw everyone’s attention to the safety guidance issued by the House of Commons Commission, and I ask everyone to be considerate of others and keep their distance where possible. Thank you all very much.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 323926 and 575620, relating to road traffic offences for fatal collisions.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. E-petition 323926, started by Louise Smyth and Helen Wood, with the title “Tougher sentences for hit and run drivers who cause death”, opened on 20 July 2020 and closed on 20 January 2021, and received 104,324 signatures. It states:
“The maximum penalty for failure to stop after an incident is points and a 6-month custodial sentence. Causing death by careless/dangerous driving is between 5-14 yrs. The sentence for failing to stop after a fatal collision must be increased.
Our sons, Matt aged 25 & Paul aged 23, were both killed on their motorbikes just 9 months apart. Both drivers fled the scene. We are not the only families to have suffered this tragedy or endure unjust sentencing. We at the Roads Injustice Project want the laws changed as we feel they are both outdated and unfair. Tougher sentences are needed for the life sentence we have to deal with every single day from the loss of our son’s due to the actions of somebody else.”
On 28 August 2020, the Ministry of Justice responded to the petition, saying:
“It is wholly irresponsible for drivers to fail to stop and report an incident. However, the offence of failing to stop should not be used to punish an offender for a serious, but not proven, offence.
We were very sorry to read of the deaths of Matt and Paul; our sympathies are with their families and friends.
Failure to stop and report offences are often referred to as ‘hit and run’ but this is not an accurate reflection of the offence. The offence is designed to deal with the behaviour relating to the failure to stop, not to provide an alternative route to punish an offender for a more serious, but not proven, offence.”
E-petition 575620, started by Leanne Saltern, with the title “Ryan’s Law: Widen definition of ‘death by dangerous driving’”, opened on 2 March 2021 and closed on 2 September 2021, and received 167,470 signatures. It said:
“The offence of causing ‘death by dangerous driving’ should be widened to include: failure to stop, call 999 and render aid on scene until further help arrives.
A hit & run driver left my brother Ryan in the road & he died. Hiding for 36 hours, charged with failure to stop, the driver received a suspended sentence/fine. Failure to stop/careless driving offers lighter custodial sentences & focuses on fines/suspensions. Drivers should STOP, ring 999 & render AID until help arrives. If they do not they should face charges for death by dangerous driving. The Law should require this & aim to reduce the number of hit & runs & roadside deaths. With this definition, a minimum 10 years-max life sentence, citizens would be better protected.”
On 24 March 2021, the Department for Transport provided a response identical to that given by the Ministry of Justice, apart from this sentence:
“Ministers are aware of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Ryan Saltern and extend their sympathy to family and friends.”
The DFT added:
“The Government takes this issue seriously. The Department for Transport is looking into the issue of such incidents of failure to stop resulting in death or serious injury, and exploring whether there are further options that can be pursued.”
It is no surprise that those in favour of a change in the law say that there is a perverse incentive for a driver who is under the influence of drink or drugs to leave the scene of a traffic collision, thereby avoiding a drink and drugs test by the police. If they hand themselves in to the police later, they cannot be tested because of the time that has elapsed and are likely to avoid a more serious offence or penalty.
I met the petitioners virtually last week and listened to their heartbreaking stories, which reduced me to tears. I cannot image the pain they have gone through and are still going through. They have come to Parliament today. I met them again this afternoon and they are in the Public Gallery this evening. I cannot pretend to understand the depth of their grief, but I commend their courage and tenacity in wanting something good to come out of their grief.
On 29 August 2018, 25-year-old Matt Smyth left his girlfriend’s house at about 3 am. He was heading home on his motorbike on the A1307 when he was hit by a delivery van that pulled out of a side junction into his path. The driver stopped briefly at the scene but then drove off, leaving Matt lying in the road. A passing HGV driver found Matt about 25 minutes later. The driver who had collided with Matt came to a stop a few miles up the road and telephoned his employer. He told his company that he had hit a deer and his van was damaged, so it could not be driven. The company arranged for him to be sent a new van and he continued on his delivery round before going home to bed.
The police caught up with the driver, Mr Ricardas Taraska, later that day when he was still asleep in his bed. Mr Taraska was charged with causing death by careless driving and failing to stop after a collision. The prosecutor said that it was inconceivable that the driver did not realise that he had hit a motorcycle, because Matt was thrown on to the van’s bonnet and the driver had to manoeuvre around Matt’s body and motorcycle.
Mr Taraska was sentenced to 14 months, of which he served only five months, and he was disqualified from driving for 31 months. The judge said that it was a “grossly irresponsible act” not to stop, and that driving around Mr Smyth’s body and the wreckage of a motorcycle was inexcusable. On the morning that Matt was killed, he had been due to attend his first midwife’s appointment as a father-to-be. Matt never lived to see his daughter, who is now two and a half years old. Matt’s father was also tragically killed in similar circumstances 18 years ago while he was driving his motorcycle.
Matt’s best friend, Paul, was 23 years of age when he was killed nine months later. Paul left for work on 24 May 2019 at 6.45 am on his daily motorbike drive to work. He was hit by a Range Rover that pulled out in front of him. The driver, Mr Cooksey, got out of his vehicle and lit a cigarette. A witness at the scene spoke to Mr Cooksey and noticed the smell of alcohol on his breath, but he ran away and hid behind some trees before walking to Cambridge train station. There, he got into a taxi to go to a pub in Romford, where he lived. He drank eight pints of lager before handing himself in to the local police station that evening, and he could not be breathalysed because he was intoxicated. Paul was pronounced dead at the scene.
Mr Cooksey had been disqualified from driving the previous month, and had previous convictions for drink driving and driving while disqualified. He admitted drinking heavily the evening before until about midnight and said that he was driving his car at about 5 am, but that could not be proved because he had left the scene, and he continued to drink until he handed himself in to the police. The judge said that the driver was “devious and untrustworthy”, with
“a bad record for driving offences that have resulted in disqualification and even prison sentences”,
and:
“No sentence…will ever reflect the loss of a human life”.
Mr Cooksey admitted failing to stop at the scene of the collision and was found guilty of causing death by careless driving, causing death while disqualified from driving and causing death while driving uninsured. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment—he will serve half, or less—and banned from driving for four and a half years. Paul’s family told me that they have not been the same since he was killed. His family are living a life sentence, but the criminals on our roads are not punished in accordance with their crimes.
Our loved ones need to be recognised as human beings, not wing mirrors or bits of metal damaged in a road traffic collision. The hit and run, or leaving the scene, sentencing guidelines were put in place many years ago. They need updating to encourage drivers who have caused a collision to stay and get the help needed for the victim, potentially saving the lives of hundreds of victims on our roads every year.
Ryan Saltern, a postman, husband, and father of young children, was killed in the early hours of 28 July 2019 while walking along the single-track B3267 to a party. He was hit by a driver who did not stop. Ryan’s body was dragged beneath the car and he died of catastrophic injuries. The driver made no attempt to stop, and Ryan was subsequently left in the road to be discovered by the next passing vehicle. The forensic investigation proved it was the failure to stop that caused the injuries relating to Ryan’s death.
The driver, Mr Wayne Shilling, was identified some 36 hours later after being reported to the police by his own father. A blood test proved negative for alcohol because of the time that had elapsed, and it was too late to conduct a toxicology test. Mr Shilling admitted to failing to stop and failing to report an accident while he was driving home from a carnival, at which witnesses said he had been drinking. Mr Shilling told the police that he felt a slight bang and did not realise that he had hit anyone, but the collision was found to have punctured his car’s radiator.
Mr Shilling received a sentence of four months—suspended for 12 months—and he was disqualified from driving for 12 months, given an evening curfew for four months and ordered to pay a £207 victim surcharge and prosecution costs. Ryan’s family believe that the law protects not the victim of crime, but the criminal, and that it is a total injustice to Ryan. Although Mr Shilling chose not to answer questions leading up to and at the trial, he admitted at the coroner’s inquest to drinking four cans of alcohol before hitting Ryan. He has never displayed any remorse whatsoever to Ryan’s family, and he taunts them.
Ryan’s family believe that when a driver hits a person, they should stop, ring for help and remain on the scene, rendering aid when possible, appropriate, and necessary, and as instructed by emergency services. When a driver does not to do this, they should be considered a dangerous driver and a minimum sentence should be set, ultimately encouraging drivers to stop after a collision. Stopping at the scene will help to save lives and identify those who have genuine accidents, as opposed to those who leave the scene to protect themselves. There are many more cases like Ryan’s, with drivers escaping justice by not stopping at the scene.
I also met virtually with Alison Hernandez, who is the police and crime commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and the road safety lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. Alison launched a strategy in 2018 to create the safest roads in the UK. A 2020 APCC road survey received 66,266 responses from across England and Wales, and 81% of respondents believed that road offences required more enforcement.
This is not the first time that these life and death issues have been debated in Parliament. On 8 July 2019, the former Member for Warrington North introduced a debate on e-petition 236952, “Violet-Grace’s Law – Life sentences for Death by Dangerous Driving”, in memory of four-year-old Violet, who was tragically killed when a stolen car was driven at 83 mph in a 30 mph zone. Violet’s nan was with her and suffered life-changing injuries. The driver and his passenger did not attempt to help Violet and her nan; they fled from the scene. There is evidence that they had to step over the bodies of Violet and her nan, lying in the road, when they got out of the stolen car. The driver not only fled the scene, but fled the country and went to Amsterdam. When he eventually returned, he and his passenger were sentenced but served less time in prison than Violet was alive. For people to have confidence in the law, it has to protect the innocent, punish the guilty and deter further offences. However, families believe they have not had justice with the imposition of unduly lenient sentences.
The offence of causing death by dangerous driving was not introduced until the Road Traffic Act 1999, but even then there were widespread complaints that the Crown Prosecution Service often charged people with the lesser offence of careless driving, because it was felt that doing so was more likely to lead to a conviction. In 2003, the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was increased from 10 to 14 years. The Road Safety Act 2006 introduced the offence of causing death by careless driving, and of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified, or uninsured. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 introduced the offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, which is punishable with a sentence of up to five years. The Criminal Courts Act 2015 introduced the offence of causing serious injury by driving while disqualified, which is punishable by four years’ imprisonment and a fine.
In October 2017, following a consultation in which 70% of respondents thought that the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving should be increased from 14 years to life imprisonment, the Government announced that they would do so when parliamentary time allowed. A one-clause Bill would have had widespread support across the House and from the public, but the Government failed to find any parliamentary time. Nearly three years later, on Tuesday 21 July 2020, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), introduced a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment, and for connected purposes. She said that
“dangerous driving is an all too familiar phrase”
that does not reflect
“the tragedy and devastation of lives that lies behind it.”
She told the House about her constituents, saying that
“19-year-old…Bryony Hollands died at the hands of a dangerous driver—a driver under the influence of drink and drugs. He was sentenced to eight years and served just four years in jail…Ciara Lee’s husband Eddy was killed on the M4. The driver responsible was sentenced to just 22 months”.—[Official Report, 21 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 2039.]
She also spoke of 13-year-old Max Simmonds, who was hit and killed by a driver who was under the influence of drugs. The Bill was short, specific, and targeted. It would have allowed judges to retain the discretion to decide the appropriate length of sentence, as well as providing greater scope and enabling more severe sentences. It would have done the Government’s work for them.
The latest statistics provided by the House of Commons Library show that the current law does not cope with these offences. In 2020, there were 2,467 prosecutions and 1,889 convictions for failing to stop or report a road traffic accident; the most common sentence was an average fine of £289. A small number of people received custodial sentences, the average being 3.6 months. In 2020, there were 184 prosecutions and 154 convictions for causing death by dangerous driving; the most common sentence was immediate custody, with an average sentence of four years and seven months.
In September 2020, the Government produced a White Paper. Clauses 65 and 66 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill propose increasing the maximum penalties for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, and for causing death by dangerous driving, from 14 years’ to life imprisonment, and they create a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. That Bill is currently going through Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) moved new clause 20 in the House of Commons on 5 July 2021. It proposed a maximum sentence of 14 years where a driver fails to stop and exchange details or to report the accident to the police in cases where they knew or ought reasonably to have known that a serious or fatal injury had occurred or might have occurred. The then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice said that
“more work needs to be done to identify that class of driver who manipulates the system and evades responsibility in a way that clearly outrages the community and offends the wider public.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2021; Vol. 698, c. 675.]
On 8 November, at Committee stage in the House of Lords, the right hon. Lord Paddick moved amendment 161, which had wording very similar to that of new clause 20. Lord Paddick stated that six months may be appropriate when someone drives off after scraping the paintwork of someone’s parked car, but not when someone is left dead by the roadside.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
My 31-year-old daughter, Jennie, was hit by a car just over 100 yards from my house 13 months ago. The driver drove off, came back to look at the scene, and drove off again. My daughter died nine days later. The driver received a 12-month custodial sentence for careless driving but is now appealing that sentence, as it is, I think she believes, disproportionately hard. Does my hon. Friend agree that at the very least —the very least—sentencing guidelines need a full, thorough and substantial review, to assure families left bereft that justice is done?
Christina Rees
I thank my hon. Friend—my dear friend—for his intervention. Sometimes words are not enough to express what you must be going through and what you have been through. I completely agree—completely agree.
Lord Paddick moved provisions including a new subsection of section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, to cover hit-and-run collisions, and mentioned the petitions that we are debating this evening. He said that they highlight the inadequacy of the existing legislation. Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb spoke in support, calling hit-and-runs a menace and saying that judges should have available a range of sentences to reflect the severity of the offence and that there should be a lifetime driving ban for a hit-and-run driver fleeing the scene—a cowardly thing—and trying to escape justice. As she said, it is a life-and-death situation for the person who has been hit.
Responding for the Government, Baroness Williams of Trafford gave the standard response that we have heard so many times this evening. She said that her
“ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport understand the concerns that have been raised”
and are “exploring options”, including
“the available penalties and how the offence operates as part of long-term and wider work on road safety.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2021; Vol. 815, c. 1557.]
It was on that basis that Lord Paddick withdrew his amendment.
The petitioners, and many more families who have lost loved ones in road traffic collisions, do not want any more warm words and empty rhetoric from the Government. They want the law to be changed. I have read a portfolio compiled by Leanne Saltern that features hundreds of families who have contacted her after losing a loved one in circumstances similar to those of the petitioners. It made me cry. No sentence will ever make up for the tragic loss of a loved one, and families have been constantly told that reform will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.
The time is now. Will the Minister urge his Government to change the law, as set out in the petitions, and will he meet the petitioners and other families in order to give them the opportunity to be heard? They must be heard.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I am pleased to be called in this extremely important debate, which I have been anticipating for quite some time, and I congratulate the Petitions Committee on securing it.
I pay tribute to Ryan and Ryan’s family, who are in the Public Gallery. Ryan lived locally to my constituency in Cornwall with his wife and son, and I believe he worked in Truro as a postman. I also thank the more than 270,000 people who signed the petitions, including nearly 4,000 people in my constituency. I believe that something like 14,000 people across the Devon and Cornwall police area have signed the petition.
As we have heard, Ryan was killed in a road incident in which the driver left the scene and did not report it for 36 hours—in fact, he did not even go in of his own accord at that stage. The driver had been seen drinking that evening and later admitted to failing to stop and failing to report the accident. As we have heard, the punishment was woeful. There is no question but that the punishment did not fit the perceived crime, which led to the campaign by Ryan’s family. They have been campaigning for tougher sentences for those who fail to stop and report an accident, and they set up the petition calling for Ryan’s law, whereby the definition of death by dangerous driving would be widened.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) has been working incredibly hard on this issue and that he will agree about the need for change. We have been working towards increasing the sentencing range for failing to stop and report an accident. Both he and I have had meetings over the past few months with Transport Ministers, as well as the former Secretary of State for Justice, to discuss Ryan’s law specifically. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall is present and, like me, awaits with interest the Minister’s update on this matter.
In addressing representations around the specific law change on Third Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill back in July, the then Lord Chancellor said that his
“ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport are working to explore options with my officials about how these offences will work in the wider context.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2021; Vol. 698, c. 675.]
Since then, however, I know that the Department for Transport has been working on an options paper and has highlighted the complexity of the area, which has brought up issues that will require further investigation in order to fully assess the potential impact of any legislative changes. I know that the Department for Transport has been seeking external views, to ensure that any changes are done correctly as part of a plan for a wider call for evidence on road traffic matters.
I appreciate the meetings and the work that the Minister, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Transport have given MPs such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, and I understand the complexities around the specific law change demand. However, we have heard, and will no doubt continue to hear, tragic cases such as Ryan’s where the punishment does not fit the crime. I read Ryan’s petition. It took me some time. I was incredibly moved by the number of stories similar to Ryan’s; it is emotional to read. I am sorry to say that this is not an unusual situation, however shocking these stories are. I am afraid to say that they are all too common.
We must do something positive while we have the opportunity. We just cannot keep the status quo, which leaves grieving families such as Ryan’s and others bereft of justice. We are better than that. I hope that we are better than that as a whole society—I know that we are better than that as a Government. I hope that the Department is genuinely actively considering and working towards this vital law change to ensure that those who fail to stop and report an accident properly face a punishment that fits the crime.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the petitioners who brought this subject to Parliament for debate, which reflects a growing concern in the country and, indeed, the House about how, increasingly, when it comes to road crime, the punishment does not fit the crime. Offenders all too often get off with a paltry fine, a suspended sentence or a ridiculously short driving ban, if they get a ban at all, while the loved ones of the victims are left devastated and grieving for the rest of their lives.
The debate is particularly timely because the Government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is going through the House as we speak, which gives the Government an opportunity to address these concerns and put right these injustices. However, I am afraid to say that, so far, I have seen little evidence, apart from warm words, that they are serious about doing so. They recommend a number of changes to some of the penalties, which may go some way to addressing some of the historical concerns around road safety and road crime, depending on how they are implemented, and may deal with some of the most egregious road crimes. However, they do not do anything to tackle the much larger number of fatal and serious injury cases that do not always attract the headlines but treat as careless driving what is actually dangerous driving and are over-reliant on prison sentences rather than driving bans, allowing offenders all too often to escape a ban by pleading exceptional circumstances, as well as severely limiting the sentences for causing serious injury, rather than death.
In my view, the Government could easily do three things—I hope they will—to go a lot of the way to addressing some of the concerns of the families here today and more widely. First, they could bring forward the full review of road traffic offences and sentences promised nearly eight years ago—not the partial review referred to in the House of Lords last week, not the limited proposals in that Bill: nearly eight years ago, we were promised by the former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), a full review of road traffic offences and sentences. We need that. I ask the Minister where it is.
Secondly, as we heard, the Government could address the scandalously low maximum sentence for hit and run. I do not think that many people out there realise that the maximum sentence for hit and run, or leaving the scene of an accident, is six months in jail. As we heard from Lord Paddick in the other place, that might be appropriate for scratching somebody’s car but not for leaving somebody seriously injured or dying in the road, often with the motive of getting off being tested for drink or drugs or getting away with the crime altogether.
I have not heard a convincing argument from the Government as to why they cannot adopt my amendment to considerably increase the sentence for that offence. If there is one, I would like to hear it. I do not accept the argument that doing so would offer a way of prosecuting people unfairly for accidents that they were not responsible for. Leaving the scene of an accident, or a driver leaving someone who they know is probably seriously injured or dead, is a serious enough offence in itself to warrant a longer sentence than six months. We heard some tragic cases, but there are many more cases that we do not hear about. The number of hit-and-run cases has increased exponentially in the last 10 years, and we have to do something about that.
Thirdly, I hope that the Government will look again at how, far too often, drivers get away without a driving ban by pleading exceptional circumstances. One case that sums that up well is that of cyclist Lee Martin, who was killed by Christopher Gard in 2015. That was the ninth time in six years that Gard had been caught using a mobile while driving. He had been convicted six times, fined and sent on a driver retraining course, but he had escaped a ban by pleading exceptional circumstances before going on to kill Lee. He should have been disqualified.
In the last 10 years, 80,000 cases have occurred where road criminals should have received a ban but were let off after pleading exceptional circumstances. Courts have accepted as exceptional circumstances the need to do the school run and the effect a ban might have on a relationship—that brings the law into disrepute. The Government should do something about it. Again, I tabled an amendment to the Bill in Committee that would do that, but they have not accepted it. I implore them to look at it again when it comes back to the House of Commons.
In many cases, a driving ban is a more appropriate punishment than locking in prison someone who does not pose any danger to the public except when they are on the roads. We do not use driving bans nearly enough in this country and we do not have long enough bans when they are used.
The Government are in danger of missing an historic opportunity to use the Bill to address some of the dreadful injustices that we have heard about, and the many others that we have not heard about. To be behind the wheel of a vehicle is to be in charge of a lethal weapon. For far too long, our laws and courts have treated driving as a human right rather than a privilege to be earned and, if needed for others’ safety, to be taken away. I hope that the Government will think again and not squander that opportunity.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I was going to say that it is a pleasure to speak in the debate, because it is a pleasure to speak, but it is a very emotive subject, as other right hon. and hon. Members have said. I am aware of those in the Gallery who have experienced something that we will try to put forward for them and hopefully illustrate with words. I thank the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who spoke about his personal experience, and the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for setting the scene appropriately and, importantly, with the right mood.
I thank the Petitions Committee for the opportunity to have the debate and all those who took the time to sign the petition and allow us to debate a worthy topic. I will try to give a Northern Ireland perspective on the debate, because what has happened is replicated across the whole great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I recently read some documentation from the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland. It stated:
“Over the last five years, 56 people have lost their lives here due to ‘excessive speed having regard to the conditions’. Many, many more have been seriously injured…Every 1 mph reduction in average speeds causes, on average, a 5% reduction in collisions. This could be”—
and clearly is—
“the difference between life and death.”
For too many families, there will be an empty chair at the Christmas table this year, and a spot in many hearts that will forever feel empty. We do all we can to fight cancer, diabetes and heart disease—things that are difficult to control—yet deaths that are preventable and that simply should not happen seem to be accepted. That is why we look to the Minister, as the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said, for legislative change. That is what we hope the debate will achieve.
This debate highlights the preventable nature of some deaths. Where there is fault, such as someone repeatedly checking their Snapchat on their phone, as has been referred to, and making no effort to stop driving, there must be consequences. In the past, the right hon. Member for Exeter tried to introduce legislation, and he referred to that. I very much support what he said, and I challenge anyone in Westminster Hall, or outside, not to support it as well. It is legislative change that is needed, and it is legislative change that will make the difference. The right hon. Gentleman summed it up well. The amendment to which he referred would be appropriate and a substantial move in the right direction.
When I read the premise of this debate, my heart ached for the families. I express my sincere sympathy to Matt’s, Paul’s and Ryan’s families. I also express my admiration for the steps that have been taken to prevent other families from suffering the same torment and to save other families from knowing that their loved one was hit and then abandoned. We have heard specific examples, but there have been many others. I absolutely support the families in their efforts to prevent other families from feeling what they have and to ensure that the message is clear: people cannot run away from an accident; they must face it and take the consequences.
In this place, when we legislate, we all know that the sentence should equate to the seriousness. I believe that we need to legislate more firmly for the message to be clear. However, we must get the changes right. I note that the briefing by Cycling UK states:
“Indeed, there are reasons to fear that the Government’s overall legislative package could well prove counterproductive”—
the Minister, in his reply at the end, can give his thoughts on what Cycling UK says—
“by creating a much stronger incentive for drivers facing prosecution for causing death to argue that their driving was merely ‘careless’”
and therefore not dangerous,
“while simultaneously making it easier to do so by creating a new offence of causing serious injury by ‘careless’ driving. The introduction of causing death by ‘careless’ driving in 2008 led to roughly a halving in the number of prosecutions for causing death by ‘dangerous’ driving, even though the definitions of ‘dangerous’ and ‘careless’ driving had not changed. We fear the proposed new offence could have a similar effect.”
I fear the same.
With great respect to the Minister, I think those are the questions that the families, and we as right hon. and hon. Members, need answers to. We are not putting the Minister on the spot, but I beseech him to respond in a way that the debate and the mood of the debate demand, reflecting the seriousness of the situation and the responsibility of the Government and himself to respond.
To finish, it is clear that any changes must ensure that prosecutors have the ability to make the punishment fit the crime and not overcomplicate the system. With respect, I look to the Minister to outline how this House can achieve that goal. Too many lives are gone, with too much hurt, too much pain and not enough acknowledgement in law. That has to change. I support the petition that the hon. Member for Neath introduced and ask for meaningful legislative change to be the result of this difficult and emotionally draining debate.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on presenting the petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I pay tribute to everyone who has lost their life in tragic circumstances and to their families, some of whom are present today.
Road safety and reckless driving are huge problems in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. I receive endless correspondence from constituents wanting to bring these issues to my attention. We hear too often that Keighley’s streets are being used as a racetrack, and the consequences of dangerous driving can be catastrophic. Reckless driving can prove fatal, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss the tragic consequences of reckless driving in my constituency and across the UK.
I am afraid to say that a fatal accident happened near Eastburn, right on the boundary of my constituency, only a few months ago, resulting in the tragic death of George Lewis—a nine-year-old boy. It was a hit-and-run incident and the driver—a 49-year-old man—fled the scene, later turning himself in at a police station, where he was arrested. That nine-year-old boy died at the scene, and the person he was with was also hit and injured. Earlier this year, there was another collision in my constituency, on the Addingham bypass, which sadly took the lives of two more people. These crashes were the result of reckless, dangerous driving.
Instances such as these and those mentioned by other hon. Members show the importance of addressing these issues and the sentences that are necessary following these fatal collisions. We must ensure that sentences for reckless driving do justice to any victim of such horrific incidents and their families. That could also provide a proper deterrent to make people think more carefully about driving dangerously in our communities. The petitions we are debating call for tougher sentences for hit-and-run drivers who cause death and for widening the definition of dangerous driving, and I wholeheartedly support both those notions.
It is important to widen the definition of dangerous driving so that it includes failure to stop after involvement in a traffic accident. The fatal incident in Eastburn that I mentioned was a hit-and-run incident, and it is absolutely right that those who leave the scene after being involved in a car crash face tougher consequences. We must strengthen the sentences for those convicted of dangerous driving, so that we take note of those who leave the scene after the crime, as well as failure to report the incident. After all, who knows what the consequences would be, or what better circumstances would prevail, if the driver did not leave the scene and reported the incident straightaway, ensuring that provision can get there quicker? The current punishment of six months’ imprisonment or a fine is not strong enough, and it absolutely needs to change. It is paramount that we address the issue.
Reckless driving is a huge problem in Keighley and Ilkley and across West Yorkshire and, as I have mentioned, it can lead to tragic results. Hit-and-run drivers are cowards trying to flee responsibility. They are cowards for not facing up to the consequences of their actions. Justice is needed for the families of the victims, and strengthening the definition of dangerous driving and the punishments for those who commit the worst crimes is essential. Ultimately, changes to the law will help prevent such tragic circumstances, and I stand with those campaigning to make that happen.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship in this important debate, Mr Rosindell. I thank the Petitions Committee, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for her powerful speech introducing the debate. I thank the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed the petitions and particularly the families who have come here today, who are sitting in the Gallery. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who was so brave in describing his tragedy. His experience and the experiences of our constituents bring home what an important issue it is. It is a cross-party issue.
I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking. In 2017, when we were still the all-party parliamentary cycling group, we published a report on justice and the legal system, which made a number of recommendations about changing the law. Some of those recommendations were subsequently incorporated into law, but more can be done, as I will discuss shortly.
Three years ago this month, I led a debate in Westminster Hall on this very topic. We had a useful response from the then Minister with responsibility for transport, who repeated his announcement that the law was changing, and I congratulate the Government on the changes they have made. We thank them for increasing the maximum sentence for dangerous driving from 14 years to life and for increasing the sentence for careless driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol from 14 years to life. The Government are bringing in a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, with a maximum sentence of two years.
I congratulate the Government on what they have done to encourage more people to cycle and walk, using covid emergency legislation. They have brought in funding and regulatory changes that make it safer to walk and cycle in those areas where local authorities have used that funding and regulatory change, particularly in areas that have created more space for cycling. However, we will not get more people cycling until or unless the conditions on the road not just feel safe, but clearly are safe. The same goes for motorcyclists, who are proportionately among the most frequent victims of road traffic incidents.
I also thank the Government for bringing in revisions to the highway code. Those revisions, about the hierarchy of road users, are supported by many organisations that represent vulnerable road users. There is now an expectation placed on the vehicle driver, who is driving a potentially dangerous metal can weighing several tonnes at speed at people on bikes or motorbikes, walking or in buggies. That is good, but we need improved messaging about the revisions, because I do not think most drivers, possibly even most police officers, are aware of them.
I thank Living Streets, British Cycling, Cycling UK and the Road Danger Reduction Forum for providing Members with useful briefings and statistics, all of which bring home the importance of this issue. Every time road safety has been discussed in this House, Members from all parties have taken part, and today we have heard from the hon. Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We all have experiences of incidents where justice has not been done for the victims of road traffic collisions and their families. There is still more work to do to get that to change.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is currently going through Parliament. I thank the Members of the House of Lords for taking some amendments forward, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter for his amendment to the Bill when it was in this House. We will discuss these matters again on consideration of amendments. We need to clarify the distinction between careless and dangerous driving. Driving should be deemed careless or inconsiderate if it involves a breach of the highway code that causes inconvenience, intimidation or danger to another road user, and it should be deemed dangerous where a breach would lead to a driver being failed automatically if they drove in that way during a driving test.
We also need to ensure that the maximum custodial sentences for causing serious injury do not fall vastly below those for causing death by equally bad driving, while strengthening the role of driving bans for offenders whose driving has clearly caused danger but who are not obviously dangerous persons. We have heard examples today of repeat offenders who are clearly dangerous and who need to be imprisoned to ensure public protection. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, there are others for whom a driving ban would be sufficient punishment because they are not otherwise dangerous people.
We need to strengthen the penalties for those who continue to drive while banned; align more closely the offences and penalties for causing death and serious injury while under the influence of drink or drugs with those for causing death and serious injury while driving while disqualified; and create a new offence for causing serious injury while under the influence, with a maximum sentence of five years. We also need to increase to two years the maximum sentence for opening the doors of vehicles in a manner that results in death or serious injury. A woman died in such a situation on Chiswick High Road in my constituency many years ago.
I want to address another point that I do not think has been mentioned today but which we raised during our 2017 inquiry. A number of people get off and avoid a ban—or successfully appeal against one—after receiving 12 points or more, which should result in an automatic ban. To make an analogy with a serious house burglar or someone who carries out an assault in the street, they do not get off and avoid their sentences because they need to go to work or look after their children, so why should somebody who causes serious injury through dangerous or careless driving be let off a driving ban? I agree that a driving ban should be used more, but it should be imposed more by the judicial system.
Safer roads mean that more people will walk and cycle. That will reduce congestion, improve health, reduce pollution and improve the economy because those vehicles that need to be on the road will be able to get to their destination faster. Our sympathy has to be with all those who have lost a loved one through death by dangerous driving. We in this place can act on that sympathy, and offer more than just words, by strengthening the law.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.
Last Thursday in my constituency a three-year-old girl was killed by a hit-and-run driver while crossing a zebra crossing. The 24-year-old man who was driving fled the scene but was arrested later. On Sunday 29 August my next-door neighbour, a 61-year-old bus driver, was struck by a car while walking to work. The car had been stolen and had false plates, and it was being driven by a 20-year-old. Last week he received a sentence of three years and eight months. My neighbour did not need to go to work that day. He only went because he donated all the money he earned on a Sunday to charity. Ghulam Nabi was 61 years old. The dangerously driven car had been stolen—no insurance—and the driver fled the scene. It was only after police released the CCTV images that he handed himself in. Had that not happened, I believe that he would never have handed himself in. If we look at the crime committed and the sentence given, we see that there is no comparison. A three-year-old girl, crossing a zebra crossing with her mother last Thursday on Reddings Lane in Tyseley in my constituency lost her life to another reckless driver. At what point do we say, “Enough is enough”?
These tragedies are examples of fatalities due to reckless driving in the UK, which is a growing concern not only for my constituents but in every constituency across the UK. In both examples the drivers fled the scene, failing to demonstrate any concern for the victims. Such callous behaviour warrants serious punishment under the law. Measures need to be brought forward to help to stem the rise in reckless driving. Every year, road traffic accidents claim over 1,700 lives, with many more injured. Imagine 1,700 lives being taken in another way. There would be uproar. That is 30 to 35 lives being taken on a weekly basis, yet the punishment does not seem to match the crime.
Equally, I believe that councils need more resources to adapt the street scenery in a way that is safe for pedestrians, children and cyclists, and encourages motorists to automatically reduce their speed. We cannot provide 24-hour policing on these roads, so we urgently need to address the issue of street scenery, which can only be done through Government providing resources to councils, and also punishing the culprits of these callous and senseless acts, where people flee the scene and show no remorse for their actions. Not only do we need tougher measures to encourage safer driving; the repercussions of killing someone through reckless driving are currently nowhere near adequate. Sentencing for hit and run drivers must be toughened, and in my view the offence of causing death by dangerous driving should be widened to include the failure to stop, call 999 or render aid on the scene until further help arrives.
This is a plea from everyone in the room. There has not been a single contribution that I can disagree with today, whether it was about constituents in Keighley or any other constituency that has been mentioned—or indeed from those who were unable to make it here and put their cases. It is a plea to the Minister: this needs to be addressed with seriousness, and doing so will receive support from Members on both sides of the House.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure as always to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I am sure you will agree that we have heard a powerful and emotional debate, in the best traditions of the House, with first-class arguments used by hon. Members who have raised the issues so far. My heart goes out to those in the Public Gallery, and to my good friend the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), for the most tragic circumstances that they have found themselves in; because that is what the petitions before us today deal with.
It is really difficult to imagine how hard it must be to deal with the grief of losing a child or sibling in this way and still feel that justice has not been served; because it is the concept of justice that is at the heart of these petitions. It is perfectly acceptable for all of us to have differing opinions on what justice is. For some, it is the right punishment for those who have committed a harm to another; for others, it is the chance to get answers and to hear an explanation, or an apology. Of course, it can be a combination of both those things, but the fundamental principle is that the perpetrator of the crime is held to account. And the understandable frustration in the petitions arises from the feeling that neither of those concepts is fulfilled when a person flees the scene of an incident.
As we have heard, the Road Traffic Act 1988 deals with failing to stop or report an accident, and with dangerous and careless driving offences, which are the two fundamental types of offences engaged in instances of hit and run. As both petitions suggest, there is a gulf of disparity between the sentencing guidelines for failure to stop after an incident and those for death by dangerous or careless driving. As we have also heard, the former has a maximum six-month custodial sentence, while the latter has a maximum custodial sentence of between five and 14 years.
The Government have reiterated in their responses to the petitions that failure to stop offences are more often than not low-level traffic incidents, such as the clipping of a mirror or the scuffing of a bumper in a car park. However, on occasions where the failure to stop or report an accident relates to an incident that leads to the death or serious injury of another person, it can be an aggravating factor in the sentencing decision.
The question that we are considering today is whether that situation is good enough. It is a question that has gathered interest in recent years, as hon. Members have said, first with the consultation for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and then with the amendments to that Bill tabled by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), which would have created a new offence of failing to stop or report accidents where the driver knew that the accident had caused serious or fatal injury, or where they ought reasonably to have realised that it might have done so. I hope that the Government will consider the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment in the Bill Committee. He will certainly have my support for it, as he does for many other amendments he tables in the House.
It is the disparity between sentencing for failure to stop or report an accident and that for causing death or serious injury by carless or dangerous driving that has led hon. Members to suggest that there is a perverse incentive for people to flee the scene of an accident. This has been said before and it has been said again today. As hon. Members have explained, if a driver under the influence of drink or drugs kills someone and remains at the scene, the likelihood is that they will be tested, charged and prosecuted for that offence. However, if they flee the scene and have time to sober up, and there is no other evidence of careless or dangerous driving, they can be prosecuted only for the minor offence of failing to stop or report an accident. We really must deal with that situation in the future.
Just two months ago, on 11 September, 18-year-old Aidan Pilkington was struck by a car and killed on Crow Road in Glasgow. The driver of the car fled the scene. Aidan was about to move to Dundee to attend university and he was so well loved by his friends that they kept a daily vigil for over three weeks at the spot where he was killed. To date, an arrest has still not been made and the driver—whoever they are—remains out there, on the roads, in the knowledge that at 2 am on 11 September they struck a bright, well-loved young man and ended his life. Could it be that the driver was under the influence of either alcohol or drugs, or was driving a vehicle that they had no right to drive? That is something we really need to deal with, and I have the support of hon. Members who seek a change in the law.
The Scottish Government and Police Scotland are committed to reducing road deaths by half over the next 10 years. That is an ambitious target, but such commitments are required in order to make our roads safer for us all. Deaths and serious injuries caused on our roads can often be prevented, and it is our duty to ensure that we do all we can to improve driver behaviour and educate road users. The new road safety framework of Scotland sets out a vision for Scotland to have the best road safety performance in the world by 2030.
In conclusion, although the current measures go no way to achieving justice for the families who have tabled these petitions, what is happening in Scotland may go some way to ensuring that we prevent such tragedies. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government are looking at education to improve driver behaviour, and answering the calls for tougher sentencing and new laws to address the points raised in these petitions.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell.
I am very pleased that the Petitions Committee managed to secure a slot for this important debate, fittingly at the start of Road Safety Week. I hope that we have been able to do justice to the topic this afternoon, for the sake of the families and friends of victims of driving offences, particularly the families and friends of Matt, Paul and Ryan, some of whom are here today.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on a thorough exposition of the reasons behind the petition and why a change in the law is needed, and on going further and meeting the families and friends. It is really important—I say this as a former member of the Petitions Committee—that we do justice to the petitioners, which is not always the case in these debates. I hope that they feel we are at least speaking up for them today. It cannot have been easy for them to relive their personal tragedies in pursuing the petition, but I understand they felt compelled to do so to try to ensure that others do not have to go through the same hellish experience. My hon. Friend commended their courage and tenacity, and so do I.
Some people might recall the case of Kevin Duggan, who was killed in 1998 by a drink-driver. Anyone who has grown up in Luton, as I did, knows the Duggans. There are an awful lot of them. They are a big Irish family. Kevin’s father, Declan, campaigned for the law to be changed four years later to give doctors the right to take blood samples from unconscious drivers, because in the case of Kevin they were not able to do so. That shows how tenacity, of which he had huge amounts, and campaigning can pay off. I urge the petitioners to continue, because we have to do better. As we have heard today, far too many lives have been lost in road traffic accidents. In far too many cases, drink-driving is involved.
In 2019 it was estimated that between 210 and 250 people were killed in accidents in Great Britain where at least one driver was over the drink-drive limit. As the Labour spokesperson, I want to assure the petitioners that road safety is a priority for us. We have supported increasing the maximum penalties for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink and drugs from 14 years’ imprisonment to imprisonment for life. We have also supported the introduction of a new offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving, fixing a gap left by previous legislation, which would set the maximum penalty for the offence on indictment at two years’ imprisonment.
I do not want to dwell too much on the contributions made by other speakers today, because it is important to allow the Minister time to speak. Rather than reiterating specific asks from the petitioners, and particularly from Cycling UK, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) more than did justice to, I want to ask about the full review of the road traffic offences framework that was promised in 2014 but never happened. I have pressed Ministers on that. They failed to provide a timeframe for the review, so will the Minister clarify whether a review will still go ahead and when? As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath said, the time to do it is now. There can be no excuse for further delay. Unfortunately, when it comes to road safety, at the moment the Government are steering us in the wrong direction.
Last week the Department for Transport introduced changes to driving tests, including the removal of the requirement to take a separate test to tow a trailer. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) campaigned on that after the death of a young child in her constituency.
The Labour party recognises the urgency of the need to expand testing capacity in the light of HGV driver shortages and the consequent damage to UK supply chains, but we are concerned about the safety implications of such changes. If they do go ahead, they should be temporary.
In the last week or so we have seen a damning report by the Select Committee on Transport on smart motorways. The shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), and I have met the families of some of those involved in deaths attributable to the lack of a hard shoulder. It is clear that the botched roll-out should be paused until appropriate safety measures are in place so that no other families have to go through the grief that they have experienced.
Lastly, as we have heard, cyclists are especially vulnerable road users. I will not go into detail, but cycling campaigners have raised concerns about the lack of deterrents for drivers fleeing the scene after collisions with cyclists; the inadequacy of sentencing; the car dooring offences; and the ability of drivers to defend their actions by labelling them careless rather than dangerous. I hope that the Minister will address those concerns and set out what consideration the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Attorney General have given to strengthening legal protections. I would like to know in particular what recent discussions have taken place between the Department for Transport and the other Departments that I have mentioned.
I know that many victims of driving offences will be listening closely to the Minister’s response, so I hope he will offer some reassurances that the matter is a priority for the Government. At the moment, as we mark Road Safety Week, it does not appear to be.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for opening this petitions debate relating to road traffic offences for fatal collisions and to specific concerns about the offence of failing to stop and report.
I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have spoken with such passion about families in their own constituencies and across the UK, many of whom have been fighting for justice for some time following what has happened to their loved ones. I thank in particular the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who spoke movingly about the death of his daughter.
I reassure all Members that the Government take road safety seriously. It is at the core of the work of the Department for Transport, especially as we are working so hard to boost walking and cycling across the UK. Many of the cases that have been mentioned have, tragically, involved pedestrians or cyclists.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
More than 1,000 people in my Lancashire constituency of Leigh have signed the petition on Ryan’s law. Will the Minister give those people assurances that the Department is looking at both clarifying and strengthening the law on this matter?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for that point—I hope he will bear with me, as I will come to that in more detail. Like other hon. Members, I know the strength of feeling in my own constituency, where dangerous driving is a top concern for residents.
Let me be clear: any death or serious injury on our roads is unacceptable, and our deep condolences go to victims and their families. My ministerial colleague Baroness Vere of Norbiton, the Roads Minister, has met families of victims of similar incidents, as well as MPs who are campaigning for their constituents, including my hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) and for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory).
We understand the tragic circumstances that have led to the petitions and to the concern that, in some cases, something is perhaps not working with the law. Although we must do all we can to improve the safety of our roads, we must also be careful that we do not make any rash decisions that could ultimately make things worse, or create other unforeseen effects, in a rush to resolve problems with the way in which the law currently operates.
I will start by turning to the current offence of failing to stop and report. In the case of failure to stop and report, we know that in a small number of cases the failure to stop may be related to an event that leads to death or serious injury to another person, but we must not forget that in the vast majority of cases convictions for failing to stop involve low-level traffic incidents such as hitting a wing mirror on a narrow street. It is only in an extremely small number of cases that there may not be any other evidence to connect the death or serious harm with the driver who failed to stop, meaning that the only offence that they have committed is that of failing to stop and report.
I understand the concerns that have been raised about the matter, which has previously been brought to the attention of my Department. However, increasing the maximum sentence for failing to stop and report, even in a limited scope where there has been a serious or fatal injury, cuts across the basis for that offence. I must stress that the offence of failure to stop and report is designed to deal with the behaviour relating to the failure to stop; it is not provided as an alternative route to punish an offender for a more serious but unproven offence. Increasing the custodial sentence so that it is comparable to sentences for causing death by careless or dangerous driving, or including it in one of those offences, would represent a massive uplift in the potential sentence, for an offence that I remind hon. Members requires no evidence of a causal link between the failure to stop and the death or serious injury.
It must be remembered that where there is evidence that a driver has caused harm, there is already a range of other offences, including causing death by serious injury or dangerous or careless driving, with which the driver can be charged. In those cases, courts can treat the failure to stop as a factor that adds to the overall seriousness of the offending. That can result in the offender receiving a higher sentence. Where there is evidence that the driver knew about the incident and took steps to avoid detection, they can be charged with perverting the course of justice—a common law offence that already carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Kerry McCarthy
Does the Minister have any details on how often that has been invoked? It is one thing to say that they could be charged with perverting the course of justice. Does it ever happen?
Andrew Stephenson
It is unwise for Ministers to comment on prosecutorial or judicial decisions. I was reading this week about a case just outside my constituency where somebody who had failed to stop was charged with death by dangerous driving. We need to look at the suite of options for the charging authorities. Simply strengthening the failure to stop and report offence may not be the most effective way of ensuring the justice that I know many families are seeking to achieve.
Chris Stephens
The concern that the petitioners and hon. Members have relates to the perverse incentive for people to flee the scene. Should there not be a new charge of failing to stop following a fatal or serious injury?
Andrew Stephenson
That is something that the Department has been looking at, and that Baroness Vere, the Roads Minister, has been talking to families about. We are keen to see more evidence on the reasons behind failures to stop and report such serious incidents. As I have said, it is clear that the majority of incidents that are treated as a failure to stop and report are low-level motoring incidents; however, we need to gain more evidence on the most serious cases.
In some of the cases cited today, drivers said that they felt they hit a fox or a deer. Various other people panicked. A range of justifications have been used. Whether they are true justifications or not, it is important that we understand the situation more. The University of Leicester carried out some research in 2017 on behalf of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, but we have to build the evidence base to ensure that whatever we do to reform the offences does not have unintended consequences, but strengthens the law and gets families the justice that they deserve.
Linking death or serious injury with a failure to stop as a cause, however well intentioned, could risk creating an unfairly severe offence. The law already imposes severe penalties for vehicle owners who cause death or serious injury, but a clear causal link needs to be provided between the driver’s behaviour and the outcome. The proposals in the e-petitions essentially equate the seriousness of a failure to stop with culpability for causing death or injury. I repeat that that would create serious anomalies with other offences, which could result in potential injustices.
I want to be clear, however, that the Government are not dismissing the concerns that have been raised. We are aware of the traumatic effects of such incidents, which we have heard so eloquently expressed by Members from all parties today. We agree that there might be something wrong with the law as it stands; it may not be working as well as it should in this area. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate from what I have already said that this is a very complex area, and any change in the law should fit within the current driving offence framework. Officials from my Department have been exploring options that could be pursued in this area. They include, but are not limited to: the available penalties; how the offence operates; how the offence is dealt with in the sentencing guidance; and the potential for a new offence as part of a longer term and wider approach to road safety. I am sure that officials will consider the points raised by Members from across the House in the debate today as part of their considerations of that offence. As the next step, the Department is considering conducting a call for evidence on parts of the Road Traffic Act. Although details are still being worked on, I expect this will include failures to stop and report as an offence.
Mr Bradshaw
Could the Minister possibly address the question of where the full review of offences and penalties has reached? Is that what he was talking about? He seems to be suggesting a call for evidence on just a few areas, but we were promised a full review. Could he also say something about the use of exemptions to get off bans; is that involved in this call for evidence? It is an egregious problem.
Andrew Stephenson
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Government committed to carry out this review of road traffic offences in 2014. A review of the most serious offences was carried out in 2017; the outcome of that review has fed into the measures that we are bringing forward as part of the police, crime, sentencing and courts Bill that was referred to by a number of hon. Members. Baroness Vere is looking at that and seeing how we could potentially go further. The further call for evidence would seek to build on the measures that we have already identified, and are bringing forward as part of the Bill—that would be in addition to the steps we have already taken.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for what they have said; their contributions are being listened to by officials in the Department for Transport and across Government. This is an area that we have to get right. I especially pay tribute to the families who have come here and taken the time to share their stories with right hon. and hon. Members.
Christina Rees
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their valuable and emotive contributions to this very important debate. The Minister has heard agreement that road traffic offences and sentencing for fatal collisions need to be fully reviewed and changed now, to strengthen sentences and close the loophole that allows drivers who run away after hitting and causing serious or fatal injuries to escape punishment.
The Minister is a magnanimous man, and I appreciate that, as he says, his Government are taking the issue seriously—as they should. Please, no more warm words or delays; we need change now. Justice must be done for victims and their families. It has been an honour and a privilege to meet the petitioners and represent them in this debate. I urge the Minister to meet the petitioners and listen to them directly—they must be heard.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 323926 and 575620, relating to road traffic offences for fatal collisions.
Water Companies: Sewage Discharge
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with the current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I also 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.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 582336, relating to the discharge of sewage by water companies.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley, and it is an honour to be leading the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The petition calls for an outright ban on water companies discharging raw sewage into watercourses. Personally, I think a lot of our constituents will be shocked to hear that it is currently legal for water companies to do this. How can it be okay for multimillion-pound businesses to absolve themselves of the responsibility for ensuring that our rivers and streams, and ultimately our seas, are free of harmful sewage?
I pay tribute to Ferry Harmer, who started the petition after seeing Feargal Sharkey raise some of the issues around the state of our rivers on the TV programme “Mortimer & Whitehouse: Gone Fishing” last year. I also thank the 111,434 people from around the UK who have taken the time to sign the petition, especially the 186 people from Gower who have signed it. I have had nearly 150 constituents get in touch with me about this issue in one way or another. That demonstrates the strength of feeling about this issue, which has featured recently in the news. When I spoke to Ferry, it was clear he is a man of real passion and determination. He spoke about the petition and told me that 41% of fish species are in decline in British waters. A third of species are in serious decline, including iconic fish such as salmon and trout.
Through my research, I have discovered astounding facts about the state of our rivers and waterways. Some 39 million tonnes of sewage were discharged into the River Thames alone in 2019—that is one river in one year. Last year, raw sewage was discharged into our waters more than 400,000 times, which is quite an incredible figure. This has now become an emergency for our waterways. Not a single river in England is in a healthy condition, not a single river meets a good chemical standard, and over 85% do not meet good ecological standards. Frankly, it is not good enough.
I am fortunate to represent arguably the best coastal community in the UK. The coast around Gower is popular all year round with families and tourists, and a growing number of local wild swimming groups took off during lockdown. It is the only contact that people have with the outside world, and it has been a saviour for so many people. The well-known Mermaids and other groups know that Gower has some of the best surfing in the UK. I will do anything I can to protect our vital ecosystem, seafood production economy and thriving tourist economy. I know that this is a devolved matter, but as I noted in a recent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time, this a UK-wide issue. What work is the Minister doing alongside the devolved Administrations, and what commitment can she give to do so, because these waterways, whether in England, Wales or Scotland, are all intertwined and all end up somewhere?
If sewage goes into our rivers and waterways, it will ultimately make its way to the sea, and even into our food chain through seafood and fish. I know we are all supposed to encourage recycling, but even I think that is going a little too far. The Government are failing in their duty of care here. The state of our waterways has not improved since 2016, despite ministerial claims that they are cleaning up their act. What is even worse, the unlawful discharge of sewage could be up to 10 times higher than the rate of prosecutions by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency is responsible for monitoring and enforcement of water quality breaches, but it has fallen foul of the Government’s cuts; its funding has been slashed by 63% since 2010. Simple measures such as the number of points at which samples are collected have been cut by more than 40%. How can we continue to monitor the health of our rivers if less data is collected?
The Government’s response to the petition mentions that
“water companies have agreed to make available real-time data on sewage discharges from storm overflows at designated bathing waters all year round from this year. This data will be made available to help surfers, swimmers and other recreational water users to check the latest information and make informed choices on where to swim.”
Who does not want to check the amount of human waste, used sanitary products and anything else people have flushed into the water before they go for a swim? That is not a delightful thought. Let us not forget the words of the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who back in 2018 told the Environmental Audit Committee that divergence from tough EU rules would be an opportunity for the UK Government to implement unquestionably tougher restrictions. He said that
“being different can sometimes mean being better”,
and that leavers did not automatically advocate for divergence out of a desire to lower standards. However, owing to Brexit, we have seen a shortage of heavy goods vehicle drivers and an increase in red tape, which has led to chemicals not being available to fully treat wastewater before it is discharged. What is more, the Government have granted permissions for the discharges to take place.
I am not here only to outline the increasing problems that the Government are exacerbating, because I have received suggestions of things that the Government could put into place to reverse some of the damage. To clean up our waterways, we need a fully funded and resourced action plan. We need targets for water companies and serious consequences when they break the rules. One way of doing that is to increase the environmental reporting requirement for water companies. I call on the Government to improve their plan to introduce annual reports, such as by making them quarterly reports. With more regular reporting and a system that allows for this, we can see where there are problem areas and react much more efficiently.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend also think there should be a requirement on water companies to report that information to their consumers, perhaps in the form of formal consumer committees of each water company, so that that company is more likely to be held to account by the very consumers who suffer from this dumping of sewage?
Tonia Antoniazzi
That is key. Accountability is needed. If we are to move forward, those consumer committees that my hon. Friend speaks of are exactly what we need: a practical solution in order to move forward.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce measures to reduce sewage discharge from storm overflows, but unfortunately this does not go far enough. The Government must eliminate sewage discharges. That is why Labour voted in favour of the Duke of Wellington’s amendment calling for exactly that. The Government’s aim of publishing a plan on this by September 2022 is just not good enough. Let us have that plan in place early next year. This has been dragging on for far too long, and there is no reason why we cannot have a strategy sooner.
If Ministers are serious about reaching the targets for cleaning our rivers, lakes, streams and seas, they must have a fully-resourced action plan for monitoring water quality and holding companies to account. However, there are also high-tech solutions that could be employed immediately. Ferry mentioned a system called HYBACS—hybrid activated sludge process—which does not sound absolutely delightful, but is cheaper and more effective than the system that companies are currently using. That sounds like a pretty obvious thing for the water companies to put in place. Where there are capital expenditure issues, it must fall to the Government to ultimately step in and protect the waterways. Natural mitigations can also provide solutions to this problem: reintroducing beavers, building more reservoirs and increasing tree and hedgerow planting.
The Minister has plenty to answer from my contribution, but I would also like to know how many water companies have been fined by the Environment Agency. How much have they been fined? When did the Minister last meet with the Environment Agency to discuss this?
I bring my contribution to a close by asking the Government to be bold in doing the right thing and getting our rivers and streams cleaned up. They should listen to the advice of experts: beef up the Environment Agency’s powers and keep pushing water companies to take responsibility, not just for those who signed the petition, but for everybody living in the United Kingdom.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley, and to have the opportunity to debate this important issue. I must start by saying that the Government’s new Environment Act 2021 goes further than ever to help to reduce water pollution in our rivers and seas, now and in the future. In many ways, it directly addresses a number of points that the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) has raised in today’s debate.
However, an orchestrated campaign on social media left many thousands of our constituents—people who really care about the quality of our water and river pollution—being bombarded with misinformation. The hon. Member has been very constructive in her contribution to this debate, as I am sure other Members will be, but I hope that the debate will ensure that the true facts are on the record—facts, not fiction.
The fact is that there is nothing new in this Environment Act that creates a right for water companies to dump raw sewage in our water courses. For the first time, the Act creates a statutory duty at the most accountable level of all—the top of Government—to better monitor water quality upstream and downstream of our sewage works, to reduce discharges from storm overflows, and to have clear plans on how to eliminate storm overflows completely in England, and those plans must be in place not at some distant date but in a year’s time. Those are real improvements.
The Act also establishes a new duty for the Environment Agency to publish storm overflow data annually, and water companies will have a duty to publish real-time storm overflow information too. That is quite different from what we saw in the social media disinformation campaign, which created such heightened concern and probably led to today’s debate.
Those are real improvements that matter in my constituency, because we are home to a rare north-flowing salmonid chalk stream, of which there are only 200 in the world. The Loddon springs out of the ground in Buckskin, in the centre of Basingstoke, in my own village of Mapledurwell, and in the surrounding fields. By the time it reaches the sewage works in Chineham, where discharges occur, only two or three miles away, it is still little more than a stream.
In 2006, a water cycle study was undertaken by the local authority to model the impact of large-scale house building, of which Basingstoke has undertaken a great deal in the last two decades, on the River Loddon. Since for more than a decade, I have been working with the Environment Agency and Thames Water to ensure that there are improvements and protections for the quality of our river and that the right measures are in place at our sewage works in Chineham. Indeed, it has one of the toughest consent levels in the country for phosphates. In 2015, some successful lobbying meant that new technology was trialled at the Basingstoke plant rather than it happening somewhere else.
We have been doing a great deal, but we welcome the extra measures in the Act to go further. Some aspects of the river have improved, but others have not. The Minister can help with some of those things, but others she simply cannot. For example, there has been a significant increase in the local crayfish population in the Loddon, which has tipped the river into poor status not because there has been an increase in pollution, but because the crayfish eat the eggs of the course fish. That kind of detail is often lost in social media campaigns, which can misrepresent the information that the Environment Agency gathers. I am interested to know what work the Minister will do to educate local councillors and schools on such information.
The new Act also provides the opportunity to tackle storm water discharges, which is incredibly welcome. Let us be clear: if those discharges did not happen, the storm water would simply flood homes and businesses, which would be completely unacceptable. The measures in the new Act mean that plans must be developed to reduce storm water and, eventually, eliminate it.
That is important for me locally, because in April 2020 an almost unprecedented amount of rainfall led the Loddon to experience 40 overflow events. There was insufficient space to store the quantity of storm water, so it had to be released into the river. The situation is unpredictable—there have been only two such events this year—but we need to ensure that future problems with increased rainfall can be dealt with.
A significant contributory cause of the problem is that house builders have an automatic right to connect rainwater drainage to the sewage system. I will focus on that for the Minister. The Government need to bring into force schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which removes developers’ automatic right to connect rainwater drainage to combined sewers, which can put additional storm water pressure on our sewage works’ capacity. What plans do the Government have to tackle that piece of legislation, which is still unenacted?
Overflows in Basingstoke are also caused by high levels of groundwater infiltrating the Thames Water network. Thames Water will work on that through a scheme to reline sewers from 2025 to 2030, plus two upgrades at the Basingstoke sewage works to increase capacity. I am concerned, however, that because Thames Water has done a significant amount of work on the issue already, it does not see Basingstoke as a priority for future investment.
The Act requires a plan to be in place to make improvements at every stage. I stress to the Minister that it cannot be right that a river such as the Loddon, which is little more than a stream as it runs past the Basingstoke sewage works, as I have pointed out, is subject to the same national storm water overflow rules as much larger bodies of water. Will she set out how plans to reduce and eliminate storm water overflow events can take into account the different size of water courses involved? The Loddon may have one of the lowest number of overflow events in the Thames valley, which makes it less of a priority for Thames Water, but it is a small tributary to the Thames when it receives overflow water in Basingstoke.
I pay tribute to the Minister’s work on the issue of water quality, on which she has made so much progress, and it is fitting that she should be responding to today’s debate.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
I am not imposing a formal time limit, but hon. Members should keep it in mind that if they take about five minutes each, we will comfortably get in everybody who wishes to speak. I now call Tim Farron, and I see you, Mr Morris.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley; thank you very much for calling me to speak. I am hugely grateful to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for not just securing the debate, but making an excellent start to it. I am sure that Members will forgive me if I focus much of what I say on the situation in my communities—the English lakes in Cumbria. We are probably the wettest part of England. Storm overflow is a daily thing for us, and we need to keep those lakes topped up, so we do not complain. We do complain about the water companies taking advantage of that in order to justify overflows that I think none of us would consider in any way acceptable.
Windermere, the largest lake in England and the reservoir of last resort for Greater Manchester, contains three designated bathing areas, which are of a good standard. I do not want to make the case that Windermere is an open sewer or anything like that; of course it is not. Nevertheless, on 71 solid days last year, United Utilities dumped raw sewage into that lake, and that is utterly unacceptable.
If we look at the other issues affecting phosphate levels in the lake, we see that perhaps a quarter to a third of all the phosphates in the lake are coming via septic tanks. There is a complete lack of registration and regulation of septic tanks, and no help for those people who have them. If we talk to people in the Environment Agency, who do a great job on the ground in Cumbria, they will say that the only way they know where the septic tanks even are is by a process of elimination, because they know what is on the mains and therefore what is not. That is not acceptable; we need to ensure that there is a proper system of registration, regulation and help for people with septic tanks, so that we can preserve and protect our lakes and the quality of them.
It is not just the lakes in south Cumbria that struggle and see the water companies take advantage of the permission that they effectively have to dump sewage into our waterways. The River Kent at Burneside, the Kent and the Gowan at Staveley and the Kent at Wattsfield in Kendal have seen sometimes catastrophic emissions. And in the likes of Burneside and Staveley, it does not even take much of a storm—not even a huge downpour—to see terrible raw sewage on the streets in those beautiful lakes villages. That is not acceptable.
We have to look at what the Government are willing and able to do to ensure that water companies do the right thing to keep our waterways clean and at a level that we would consider acceptable. I hear what has been said about the Environment Bill. I am massively sceptical about the Government’s amendment at the last minute. It does indeed take the Duke of Wellington’s wording about progressively reducing harmful emissions, and the duty on water companies. And there is a timescale for a report, but there is no timescale for improvement and there are no volume references when it comes to improvement, either. How much sewage is acceptable, for example? I can tell the Chamber that 40% of the phosphates in Windermere are down to United Utilities. Will 39% be acceptable, after five years—two years? These are the things that leave people sceptical about the amendment that the Government made last week, providing good cover for Conservative Back Benchers and a free rein for the water companies to effectively carry on doing what they have already and always been doing.
The hon. Member for Gower asked really important questions about fines that the water companies have paid. I submitted a written question to the Minister and I am very pleased that she answered a very similar question. The answer to the question of how many water companies in the last four years have been prosecuted and fined is that there have been 11 successful prosecutions in four years. Four of those prosecutions were for less than £50,000. In the north-west of England, there has not been one single prosecution since 2018. United Utilities nevertheless was guilty of five of the 10 longest discharges in the last year. We are seeing here a pattern of water companies being allowed to get away with murder and not being held to account.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene; he is making a very important point about enforcement. On Friday of this week, Thames Water will appear in court—I will not go into the details, for obvious reasons—for a case that it has taken the Environment Agency five years to bring to court. It had known that it was serious enough to require prosecution. Why does it take it so long?
Tim Farron
I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention and for his work in this area highlighting this issue. We have much to be grateful to him for. The point that he makes is absolutely right. We can have policies, but what good are they if they are not enforced or the water companies can factor into their spending plans that a fine of perhaps less than £50,000 is a small price to pay when they are able to dish out to their shareholders £2 billion in dividends each year?
I am absolutely proud of the English lakes and of our waterways. We have glorious lakes, rivers and streams in our community, and I want to keep them clean, but at the moment the water companies have permission to take advantage of the fact that they are allowed to have these emissions, and they are not being held to account via the legal process.
I would like the Minister to reflect on the issues raised today and to tell me what plan she has to help us in the Lake district to ensure that the best visitor attraction in the country, and the biggest outside of London, is kept clean and pristine, and something that we can all remain proud of.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
To get the remaining 12 Back-Bench speeches in, I will have to cut the time limit for speeches to four minutes.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.
I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, this really important debate; it is great to see so many Members in Westminster Hall for a debate on such a significant topic. Indeed, for me, cleaning up our river system by improving the water quality in our streams and rivers is incredibly important. In my constituency, we have the River Wharfe, which is the only river in the UK to have secured bathing water status so far.
I am very proud that, after decades of inaction, this Government are the ones who are doing something about this issue. Many people who signed this petition will have done so in advance of the Environment Bill securing Royal Assent last week. During discussions on this issue, many falsehoods have been put across by the media and—I have to say—by Opposition Members, who have used the many debates in recent weeks as an opportunity to capitalise on falsehoods in many arguments that have been put forward. I will use this debate as an opportunity to set the record straight.
Members in this place have never voted to allow water companies to pump sewage into rivers; what we have done is vote for a piece of legislation that will go to much greater lengths than we have seen before to clean up our rivers. With the Environment Bill securing Royal Assent last week, we have voted to put a duty directly on water companies to produce comprehensive statutory drainage and sewage management plans, setting out how they will manage and develop their drainage and sewerage systems over the next 25 years. Of course, we have also voted for a power of direction for the Government to direct water companies in relation to their actions in these drainage and sewage management plans. The Government will also have the ability to use their power of direction if those plans are not good enough, which is a powerful tool.
We have also voted for the Government to produce a statutory plan to reduce discharges from storm overflows—something that we are all incredibly passionate about in this House, because too often we have seen sewage getting into the river system by storm overflows not working correctly. Now the Government have the ability to put more pressure on water companies.
We have also voted for a requirement for the Government to produce a report setting out the actions that should be needed to eliminate discharges from storm overflows in England, and the costs and benefits of those actions. Both publications are required before 1 September next year. We have also voted for a new duty to be placed on water companies and the Environment Agency to publish data on storm overflow operation on an annual basis. Furthermore, we have voted for a new duty on water companies to publish real-time information on storm overflows. This will mean that it is absolutely clear how often storm overflows are being used, which will aid enforcement, because—I emphasise this—in my view the Environment Agency has not been strong enough in holding water companies to account; and yet we have voted for an Environment Bill that will do that. In addition, we have voted for a new duty to be placed directly on water companies to monitor the water quality upstream and downstream of storm overflows and sewage disposal works.
In July this year, the Government set out, for the first time ever, their expectation that Ofwat, the regulator in charge of monitoring both the water companies and the Environment Agency, should incentivise water companies to invest significantly to reduce the use of storm overflows.
I was proud to serve on the Environment Bill Committee, and I was delighted to see the Bill become law, and it is great to see that so many people across the country are so passionate about this issue. Cleaning up rivers is vital to us all, but it was deeply disappointing to see Opposition Members not vote for any of the mechanisms or measures that I have outlined in my speech. The Opposition make a lot of noise on this topic, but the Government act and, thanks to the Environment Act 2021, we may finally begin to stop sewage discharge getting into our rivers.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for introducing this important debate and for her speech, which I very much agree with.
The Rivers Trust has shown that there have been multiple sewer storm overflow incidents in the city of Salford, centring on the River Irwell and the Manchester ship canal. Last year, as we have heard, water companies dumped raw sewage into England’s rivers and seas 400,000 times, so it will take more than regulation to fix the problem. Indeed, the water industry has been regulated since it was privatised in 1989, and fining many water companies millions of pounds has demonstrably not affected their behaviour. Yorkshire Water and United Utilities have even tried to claim in court that they are not public authorities and should not have to publish data on sewage.
As a result of privatisation in 1989, our water and sewage are now run by nine regional private monopolies that are owned mostly by private equity. Since privatisation, water bills have increased by 40% in real terms. Eye-watering new research from the University of Greenwich shows that the water and sewage companies have paid shareholders a total of nearly £17 billion in dividends from 2010 to ’21—an average of £1.4 billion a year.
Over the three decades since privatisation, the privatised English water companies are estimated to have paid out £57 billion in dividends to shareholders. That is almost half as much as the money they have spent on upgrading and maintaining water and sewage systems. Worse, six water companies were found to be avoiding millions in tax, and the Financial Times has reported on the huge debt piling up in the water industry, which confirms that our water bills are rising to pay for huge shareholder pay-outs, not to invest in infrastructure. The truth is that privatisation of our water industry was wrong, and it has been a complete failure for the British public.
The good news, however, is that bringing water into public ownership would pay for itself within about seven years. After that, it would save the public purse £2.5 billion a year. That money could be invested in infrastructure to stop sewage pouring into our rivers, lakes and seas, as well to reduce leaks to save water and cut bills. The new public water companies could be democratically controlled, transparent and given a duty of care to take care of our environment, to clean up our rivers and seas, and to do everything they can to tackle the climate crisis. There is no excuse not to do this.
In Scotland, water is already in public ownership. In Wales, it is not for profit. In the past 15 years, 235 cities in 37 countries have taken their water into public ownership. I am sure we all agree that it is unacceptable for raw sewage to flow into our rivers and seas. If we are serious about tackling that ecological scandal, I stress that we must bring England’s water companies into public hands.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
This year, Southern Water was fined £90 million for pumping raw sewage into the sea. To take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), that was not a quick prosecution; it covered 2010 to 2015. This summer, there was raw sewage on the beaches of east Kent—devastating for holidaymakers and dreadful for the tourism industry. Inland, I have no doubt that sewage was going into our chalk streams also. That has to stop.
It will come as no surprise that I have been in regular contact with Southern Water about the issue. Indeed, I met the chief executive, Ian McAulay, and his engineer only last week to discuss possible ways forward. Notwithstanding the motion before the House this evening, it is clear that there is not a quick fix, and nobody should try to pretend that there is.
Certainly, there have been years of lack of investment in the infrastructure, and it will take a lot of money and engineering to get this right. More importantly, it will take a great deal of co-operation—a point that has been made to me that we all have to understand. This is not just the responsibility of the water companies. It is the responsibility of Highways England, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Environment Agency, Natural England and Ofwat. Unless and until all these bodies start working together, we will not solve the problem.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) made the point that we are building houses and connecting them to sewage. The volume of water coming off the roofs of housing, going down drainpipes, then into gullies and the sewers, is monumental. We are building more and more houses without the sewage and water infrastructure to handle what we are putting into the system. We have to separate out rainwater from sewage; we can do that.
I do not know of a single house being built with a grey water tank, for example. We are throwing all that water away. Very few houses have water butts. There is barely a yard of tarmac on the road that is porous, if there is any at all. In other countries, roads are porous. Why are they not porous in the United Kingdom? I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, yes, we have to hold the water companies to account, but we also have to ensure that the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government play their part, as well as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if we are to pull all the strands together and have a co-ordinated approach that looks to the future, and if we are to build us the houses, roads and drainage systems that we need for tomorrow, not for Victorian England.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing the debate and responding to the 111,000 people who signed the petition, 144 of whom were from Weaver Vale.
My constituency is rightly named after the River Weaver, which cuts straight through my community and has played an incredibly important role in my patch for centuries. After its canalisation in 1732, it became one of the most important commerce routes in the north of England through the transport of salt going right back to Roman times. That commerce led to the creation of the world-famous Anderton boat lift, and the renowned ICI works, now Ineos-Inovyn and Tata Chemicals, which is still a vital employer and led to the industrial expansion of Northwich.
Today, the River Weaver is a haven for wildlife and recreation activities, and it is arguably our greatest natural asset. Without the River Weaver, there would be no Weaver Vale. It is vital that we do everything we can to protect the river for future generations. That is why my constituents and I are disgusted that last year, raw sewage was regularly pumped into the River Weaver and the River Dane at an alarming rate.
The Rivers Trust reported that in 2020 alone there were 1,341 spills from storm overflows, amounting to a whopping 5,786 hours of spills, which is 241 days. Sewage discharges not only make river water unsafe for local people to swim in, but also damage the habitats of a range of species that use our waterways. The people of Weaver Vale want our local rivers to be free from raw sewage, so that our river systems can thrive; ecosystems depend on that.
Last week, I asked my constituents to contact me with their views on this matter, and there was an overwhelming response. Constituents such as Debbie Graham and Diana French argue that pumping raw sewage into our rivers is outrageous. It once again shows how profit is put before health and the environment. They call for tougher regulation of utility companies such as United Utilities. They were under the impression that their bills ensured that rivers were cleaned up. How about taking the shareholders and directors out of the equation, and investing the surplus—that £57 billion that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) referred to—in our waterways?
The recent Government-inspired amendment is nothing short of the “Blah, blah, blah” that came out of COP26. To put it bluntly, a vague statement of progressive reduction is talking crap, while giving the green light to more crap in our rivers and communities.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I am very grateful to you, Mr Paisley, for allowing me to contribute briefly to this important debate.
Philip Dunne
I was intending to intervene, but if I have a couple of minutes, I will take advantage of them.
The petition that the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) spoke to—I apologise to her for not being here for her speech—was stimulated by some of the campaign groups with whom I worked when I introduced my private Member’s Bill in 2020. It reflects, as Members have said, the widespread growing awareness of, and horror at, the state of our rivers as a consequence of the uncontrolled dumping of sewage in river systems by water treatment works and the water sewage system, which has been overwhelmed for a variety of reasons. I want to touch on two areas where it is really important that we take things forward, now that the Environment Act has become law.
I completely disagree with the description that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for whom I normally have a lot of time, gave of the amendment that was finally made to the Bill. He is simply wrong. The Act will lead to a progressive reduction in sewer discharges, and that will be enforceable in the way described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), and as I described in the closing stages of consideration of Lords amendments.
I want to touch on two points, one of them raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. We will have a planning Bill before us before long. It has to include measures for the proper separation of surface and foul water systems for new developments. Water running off hard standing in all new developments across the country can, through the right to connect, be connected to foul water drainage systems. That is what leads to an overwhelming quantity of water causing problems in the treatment works, which have not been expanded to cope with development over the last 60 or so years. It is a problem that successive Governments have contributed to by not investing enough in the infrastructure of our drainage systems.
The right to connect needs to be dealt with by our having the subsystem to require separation by developers. They should be required to contribute to the capital costs of infrastructure works under the ground; at present, they are not. They have to contribute to the connection charge, but not to the capital for works that would allow full separation for new developments, which is essential.
Finally, I encourage the Minister—I pay tribute to the work that she did to improve the Environment Bill, particularly as it went through the Lords—to adjust Ofwat’s priorities. She has the opportunity to encourage Ofwat, through its forthcoming strategic policy statement, to focus not just on leakage and keeping bills down, but on keeping sewage out of our rivers by investing more in the treatment network for which our water companies are responsible.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on her introductory remarks. As has been said, England has the worst river quality in Europe: 0% of rivers meet good chemical standards, and only 14% meet good ecological standards. We heard how raw sewage was dumped into rivers more than 400,000 times last year. I pay tribute to campaigners such as Surfers Against Sewage for the role that they play with the ocean conservation all-party parliamentary group. They have been pressing on this issue for a very long time. I also pay tribute to the indefatigable Feargal Sharkey.
I do not want to rehearse all the arguments that we had on the Environment Bill measures, other than to say it is very disappointing that the Government have repeatedly failed to back efforts by the Lords to protect our waters. I suspect that we will hear more from the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson on that.
Kerry McCarthy
I would rather not, because I have only a few minutes, and the right hon. Lady has already spoken.
I will talk about the local situation, but first, I want to express concern about reports that raw sewage spills in Honiton are threatening the first wild beaver colony to live on an English river for 400 years, which is part of a trial approved by the Minister’s Department. I hope she will agree that it is wonderful that beavers are being reintroduced into our natural environment, and I am very concerned about the threat to them.
In Bristol, particular issues have arisen recently. Conham river park is a popular wild swimming spot for local residents, and the—
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Order. We have a Division in the House and will come back in 15 minutes.
Kerry McCarthy
As I was saying before I was very rudely interrupted: I wanted to talk about particular local concerns. I pay tribute to The Bristol Cable for doing an excellent report on the problem, from which I will quote fairly extensively. There are two areas in Bristol where it seems to be of particular concern. One is the Conham River Park; this is a popular wild swimming spot, and one of my staff went—
Kerry McCarthy
I will give up on trying to talk about Conham River Park for a moment and talk instead about Warleigh Weir near Bath, which is another popular swimming spot. Multiple cases of sickness have been reported in swimmers there. In one of the most recent incidents, which took place a week ago, a storm overflow 4 km upstream had started releasing raw sewage into the Avon. Data since then—as I said, The Bristol Cable is reporting on this issue—show that sewage was dumped from the overflow 67 times last year. In total, Wessex Water, which I think covers the Minister’s area as well, released sewage into the natural environment more than 14,000 times in the first eight months of this year. It has to be said that Wessex Water has denied that this would cause swimmers to fall ill. It has suggested that it was agricultural run-off, wildlife or whatever, but I would argue that sewage bears a fair part of the responsibility. The Conham Bathing Water group has carried out tests and found that, at their worst, E. coli levels were over 20 times what the World Health Organisation deems to be a sufficient level for people to go swimming.
We know that the cost of changing the sewerage infrastructure would be massive and would be added to bills, but the problem has got too bad for us not to seize the initiative and act. The Environment Agency has recently given the green light for water companies to dump even more sewage into the rivers due to Brexit-related chemical shortages. As has been said, we need a properly resourced Environment Agency and long-term, legally enforceable targets on water quality. This situation cannot just be allowed to slide. I am not quite sure what the process is, but the campaigners at Warleigh Weir and Conham River Park are campaigning for designated bathing water status. Does the Minister have any advice on how they can achieve that? How will she ensure that rivers in our area are suitable for swimming in?
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing the debate and for her opening remarks.
I am really pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on behalf of the 140 residents of Dulwich and West Norwood who signed the petition to ban raw sewage discharges, and the thousands of others in my constituency for whom this is an important issue. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I pay tribute to our Chair, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), for his commitment and work on this issue over many months.
I recently had the opportunity to visit the River Windrush in Oxfordshire, where a group of local residents have come together as Windrush Against Sewage Pollution in order to take action on the impact on the ecology of the river of Thames Water’s frequent discharges into it. I pay tribute to them for their work, which has been instrumental in the struggle to hold water companies to account for the damage that they cause to health and the environment by discharging raw sewage into our rivers. Windrush Against Sewage Pollution has engaged in citizen science over several years by monitoring the water quality and ecological diversity of the River Windrush. Through such data gathering, the group is able to understand the impact of raw sewage discharge and has discovered that raw sewage discharges are underreported, going undetected by the Environment Agency in as many as 96.5% of cases. All the evidence points to the inadequacy of the Environment Agency’s action on sewage discharge.
On the same visit, we went to a Thames Water treatment works that discharges into the River Windrush. That revealed further issues with the water treatment and monitoring regime that I want to highlight. Specifically, in addition to the problem of frequent undetected and unsanctioned discharges of raw sewage, water companies are not required to measure or treat many substances that are harmful to the environment. Among them are microplastics, which are present both in river discharge and in sewage sludge, which is spread on the land for fertiliser, thereby potentially entering the food chain; antibiotics, at a time when there is a huge race against growing antibiotic resistance; and hormones, which have an impact on the reproduction of fish and other aquatic life.
We have a monitoring, treatment and enforcement framework for wastewater treatment and discharge that is simply not fit for purpose for the serious environmental challenges we face. At the same time, water companies are also failing to invest adequately in their clean water infrastructure. Across my constituency, where ageing water pipes are put under additional strain by hilly topography, there are serious water leaks and bursts every single week. I have been pressing Thames Water for years to invest in the pipe replacement that we need to secure a reliable water supply for local residents and stop the terrible waste of drinking-quality water that occurs whenever there is a leak.
I am pleased that in response to that pressure, the level of investment in my constituency has increased, but we are still far from a plan to replace all the pipes that need replacing. Thames Water still has a serious problem with the quality of its workmanship. Almost without fail, as soon as replacement works finish in my constituency, a new leak occurs because the workmanship is so poor. There have been two such instances in the last three weeks—it happens all the time.
We face a climate emergency and ecological crisis. Nature recovery is a vital part of our response to climate change, and river water quality is critical. Privatised water companies are not fit for the task. They already face competing priorities—the need for investment in both clean water and water treatment infrastructure—and are trying to face in those two different directions at the same time. They also have to face in a third direction: to deliver the returns for which they are under constant pressure from shareholders. That is not a responsible way to run such critical infrastructure, and it simply is not working.
We need the water industry returned to common ownership so that it can focus on delivering functioning clean water infrastructure and be part of the solution to the challenge of nature recovery. Our rivers and communities cannot wait any longer.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on opening the debate. I want to underline in particular the figure that she used: 39 million tonnes of raw sewage was dumped in the River Thames in 2019. As someone who loves walking by the Thames, occasionally swimming in it, and certainly canoeing on it, that figure gives even me pause for thought.
The contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) were very powerful in their critique of the ownership of water companies. Since privatisation, there has been a 40% real-terms hike in bills, almost £60 billion in payments to shareholders, and more than £50 billion in debt loaded on to water companies to make those payments to shareholders.
One of the problems with the argument made by the right hon. Members for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), and by the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), is that it glosses over the issue of ownership and, in particular, the fact that annual investment in water supply infrastructure was lower in 2018 than in 1990. That rather suggests that there has been, for some time, a serious question mark about whether our privatisation is delivering.
Philip Dunne
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to defend my remarks. I made no remarks on the subject of privatisation. As he has raised it and accused me of having done so, I ask him whether he recognises that the amount of capital investment by the water companies in the 10 years prior to privatisation was half the amount invested in capital treatment works in the 10 years post-privatisation.
Gareth Thomas
The right hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me. I was concentrating on other things in the 10 years before privatisation—I am not quite that old. If he shares the Opposition’s concerns about the quality of performance of the privatised water companies, I welcome that.
I recognise that the Minister is not likely to give a commitment today to bring the water companies back into public ownership of one sort or another. I will therefore suggest a third way. We could maintain pressure on water companies to bring down the amount of sewage dumped in our streams long after the news cycle has moved on to other issues by giving the consumers of water companies more power, perhaps in the form of a requirement that any increase in bills—or if the Minister were willing to be radical, any increase in the salary of the chief executive and board—has to be approved by the consumers of that company. There should be a water users consumer committee for each water company, with real power to hold to account the board of that company. At the moment, only two committees, without any substantive powers, cover the whole operation of the English water companies. They are clearly not having much impact. I urge the Minister to take away the need to give consumers more direct power over and say in the operation of the water companies on which we all rely.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
I call Mr Grahame Morris. If it is more comfortable for you to remain seated for your speech, I am more than happy to facilitate that.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
That is very kind of you, Mr Paisley. I apologise to you and other Members. I have either a trapped nerve or a pulled muscle. I just cannot bob up and down. It is very painful.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
It is very in vogue to have a bad back at the moment.
Grahame Morris
So long as I am either up or down, I am okay; it is getting up and down that is the problem. Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Paisley. I express my appreciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for opening this important debate. Water companies are polluting our bathing waters, rivers and beaches. I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise concerns expressed to me by my constituents.
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) spoke of storm overflow events. We are told that combined sewage overflows are used in extreme weather conditions. However, in 2020, water companies discharged raw sewage into rivers in England more than 40,000 times. Illegal dumping stems from water companies being allowed to self-report such spills since 2010. We simply cannot permit privately owned water company monopolies to police themselves. Professor Peter Hammond, visiting scientist at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, told Ministers:
“The evidence suggests that in the last decade, ‘early’ dumping of untreated sewage to rivers has been at least 10 times more frequent than EA monitoring and prosecutions suggest”.
I represent a coastal community in County Durham’s only section of coastline. In Durham’s current 2025 county of culture bid, the east Durham heritage coast should be a jewel. Unfortunately, despite the stream of press releases from Durham County Council’s Conservative coalition leadership declaring various environmental and ecological emergencies, repeated concerns about sewage discharges on the east Durham coast seem to have been ignored; we have seen excuses, inaction and a failure to protect public health. The lack of interest in protecting and promoting clean water on the east Durham coast by the council is a scandal. Residents using the safer seas and rivers app, pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and promoted by the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), will realise that there have been 113 pollution alerts for the County Durham coastline so far in 2021.
Durham County Council deflects any inquiries to the Environment Agency. However, anyone watching recent interviews by Environment Agency spokespeople would be forgiven for thinking they were water company representatives rather than a public regulator.
Combined sewer overflows should be a safety valve used sparingly and only in extreme weather conditions. Instead, legal and illegal dumping of sewage seems to be standard practice and, indeed, the Government are complicit in this situation arising. I have called consistently for this essential public asset to be brought under public control. Ministers need to explain to the public why they value the private monopoly interests of water companies over the health, welfare and wellbeing of the public.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for introducing the debate on the petition signed by 111,000 people—257 from my constituency. There is something disgusting about this: hundreds of thousands of raw sewage discharges knowingly released into our rivers every year. Some are because of storm overflows, but only some of them. Some, to my mind, are quite deliberate because it is simply cheaper to do it that way, and the water companies think they can get away with it.
It is true, as Government Members have said, that there are big infrastructure needs in our water industry—I absolutely understand and accept that. The £57 billion that has been paid out to shareholders and in dividends over the past few decades could have gone an awfully long way towards stemming the leaks of fresh water and providing a better infrastructure system as well.
It is worth thinking about what is included in the waste that ends up in our rivers. Yes, it is sewage. It is also plastics, chemicals, bleach—a whole lot of stuff. When it goes into the rivers, it ends up in the sea with all the foul pollution that results from that. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) before we came in and he said, “What about the rivers in your constituency?” I said, “Well, actually there aren’t any because they have all been culverted and put underground many years ago.” I have no idea how bad they are, but I suspect very bad because nobody ever sees them and they appear somewhere in the Thames a bit further on. However, many other people in many other places see it all the time.
We should pay tribute to some wonderful people who have done great work in trying to clean up our rivers: those who regularly voluntarily monitor water quality in our rivers, those who campaign to end the culverting and canalisation of rivers so that we have a more natural environment and flood plains, and those brilliant people—particularly on the north coast of Cornwall— who formed Surfers Against Sewage, which has been so successful in drawing attention to the filth that is in our seas.
We have to ask ourselves a question. I have been in the House long enough to remember when water was privatised. I voted against it and opposed it all the way through. I think of the glory of the Metropolitan Water Board and what it achieved on flood control and flood prevention, and the huge investment it put in. That is now owned by a series of fly-by-night hedge funds. To anyone trying to get hold of somebody who actually owns Thames Water, I say, “Good luck. You might or might not find out about them.”
The argument for public ownership of our water is irrefutable. Before someone on the Government side decides to call me a neanderthal from the 1960s, ’70s, ’50s, ’40s or whatever for wanting public ownership, I simply say that the public ownership I want for our water industry is genuine public ownership. It is community controlled. It means the involvement of local authorities, water workers and people who are concerned about our environment and, yes, local businesses in those areas, so that we improve our water and river quality and all the rest.
There is also a big role for local authorities in planning. I say to them, “Create more porous spaces. Don’t pave over everything.” Indeed, it is perfectly possible even in heavily-urbanised built environments—for example, my constituency is the smallest, most urbanised place in the country—to create more porous surfaces, which means that the water flows directly into the ground and improves the water table rather than forcing sewage into our rivers, which causes all that pollution.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this debate.
For several years, Whitstable, in my constituency, has suffered from the effects of sewage leaking—or, in actual fact, being dumped—into our seas along a beautiful stretch of the east Kent coast. More than 111,000 people clearly feel as angry about this as the nearly 900 constituents in my area who have signed this petition do. In a seaside town, it should go without saying that so much of our everyday way of life revolves around the sea. We have a fishing industry, swimming groups, sailing and paddleboard schools, and, of course, tourism—the heart of our economy. We should not just have to get used to these increasingly frequent incidents that keep us away from our beaches. Not only are we unable to swim or sail, but basic everyday things such as hanging our washing, opening our windows—including in my office—and walking the dog are impossible on the worst days.
One of the loveliest aspects of living in such a beautiful part of the country is that, during the pandemic, our daily exercise was a walk around Whitstable harbour, taking the dog up to our local coastal nature reserve or just jogging along the seafront, and maybe picking up some locally caught seafood on the way home. Instead, we are now often avoiding a dip in the sea or a visit to the beach hut in case bits of human waste float past us. Instead of good, fresh, healthy sea air, our children have been gulping down lungfuls of foul-smelling polluted stuff that contains plenty of potentially toxic bacteria. No wonder my constituents have had enough.
In the summer I held a public meeting so that residents could demand answers and action from Southern Water, the company that is responsible for our water works and paid by us, for us, for the safe removal and treatment of waste. In July this year, Mr Justice Johnson handed down a record £90 million fine to Southern Water for thousands of illegal dumping incidents. That was just the latest in a list of fines dating back to 2007. One has to ask why, despite these frequent and increasingly huge fines, essentially nothing has changed. This is the greatest sewage scandal in this country since the great stink of 1858, which forced our predecessors in this place to take action and build the first public sewers. Could it be that a profit-driven private company such as Southern Water would rather pay fines than invest in expensive but completely necessary upgrades to the sewage infrastructure that would stop these incidents happening altogether? The damage to my community’s health, wellbeing and way of life is of far greater cost than that paid out by a private company. No wonder some of my constituents are now refusing to pay their water bills; they understandably feel that they have paid more than enough already.
I echo my hon. Friends the Members for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and others, in their view that companies responsible for providing these services should be publicly owned and controlled—not primarily driven by making money for shareholders. Instead of swimming with sharks in the Cayman Islands, we need to enable my constituents to swim in clean waters.
Following the summer public meeting, I have continued to meet with Southern Water, as the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) has done. Individually, their representatives are good people who are willing to engage with groups such as the great Save Our Seas in Whitstable, and other Whitstable activist groups. It is the wider corporate attitude that urgently needs to change. We want to be able to swim, eat our shellfish and breathe healthy air. That should be something that we take for granted, instead of having to protest about it on a weekly basis.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been a good debate so far, and one that has reflected the strength of feeling in all our communities, no matter which party represents them. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for opening this debate in such a coherent and clear way. A lot of people feel strongly about this topic, including the 207 people from Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport who have signed the petition, and that is testament to the campaigners, who have raised this issue for quite some time. I am grateful to Ferry Harmer, who organised this petition, but also to campaigners from Surfers Against Sewage, to Feargal Sharkey, to wild swimmers the nation over and to people who just think that this is not right; there are many of them. We are living in a climate and ecological emergency, and that matters, because it challenges us to do things differently from how we have done them before. That is one of the reasons why the sense of outrage about river pollution—river sewage—has been so intense.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who said that facts are important. I agree with her in that respect, and I think the facts of river pollution are sobering. Not one English river is in a healthy condition, and not one meets good chemical standards. England has the worst river pollution in Europe. There were 400,000 discharges of raw sewage into our rivers and seas last year. These are scary facts, but—
Mrs Miller
Does the hon. Gentleman not regret some of the misinformation that drove so much fear and anxiety among our constituents, particularly the suggestion that the Environment Bill enabled raw sewage to be pumped, for the first time, into rivers and seas? That is factually not correct. Does he agree?
Luke Pollard
If the right hon. Member had waited for the rest of my sentence, she would have found that I agree with her about certain bits of that assessment, because on this issue we need a debate that is based on facts. It is important that we get to the facts. The fact is that our rivers are dirty. They have been dirty for too long; they have been dirty for the past 11 years. It is a fact that we need them to be cleaned up— [Interruption.] That is true, and it matters.
When the House passed the climate and ecological emergency motion, that should have changed our approach. I am very glad that it changed the approach of the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who has been an incredible champion of cleaner rivers. I have enjoyed our conversations about how we encourage the Government towards a better place, and I am glad that they have moved in that direction.
However, there is still more to do, and that is why we can no longer accept being the dirty man of Europe. It is fair to say that the Government have moved on this, although it is important to note that they really did not want to. That was partly because of the screeching public outrage when Conservative MPs were whipped to vote against a motion that called for the ending of raw sewage discharges. I am not a fan of abuse on social media. I am not a fan of the nasty side of our politics, and I recognise that Members from all parties in the House have been subject to some pretty horrendous stuff recently, including over the issue of sewage. We need a debate on the facts, but with more urgency than we have seen for quite some time.
Today’s debate has been a good one, with some fantastic contributions from both sides of the House. I will talk briefly about several of them before I return to my speech. We need to challenge disinformation wherever we see it, and one of the best ways to do so is to place more information in the public domain. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) said about the need to put more power into the hands of consumers so they can understand what is happening in their communities. I have been promoting a brilliant interactive map on The Rivers Trust website to any parliamentary colleague who happens to talk to me about sewage—and to those who do not—which allows people to zoom in on where they live and see where raw sewage is being discharged. It is disturbing to see how close to many of our communities this discharge is taking place. It is not happening far, far away; it is happening in all our communities. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made the point about rivers being locked away in concrete tubes, but that does not stop the sewage emerging at some point.
It is important to understand what is happening. We need consumers to understand it so that they support greater investment. The Minister has used a variety of figures over the past month about how much it would cost to address raw sewage discharges. I look forward to hearing where those figures came from, because I have still not had the workings-out. However, there will be a cost to this process, and I think there are a variety of options about where the money should come from.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for the argument that many of my Labour colleagues have made today about using shareholder dividends, and holding water in the public interest in the public sector with genuine common ownership. There is enormous potential in looking at that method. However, I look at the party that is in power now and say, “Where is the plan?” We need to have a plan for raw sewage discharges that considers not only “storm overflows” but a creaking sewage system.
In discussing the compromise amendment to the Environment Bill, the Secretary of State was careful in his use of words and talked about “storm overflows”. I commend the Bill writers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for using that term and enabling a focus on one part of a sewage system that is broken, while omitting the rest of it. There is routine discharge of raw sewage into rivers and seas, not in the event of extreme weather, from combined sewer outflows, but as a result of daily discharges. The fines levied against companies, including the £90 million for Southern Water, show that this system is not working. I agree with the comments on both sides of the Chamber about delays in prosecution. I encourage the Minister to look again at the budget that the Environment Agency has been given, and to ensure that there are no further cuts to that budget and that there is a real emphasis on it bringing further prosecutions.
I also want higher fines for water companies, because it is clear that the level of fines are not yet producing a change in behaviour in water companies and stopping raw sewage being routinely discharged. The word “routine” really matters, because it means every single day. While we have been debating, the water companies have been routinely discharging raw sewage—not because of extreme weather in the last hour, but because of a sewerage system that cannot cope with the level of demand being placed on it, and the lack of investment in it.
The Bill that we have passed in the past week—the Environment Act 2021—set out changes to the way raw sewage will be reported on, which are welcome; and it set out the need to produce plans, which I hope will be welcome, although I want to see what they look like. However, it did not set out a timetable for when the scandal of raw sewage discharges would be brought to an end. Nor did it set out any interim targets—a sense of direction. I think that, in a very meaningful way, every Member here today wants to see an end to raw sewage being discharged into our seas and rivers, but we need a clear timetable in order to hold any Government to account, to see how their performance is going.
We also need to delve into the workings of the water industry. The right hon. Member for Ludlow is right when he talks about the need to strengthen Ofwat and the SPS guidance that the Minister is preparing. That will influence the changes for water companies in the next pricing period, but what changes are happening in this pricing period? What changes are happening right now in water companies? They know that they do not have to invest in the same way until the next pricing period, because Ofwat has set the pricing controls and set the investment strategies. Although many water companies fell foul of the business plans in this period, I doubt that we will see a huge surge in action to close raw sewage outfalls and invest in treatment until the next price period. The challenge is what we do about it now, and that really matters. What we discharge into our rivers is not always easily seen. We need a clear plan to understand how much will be stopped, how much will be properly treated and how much will be carefully looked after in the future.
I hope that the Minister will be able to set out a clear timetable, because the people who signed the petition and the people in all our communities want action to be taken. They want it to be taken against a timetable. They want it to be measurable and demonstrable. They want to hold to account the people who are responsible for it, to see whether they are doing what they have been told to do and what they promised to do and, if not, what the consequences will be. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is, as ever, an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this heated debate, and those people who signed the petition. Although I really respect the strength of feeling—the passion—in the petition, I want to say at the outset that I believe it was probably started when the social media campaign was whipped up. I am sorry, but a lot of misinformation was indeed spread, so we need to get over that and ensure that it never happens again.
I do understand the passion about this issue, which I think we all share. Quite frankly, I am personally also horrified by a lot of what we have seen. That is why I am so proud that, as an Environment Minister, I have made water quality a priority; indeed, so have this Government. As was so eloquently said by a number of Government Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), we now have a chain of actions that will deal with this. Many of them, of course, are triggered through the world-leading Environment Act. I was sorry, whatever the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), says—I do, as he knows, have great respect for him—that our Labour colleagues did not, in the end, vote to make that law to get water companies to reduce harm from storm sewage overflows. The tables were turned, and for that I am sorry. I think we need to get over that, too, and we all need to move on—
Rebecca Pow
So I am not going to take an intervention on that.
I will also say that the issue is devolved. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for introducing the debate. As she knows, it is for individual Governments to have their own powers, although Wales joins a great many of the powers in the Act.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I am leading the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, but it is a UK-wide issue, which I hope the Minister will work with the devolved nations to address.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for that; we are at pains to work with the devolved Administrations, because water does not have boundaries. I increasingly want to do exactly that, so I hand out an offer to do more. On misinformation, although I am not defending the quality of our rivers, it is comparable to that of rivers in densely populated areas of Europe.
The storm overflows system is an old Victorian plumbing system, which in many cases is not fit for purpose given our growing population, climate change and the frequent heavy extreme weather incidents that we are getting. Many hon. Members have made reference to the fact that the whole system needs improving.
I have been clear that storm sewage overflows, which are supposed to be for emergency use, are used far too frequently, which is absolutely unacceptable. I have said that frequently. We are the first Government to take decisive action on storm overflows through the Environment Act. I established the storm overflows taskforce to look into the issue and to inform us. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), who did great work on the Bill Committee, for recognising that.
The petition calls for the elimination of storm overflows, which is a commendable ambition.
Helen Hayes
The Minister said at the start of her remarks that she thought the petition had probably been started in response to the social media campaign. To clarify, it was started more than six months ago and indeed, the Government published their response to it on 5 May.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying. As I said, I share the passion of the people who signed the petition, so I am not arguing about that.
The petition calls for the complete elimination of storm overflows. We need to look at how possible that is and what the function of overflows is in emergency situations. We need to look at the whole issue in the round. The recently published storm overflows evidence project report shed some light on that and the costs that we are looking at. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport keeps asking about that, but he can read all about it in an independent survey published on gov.uk. It highlights that the cost of complete elimination would be between £350 billion and £600 billion.
When we are looking at all those things, we also need to consider all the other things that we have to deal with in terms of water, such as phosphates, nitrates and soil in the water. Several right hon. Friends rightly referred to that and how complicated the picture is. We are dealing with it, as we need to.
Work is under way on that timeframe to reduce and potentially eliminate overflows. The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) made some interesting points about consumer involvement and bringing the public along so that they understand what we are doing. Water companies consult consumers but, of course, that does not change their obligation to meet their requirements and regulations in law.
That is where the Government’s direction to Ofwat, the regulator, is important. We have just produced our draft strategic policy, in which we flagged the issue of storm overflows and reducing the harm for the first time. We also put the environment at the top of the agenda. I am sure we all share the view that that is the right thing to do.
The issue of enforcement has been raised several times. Action is taken and must be taken, but I understand the frustration about how long it can take. The Southern Water enforcement took years, but the fine was £90 million, which sent a clear message. Thames Water has also had some significant fines, but it is now spending £4.4 billion on the Thames Tideway Tunnel. That will be a game changer, rightly treating sewage that goes into the Thames. We have seen progress, although that is not to say that we do not need to go a great deal further.
We have seen some action. The shadow Minister keeps asking, “What is happening now?” There is some action. Yes, we need more, but through the taskforce we instigated a call for action that is happening right now. Importantly, water companies are spending £144 million in additional investment on storm overflows in the period 2020 to 2025, on top of the £3 billion they are already spending on the environment.
Luke Pollard
Can the Minister square these two challenges? She has told us that it is going to cost us £660 billion, but also that if water companies spend £144 million now, that is sufficient to deal with it. Those are two very different extremes. Why is more not being spent now? How is such a paltry sum supposed to deal with a problem that just moments ago she said could cost £660 billion?
Rebecca Pow
I do not think the hon. Gentleman is really listening to what I am saying. What I said is that the water companies have taken some action now to start to invest in some of the facilities that they need. I did not say that they were doing everything that they needed to do, but my point was that they are not waiting until the next price review.
I mentioned the strategic policy statement to Ofwat, the regulator, which is crucial. Just last week, we set out on a legal footing in the Environment Act a statutory requirement for water companies to progressively reduce the harm from sewage from these overflows. The Act refers to harm not just to the environment, but to “public health.” That is something new that we added that was not even in the Duke of Wellington’s amendment, and that I think all hon. Members here will welcome, especially those who have bathing areas in their constituencies. All credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, who mentioned the bathing area in Keighley being the first inland bathing area.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about Warleigh Weir, which I know because lots of my school friends used to go swimming there when I was at school in Bath. I am horrified at the data she gave and I would be interested in hearing more about that. If she wants to apply for a bathing water quality safety test, it is clear how to do that. Indeed, we write to local authorities every year to ask if they have an area they would like to put forward. I am happy to help progress that, if it is at all possible.
In the Environment Act, of which I am very proud, there are so many things, including a whole page of duties, plans and monitoring. The hon. Member for Gower mentioned the important need for data, which she is absolutely right about. To really tackle these issues, we have to know what is going on. We do not need to wait for ages. We can start, but we still need the data. There are timelines for monitoring and reporting, and a system that holds water companies to account if they do not do the right thing. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for all the work that he has done. He fully understands the data issue, which is so important. Crucially, every water company now has to produce a sewage management plan—they did not have to do so before—and that will help.
Water companies have been mentioned so much that last week I called them in—I mentioned this on the Floor of the House—before we thrashed out the final amendments. I read the Riot Act to them about the need, and the expectation, for them to do better. We need to work with them to make sure that that happens, and we have been very clear that if we do not see action, we will take enforcement action. There are clear enforcement powers through the EA, which issues the permits; through the regulator and through Government in the new power in the Environment Act; and ultimately through the Office for Environmental Protection, so the system is now in place.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members. We share a concern about water quality. Water is the stuff of life. It is precious. It is our lifeblood, as is soil—another of my favourite subjects. It is our duty to look after it. I will conclude by saying that it is a very complex issue, and my right hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and for Basingstoke have talked about the need to pull together other Departments and talk about the building requirements. We are indeed carrying out a review on the sustainable drainage systems, as set out in schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which will include the right to connect. It is really important that we pull all those things together.
I do not often agree with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but he is absolutely right about semi-permeable driveways and membranes. I am a gardener, and I have talked about that issue forever.
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) should visit the living lab at Salford University, which is amazing. What it shows people about greywater harvesting, underwater tanks and green walls is brilliant. It is in her constituency, and I have visited it.
On that note, I hope I have made it clear that the Government are taking the issue very seriously. The measures are in place but there is, of course, more to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 582336, relating to the discharge of sewage by water companies.
Written Statements
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ACAS Guidance: Publication
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I welcomed the publication on Thursday 11 November by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service of their online guidance “Making changes to employment contracts—employer responsibilities.”
I strongly encourage all businesses to consider this new guidance on how employers should approach workplace problems that might conceivably require contractual changes. In the guidance, ACAS states that an employer should only consider dismissing and offering to rehire someone on new terms as a last resort. Before doing so, an employer must have made all reasonable attempts to reach agreement through a full and thorough consultation.
The guidance is available at: https://www.acas.org.uk/changing-an-employment-contract/employer-responsibilities.
[HCWS390]
Industrial Development Act 1982: Coronavirus-related Assistance
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. Members to bring to their attention spend under the Industrial Development Act 1982. In addition to the obligation to report on spend under the Industrial Development Act annually, the Coronavirus Act 2020 created a new quarterly reporting requirement for spend which has been designated as coronavirus-related under the Coronavirus Act. This statement fulfils that purpose. Actual expenditure of assistance provided by Her Majesty’s Government from 1 April to 30 June 2021 £573,322,073 Actual expenditure of assistance provided by Her Majesty’s Government from 25 March 2021 £3,272,359,763 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy £567,348,740 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs £5,973,333 Contingent liability of assistance provided by the Secretary of State from 1 April to 31 June 2021 £3,468,776,393 All contingent liability of assistance provided by the Secretary of State from 25 March 2020 £70,323,958,288
The statement also includes a report of the movement in contingent liability during the quarter. Hon. Members will wish to note that measures such as local authority grants, the coronavirus job retention scheme and self-employed income support scheme, and tax measures such as the suspension of business rates are not provided under the Industrial Development Act 1982 and hence are not included below.
This report covers the second quarter of 2021, from 1 April to 30 June 2021, in accordance with the Coronavirus Act.
The written ministerial statement covering the first quarter of 2021 was published on 22 June 2021.
Spend under the Coronavirus Act 2020
Under the Coronavirus Act 2020, there is a requirement to lay before Parliament details of the amount of assistance designated as coronavirus-related provided in each relevant quarter. In the period from 1 April to 30 June 2021, the following expenditures were incurred:
Expenditure by Department
Actual expenditure of assistance from 1 April to 30 June provided by:
Contingent liability under the Coronavirus Act 2020
[HCWS391]
Afgan Relocations Assistance Policy: Data Breach Investigation
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
On 21 September, l committed to update the House on an investigation into MOD data breaches concerning the email addresses of Afghan nationals who are eligible for the Afghanistan relocations and assistance policy, but at that time remained in Afghanistan.
Incident
The first report of a data breach was received on the evening of 20 September and consisted of 245 live email addresses. On 22 September, following my statement to the House, the MOD was made aware of a previous breach of 55 addresses—10 of which were in addition to the first breach—which had occurred on 13 September. Subsequent investigations identified that a third breach had occurred on 7 September involving an additional 13 email addresses not previously compromised.
Upon learning of the initial breach, I immediately ordered the undertaking of an investigation and any actions that would prevent further breaches. The investigation was conducted in two parts. The first addressed the circumstances of the breach, its causes and the immediate and longer-term actions required to prevent recurrences and mitigate any potential additional risks to those Afghan nationals affected. The second part of the investigation concerned the data handling and data protection arrangements that were in use by the ARAP team and made recommendations on how best to ensure an appropriate data handling regime was in place.
Investigation findings
The investigation has concluded that the breaches arose in almost identical circumstances. All three took place in the ARAP casework team, tasked with providing personal support and advice to the cohort of ARAP-eligible Afghan nationals and all involved a group email to elements of that cohort, which used the “carbon copy” instead of “blind carbon copy” field to anonymise the recipients.
The cause of these mistakes was not simply human error in isolation, but a lack of written standard operating procedures and training, which should have prevented such a mistake being made. That in turn was assessed to be the result of several contributing factors, all arising from the intense speed, scale and operational pressure of the casework, and the fact that the team had been built and then expanded quickly in order to support the rapid increase in activity necessary as a result of the evacuation. As a result, some members of the team were inexperienced and insufficiently trained for such casework management.
The ARAP team’s efforts to evacuate as many Afghans as possible in a short period of time was followed by a rapid transition to communicating with those who were unable to relocate, in order to begin providing follow-on support. In the haste of this transition the risks arising from changing how officials communicated—which had previously been done on an individual basis, often by telephone rather than email—were not fully recognised or managed.
The MOD has undertaken further investigation of any possible increased threat to those affected. While media reports have indicated some localised Taliban reprisals against Afghan nationals formerly employed by coalition forces, the MOD assesses that the Taliban are not conducting centrally directed and co-ordinated targeting of ARAP-eligible persons. The investigation found that no further personal or locational information was revealed in the data breaches that has substantively increased the ability of the Taliban to target ARAP-eligible persons.
All ARAP-eligible individuals whose details were involved were notified within 30 minutes on discovery of the breach on 20 September and advised on actions to minimise the risk to them and have subsequently been contacted to provide additional security advice. The MOD is not aware that anyone has come to harm as a result of these breaches, but continues to provide security support to ARAP-eligible families while they await relocation to the UK.
Remedial actions
Significant remedial actions have now been taken to prevent such incidents occurring again. These include:
Establishing new data handling procedures for ARAP casework management.
Ensuring all staff appointed to the ARAP team are fully aware of those procedures and trained in their proper employment.
Creating a “Registry” function, with authority over data handling procedures and a remit to continually improve those processes and assure that all staff are familiar and compliant with them.
Appointing additional ARAP team members with specific responsibilities for all record keeping and information management.
Instigating a “two pairs of eyes rule” so that any external email to an ARAP-eligible Afghan national must be reviewed by a second member of the team before it is sent.
Ensuring that any group emails, such as routine updates, must be authorised at the OF-5 or B1 level (i.e. Colonel equivalent).
As a consequence of the breaches, two personnel were suspended from the ARAP team, pending the outcome of the investigation. The individuals’ actions that contributed to the data breaches were not found to have been deliberate or negligent, but the result of insufficient training and data handling procedures. They have subsequently been reassigned to other roles, outside of the ARAP team.
The ARAP team has now received additional recommendations and support from Defence Digital—the directorate responsible for ensuring effective use of digital and information technology across Defence—which are being applied to further improve the ARAP team’s handling and protection of casework data. Finally, the MOD reported itself to the Information Commissioner and will co-operate fully with all investigations and findings.
The remedial actions outlined above are already providing much greater assurance of data handling within the ARAP team. I am confident that their continued application is sufficient to prevent any recurrence, but have directed that the team seeks to continually improve its processes.
ARAP progress
The data breaches detailed above were unacceptable and fell short of the high standards to which the MOD typically holds itself. They were also a breach of the trust many former Afghan staff have placed in us to honour our commitment and do all that we can to keep them safe. We continue that work and it is also important to reflect on the scale of the challenges and achievements of the ARAP team.
Since the scheme was launched in April over 89,000 applications have been made and many more continue to be received, each requiring detailed review and processing. As a result of these efforts more than 7,000 Afghan nationals—staff and their families—who worked in support of the Government’s mission in Afghanistan have now been successfully relocated to start new lives in the security of United Kingdom.
There were a further 311 ARAP-eligible Afghans who were called forward with their families during the evacuation operation, but sadly unable to board flights. There are now fewer than 200 remaining in Afghanistan and we continue to work with urgency to relocate all those who remain via a range of routes. Those who have left Afghanistan for third countries are being provided with support in-country and assisted to continue their journey to the UK. As part of that process we have already conducted five RAF flights, carrying more than 400 people. The flights will continue as long as necessary and the ARAP scheme is not time-bounded so any further applicants who are found to be eligible will continue to be relocated indefinitely.
The scale of these achievements should not be underestimated and has been made possible by the professionalism and determination of the ARAP team and their colleagues across Defence who continue to honour our debt of gratitude to the Afghan nationals who supported our operations in the country. ARAP remains a foremost priority for the MOD and I continue to closely monitor the progress of the ARAP team to ensure its performance remains of the highest possible standard.
I would like to take the opportunity to assure the House that although the impact of these breaches appears to have been limited, all breaches of personal data are taken extremely seriously by MOD.
Finally, I offer again my sincerest apologies to all those affected by these data breaches and assure them that we continue to make every effort to relocate them to the UK as quickly and safely as possible.
[HCWS389]
GCSEs and A/AS Levels 2022: Contingency Arrangements
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
The Government’s policy is that GCSE and A/AS level exams will go ahead in 2021-22, with adaptations to take account of the disruption to education that students have experienced. These include providing a choice of topics or content in some GCSE subjects, advance information on the focus of the content of exams to support students’ revision, and support materials in some GCSE exams. These adaptations, along with our support for education recovery, public health measures and the approach to grading that Ofqual has announced, will help to ensure exams can proceed safely and fairly next summer.
However, there remains a small risk that further disruption due to the covid-19 pandemic will mean it is not possible for exams to go ahead safely or fairly. On 30 September the Department for Education and Ofqual therefore set out our intention to use Teacher Assessed Grades (TAGs) for GCSES, AS and A-levels in 2022 in the unlikely event that it proves necessary to cancel exams, and published a joint consultation.
The consultation outlined proposals on how teachers should collect evidence over the rest of this academic year to support the awarding of TAGs, if necessary, including arrangements for private candidates. The consultation also sought views on improvements to the 2021 arrangements for quality assurance and appeals.
On 11 November, the Department and Ofqual published the decisions taken following analysis of the responses to the consultation.
The proposals that were set out in the consultation received broad support and Ofqual has now published guidance for schools, colleges and other exam centres on collecting evidence that would be used to assess students’ performance if exams were cancelled. The guidance takes a proportionate approach and is being published now so that teachers know how to collect evidence from their students in advance of any decision to cancel exams. Ofqual has confirmed that, where possible, centres should use their existing assessment plans.
Ofqual will only publish guidance on how to determine TAGs, and centres would only be required to develop policies for awarding TAGs, if exams are cancelled.
Ofqual has also confirmed that it will not take decisions at this point about the quality assurance arrangements that would be used for TAGs in 2022, or how student appeals would work. These are both dependent on the timing of any decision to cancel exams and the reason for that decision, including any public health restrictions in place at the time.
If it proves necessary to cancel exams in some parts of England, exams will be cancelled for all students and the TAGs approach will be implemented nationally.
[HCWS387]
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
The UK’s covid-19 vaccine programme continues to protect the nation against the virus. As of 13 November, 50.5 million people have now received their first covid-19 vaccine dose and 46 million have had their second dose. Over 12.6 million of the most vulnerable have also received a third dose/booster vaccine to keep them as safe as possible over the winter months.
The independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has published further advice on the covid-19 vaccination programme. Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) has accepted this advice and all four parts of the UK intend to follow the JCVI’s advice.
Children and Young People aged 16 to 17:
The JCVI has provided further advice on the vaccination of those aged 16 and 17. 16 to 17-year-olds included in phase 1 of the adult vaccination programme, 16 to 17-year-olds who are household contacts of immuno-suppressed individuals, and those aged 17 and nine months or over are already eligible for a second dose of covid-19 vaccine. The JCVI has now recommended a second dose of vaccine be offered to all remaining individuals between 16 and 17 years of age 12 weeks after their first dose. The preferred vaccine for all those aged under 18 remains Pfizer/BioNTech.
Expansion of the COVID-19 booster vaccination programme to all those aged 40 to 49 years:
The JCVI has recommended expanding the covid-19 booster vaccination programme by offering all adults aged 40 to 49 years a booster vaccination, six months after their second dose.
The booster vaccination should preferably be undertaken with either the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, or a half dose of Moderna vaccine.
This announcement follows the advice published on 14 September which recommended booster vaccinations be given to individuals who received vaccination in phase 1—cohorts 1-9.
With deployment of the extended booster vaccination offer imminent, I am now updating the House on the liabilities HMG has taken on in relation to further vaccine supply via this statement and the Departmental Minute containing a description of the liability undertaken. The agreement to provide indemnity with deployment of further booster doses to the population increases the statutory contingent liability of the covid-19 vaccination programme.
Given the proximity between receiving JCVI advice and deployment, we regret that it has not been possible to provide 14 sitting days’ notice to consider these issues in advance of the planned extension to the booster programme in the UK.
Deployment of effective vaccines to eligible groups has been and remains a key part of the Government’s strategy to manage covid-19. Willingness to accept the need for appropriate indemnities to be given to vaccine suppliers has helped to secure access to vaccines, with the expected benefits to public health and the economy alike, much sooner than may have been the case otherwise.
Given the exceptional circumstances we are in, and the terms on which developers have been willing to supply a covid-19 vaccine, we along with other nations have taken a broad approach to indemnification proportionate to the situation we are in.
The covid-19 vaccines have been developed at pace, however at no point has safety been bypassed. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency approval for use of the currently deployed vaccines clearly demonstrates that these vaccines have satisfied, in full, all the necessary requirements for safety, effectiveness, and quality. We are providing indemnities in the very unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures that have been put in place.
I will update the House in a similar manner as and when other covid-19 vaccines or additional doses of vaccines already in use in the UK are deployed.
HM Treasury has approved the proposal.
[HCWS392]
International Labour Organisation Convention 190
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I would like to inform the House that, today, the Government will lay the text of a Convention of the International Labour Organisation, the Violence and Harassment Convention, in the form of a Command Paper in both Houses together with an explanatory memorandum stating the Government’s proposal that the UK should ratify it. If no objections are raised in the next 21 sitting days, the Government will move to draw up the UK’s Instrument of Ratification. The convention will come into force 12 months after the instrument of ratification is deposited with the International Labour Organisation.
This is the first international treaty to recognise the right of everyone to a world of work free from violence and harassment. This convention, along with its supplementing recommendation (No. 206), sets out a common framework for action to prevent and address violence and harassment in the world of work. It is a broad instrument, affording comprehensive protections to a broad range of individuals, including those most vulnerable to violence and harassment at work, in relation to a wide range of work environments and activities.
The Government already have the legal framework in place to meet the requirements of the convention, including civil and criminal law provisions, as well as occupational health and safety law.
Following our response to the sexual harassment in the workplace consultation, published earlier this year, the Government will also be introducing a new proactive duty requiring employers to take steps to prevent their employees from experiencing sexual harassment and introducing explicit protections for employees from harassment by third parties, for example customers or clients. These measures will not only strengthen protections for those affected by harassment at work but will also motivate employers to make improvements to workplace practices and culture.
The Government will not waver in our defence of the rights of women and girls to live free from violence and abuse. The UK will continue to protect and promote the safety and rights of women and girls overseas, and call for all member states to remain committed to international conventions, including by ratifying the International Labour Organisation Violence and Harassment Convention as a means of promoting its aims globally.
It has taken time to get to this point. The UK played a leadership role in the two-year negotiations on the content of the convention, building on our already strong position on violence against women and girls. Following this we consulted the devolved administrations and our social partners, all of whom are in full support of ratification.
Ratifying this convention is the right course of action and I hope it reassures the Houses of the Government’s commitment to tackling violence and harassment in the world of work.
[HCWS388]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
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 within 10 minutes.
Quantitative Easing (Economic Affairs Committee Report)
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That this House takes note of the Report from the Economic Affairs Committee Quantitative easing: a dangerous addiction? (1st Report, HL Paper 42).
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, in 21 years in this House, this is the first time I have ever spoken in Grand Committee. That may be because I am attracted to controversial subjects. I would just like to say, not in any kind of disobliging way, that I am disappointed that a report of this importance to our country is not being debated on the Floor of the House, and even more disappointed that the debate on the Budget was not taken on the Floor of the House. I know we are restricted in what we can do in respect of the financial affairs of our country, but that does not mean that they should be relegated to this Committee, important as it is.
I would like to introduce the report from the Economic Affairs Committee: Quantitative Easing: A Dangerous Addiction? By the end of 2021, the Bank of England will own an eye-watering £875 billion of government bonds and another £20 billion in corporate bonds, which is equivalent to 40% of GDP. Given these sums, it is now difficult to remember that QE was intended to be a temporary measure, like income tax. The first round of QE in 2009 initially amounted to a mere £50 billion and was sanctioned when the economy was in danger of tanking in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Over a decade later, the unconventional has become conventional, temporary appears to have become permanent, and £50 billion has become £895 billion.
It seems extraordinary to me that the bank has faced little scrutiny for a tool that could have enormous implications for inflation, wealth inequality and the public finances. Our report, which was agreed unanimously, was the first major parliamentary inquiry on any central bank QE programme and has attracted international attention as a result. It is a step forward in increasing the bank’s accountability to Parliament. “Trust us, the man in Threadneedle Street knows best” will no longer do.
Before I explain our conclusions, I thank the committee staff: Adrian Hitchins, Dr William Harvey and Mithula Parayoganathan, and the committee’s special adviser, Professor Rosa Lastra, who did a fantastic job for the committee.
Allow me to begin by tackling one of the most pressing issues facing the global economy: inflation. First, we were told as recently as May this year that inflation may rise temporarily above the Bank’s 2% target. Next, we were told that it may exceed 4%. Now we are told by the governor, amidst warnings from the Bank’s new chief economist, that inflation is likely to rise
“close to or even slightly above 5 per cent”
and that the bank “won’t bottle it” if interest rate rises are necessary to curb inflation.
We raised concerns that the ongoing round of quantitative easing could pour fuel on the fire as it coincides with a growing economy, substantial government spending, bottlenecks in supply and a recovery in demand. That was in July 2021. Since then, bottlenecks have got worse, shortages have increased, wages have risen and prices have rocketed. We asked the Bank to outline in greater detail why it thought inflation would prove to be transitory. It did so shortly after our report was published, but apparently not by way of response to the committee’s recommendations.
We also expressed concern that the Bank has not explained why continuing its asset purchases until the end of 2021 is the right course of action. The MPC itself is increasingly divided, with three members voting to end the current asset purchase now at its most recent meeting. The Bank is yet to fully explain why QE is always the answer to the country’s economic ills, regardless of their cause. Its communications remain mismanaged, with only uncertainly left in its wake. If and when the governor’s delphic hints on rate rises materialise, there is a risk that the cost of servicing government debt could rise significantly.
QE makes the cost of serving government debt more vulnerable to increases in interest rates. Having chosen not to increase rates so far, when the Bank has to hit the brakes there could be a significant increase in the cost of servicing government debt. We heard that a 1% rise in interest rates could increase debt interest spending by £20.8 billion in 2025-26. To put this into perspective, the head of the OBR has said that just a 1% interest rate rise could easily wipe out the Chancellor’s headroom. In other words, a 1% rise would mean that the Treasury failed to meet its new fiscal rules.
We raised concern that if inflation continues to rise, the Bank may come under political pressure not to take the necessary action to maintain price stability. Given the current context, that concern seems to be at the forefront of most people’s minds. During the course of our inquiry, the committee found that the deed of indemnity—the contractual document between the Treasury and the Bank of England governing taxpayer liability for QE—had not been published. Despite assurances from the governor of the Bank that the document is benign, the Chancellor has still refused to make the document public, telling us that it contains some information that has operational sensitivity. There is no convincing argument for concealing this document from public and parliamentary scrutiny. It is astonishing that the document has not been published, and our report calls for the Chancellor to do so.
On the question of transparency and credibility, perhaps I could just take a moment to clarify the committee’s examination of allegations that the Bank has acquiesced in deficit financing. The committee did not, in contrast to the governor’s reported criticisms, conclude that the Bank used QE to engage in deficit financing. We took evidence on the perceptions that had developed during the pandemic and called for the Bank to explain the purpose of QE, including the publication of its assessment processes for calculating the amount of asset purchases needed to achieve a stated objective.
In monetary policy, perception is everything, and we raised our concerns that the Bank ran the risk of losing its credibility if its communication did not improve and it was unable to put these perceptions to bed once and for all. The strength of the Bank’s reputation rests on its ability to operate independently from political decision-making. We urged it to improve and clarify its communication to demonstrate its independence.
The Bank has now been using QE for over a decade and in a variety of situations, but we concluded that it had limited impact on growth and aggregate demand. It has been effective at stabilising financial markets during periods of economic turmoil, but its impact on the real economy has been negligible. There is little evidence to show that QE increased bank lending, investment or consumer spending by asset holders. We did, however, conclude that it has inflated asset prices artificially and exacerbated wealth inequalities.
In its response, the Bank said that
“what literature there is does not support”—
our conclusion that
“quantitative easing has had a limited impact on growth and aggregate demand”.
Yet, as we noted in our report, that is contested.
The fact that it is contested, and contested after a decade and £895 billion, makes it all the more remarkable that, faced with any problem or piece of bad news, the Bank’s default answer is to do more QE without sufficient justification or public engagement about its side-effects. During the inquiry, the committee thought that we might call it “monetary aspirin”, but we decided that that would be unfair to aspirin, but this is why the word “addiction” is included, with a question mark, in our title.
All this brings us to the question of whether the Bank will ever be able to unwind QE. No central bank has successfully managed to reverse QE over the medium to long term. At the time of our report, it was unclear whether, when the Bank decided to tighten monetary policy, it intended to raise interest rates or unwind QE first. We called for the Bank to expedite its review into the order in which policy is tightened and recommended that it publish a road map demonstrating how it intends to unwind QE under different economic scenarios. The Bank has since updated and published its policy, making clear that it intends first to raise interest rates, then begin to reduce its stock of purchased assets when the bank rate has reached 0.5%. We welcome the clarity that the Bank has provided but remain wary of the fact that the ratchet effect in which central banks engage in QE in response to adverse events, only to be unable to reverse the policy subsequently, exacerbates the challenges involved in unwinding QE.
Our response examines a policy that could have far-reaching implications for inflation, wealth inequality and the public finances. It is a crucial first step towards rectifying the lack of scrutiny that the Bank has faced on quantitative easing. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the committee’s report was published in mid-July and I am pleased that the responses from the Bank of England and Her Majesty’s Treasury came fairly rapidly—coincidentally on the same day. I commend the Bank for the thoroughness of its response. However, the Treasury’s two-side letter is less comprehensive. I think that this reflects a desire to convey its message that quantitative easing is the business of the Bank and the MPC, not the Chancellor. That is all well and good but, as our report makes clear, the fact is that the Treasury is underwriting this process with huge potential swings; the fact is that QE could and does have far-reaching effects on the economy and people’s lives. This means that the Chancellor and the Government have a lot of skin in this game.
I echo the thanks that the chair gave to committee staff and all the witnesses, who did a fantastic job. I also congratulate the chair on his speech. This topic has a tendency to drift into the arcane, so this debate needs to address why on earth anyone but central bankers should care about quantitative easing. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has started that process.
In my view, the central flaw in most of the analyses is that the data gathered during the response to the economic crisis in 2009, and some of the data in 2011 and 2012, are being conflated to refer to quantitative easing as it is now. By the Bank of England’s own reckoning, there were five distinct QE interventions, the last of which was the Covid one in 2020. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, set out, this tranche totals £450 billion and exceeds the others combined. Given its scale and the different public policy backdrop, QE 5, as we can call it, is substantially different from what went before, yet the data that the Bank is using refers to the previous generations.
Even taking the data that it has, the Bank admits that it is not possible to measure the macroeconomic effects with any great precision—or, I would say, at all. Continuing the pharma vein taken by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, if QE were a new drug, it would not get approval based on the data that we have so far. The Bank’s central defence is consistently to deploy the counterfactual: the future without it would be worse. Given that we do not know what the future with QE is, I find this response very hubristic.
One of the dangers identified in the report is that QE is perceived to erode the independence of the Bank from government. This fear of co-dependence, as was just set out, is largely fuelled by evidence that money raised closely matches the money that the Government needed. The Bank asserts that this is not the case. It also deploys a curious technical response as to why this cannot be true. Seeking to refute the suggestion that the Monetary Policy Committee was seeking to lower the Government’s financing costs, it says in its response that, were this perception real,
“expectations of future inflation would … drift upwards, and inflation risk premia in sterling assets would increase causing gilt yields to rise.”
That was written in September and I find the response absolutely incredible. First, no scientist would choose these two parameters; they are both so open to a wide range of influences that they could prove any specific point. Secondly, at the time of writing, both parameters were moving in the opposite direction from that by which the Bank could prove its point. In the report, as we have heard, we highlight the Bank’s poor communication. I suggest that this is just another example of really poor communication—and, I would say, misplaced communication, because it is wrong.
Of course, inflation is subject to widespread upward pressure, as we heard from the noble Lord. In another communications master class, the Bank points to it being transitory. Do Her Majesty’s Government now have a settled view on what “transitory” means and how they believe inflation will move over the next years?
This is relevant because inflation is where monetary and fiscal policy meet. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, with inflation rising, interest rates eventually may rise too, and this is the point at which Her Majesty’s Government and the Treasury will have to start to pay out money. As we also heard, the Chancellor will then rapidly lose any headroom that currently exists. This is the point at which the Chancellor should be more responsive to the concerns around QE and why I was surprised that the Treasury response was so light.
I will close on the point about inequality. In this respect, it seems that the committee and the Bank are more or less agreed: QE is making the poor relatively poorer and the asset-bearing rich relatively richer in terms of absolute cash—although the Bank deploys the phrase,
“the absolute impact will have been more varied.”
We know that, as inflation rises, the pressure on the poorest will be disproportionately worse and that QE offers little or nothing to help their cash position. We also know that, as inflation rises, we will see interest rates go up and that this will cost the Treasury big money —money that will not be available to mitigate the plight of the least well off. Does the Minister agree that this would make things very difficult for the Chancellor? Does he agree that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of the economy?
QE1 was deployed in response to the 2009 crisis. Thereafter, each tranche—from QE2 right up to the current QE5—has been justified by a different sort of necessity. Each justification has been different, yet the response has been exactly the same, except larger. As such, QE has become regarded as the go-to monetary response, or at least that is how it seems—an addiction, to use the parlance of our report. Yet we still do not know where we are heading and an exit, even from QE1, may be years in the future, if ever. The country is in grave danger of being ratcheted on to some monetary moving staircase designed by Maurits Escher; ahead of us, there are only rising steps, with no progress being made and no end in sight. We need a better idea of where we are going, backed up by a rigorous approach to data, and we need to know how this all ends.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, quantitative easing is a very big deal. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said in a characteristically challenging speech, it represents 40% of the UK’s GDP—a huge figure. Yet if you were to ask the modern equivalent of the man on the Clapham omnibus—or to level up a bit, the woman or man on the Sheffield tram—what QE is, you would be almost certain to draw a blank. That would not just be on the Sheffield tram; it would be just about everywhere else. If truth be told, members of the Economic Affairs Committee, of which I am one—with some notable exceptions, particularly the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury—did not know too much about it until we embarked on this inquiry and it got well under way. In fact, for most of us, it was a voyage of discovery into what had been a murky corner of the UK’s economic policy—and to some extent still is.
We were very much helped by an excellent secretariat and a galaxy of star witnesses, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, from this country and overseas, including from the US, the EU and Japan. Utilising Zoom to whizz around the world, we were able to hear from a much wider range of economists than would have been the case had we been relying on physical presence in Westminster, where we could not do that; we probably benefited from it in this case.
At the start of the inquiry, I for one read up about the disasters of the Weimar Republic in 1923. We all know what happened there: they opened up the printing presses, followed by hyperinflation—or was it the other way round? I am not sure which. I also looked at contemporary experience in Zimbabwe and Venezuela, where hyperinflation has accompanied a surge in the monetary supply. Could the same thing happen here? Would QE lead to, or risk, a surge in inflation? It did not, and our central conclusion has had to be that the Bank of England needs some congratulation on the success of QE so far—it may have got away with it. The inflationary effect that we are experiencing at present has not been down to QE.
The first tranche of QE, in 2009, helped stabilise the economy after the severe financial crisis at that time. The evidence is much less clear-cut in relation to the later and larger tranches of QE—first, in 2016, to cope with Brexit-related shocks, and, secondly, in 2021, to smooth the impacts of the pandemic. At minimum, QE did not lead to surges in inflation, and even though inflation is now rising—temporarily, we all hope—the root causes lie elsewhere, in fuel shortages, supply chain difficulties and so on. Yet, as our report points out, QE poses risks, problems and dangers.
I want first to comment briefly on the independence of the Bank of England. It strains credulity to say that there is no relation between the Government’s burgeoning fiscal deficit and the amount of QE that has been issued. The two amounts correspond almost exactly, fuelling suspicion that the Bank is financing the deficit. Such suspicion is widespread in the City; we did not share it too strongly in the end, but we know that it is a strongly held view that that is the case.
The Bank argues in a spirited response to our report that the current easing of monetary policy and increased debt issuance is
“entirely consistent with fiscal and monetary policymakers independently pursuing their objectives”.
Well, okay. While I again applaud the Bank and the Treasury for having worked closely and sensitively together, which is crucial in a crisis, the Bank needs to be very careful in guarding its independence in this relationship and project. So far, it just about gets the benefit of the doubt, but the next test is coming, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out, if, as is forecast, it has to make a judgment shortly on raising interest rates, which we already know is supported by a minority on the Monetary Policy Committee. What will this do to the Government’s borrowing costs? How will the Treasury react? I will be very interested in the Minister’s response to that scenario. It is a big task that is coming, unless we get lucky and inflation subsides quickly.
The other issue that I want to address briefly is a question that was in the committee’s mind all the way through the inquiry. The figure of £875 billion has been, or is being, issued. We know where it came from, but where did it go? “Follow the money” is always a good principle in assessing financial matters. There is general agreement, as has been said, that an inflated asset price has benefited those who own property and shares—that is, the already wealthy. The Bank and the Treasury, in response, argue that QE, by providing money to the financial system, helps avoid economic shocks that would otherwise have hit jobs and living standards hard, so hitting disproportionately the poorer sections of society. Maybe that is so, but that itself raises other questions, particularly about the future of QE, if indeed it is to be used any further—if it is going to be used again after the current programme ends shortly.
The Chancellor has already included the transition of a net-zero economy in the Bank’s adjusted terms of reference. As our report points out, the Bank will presumably need to change its approach to buying corporate bonds, perhaps favouring those consistent with the net-zero objective and steering clear of sectors such as fossil fuels and some forms of mining—metal mining in particular. Our committee was, frankly, nervous about extending the Bank’s mandate, which risks it being given a more political role, perhaps forcing it to select bonds to purchase that were in line with the Government’s fiscal and other policy objectives.
We now have to consider the relationship of all this to the further use of QE. Will QE be targeted in future? Will there be government pressure to do that? If so, how would the confidence of financial markets be maintained? If it is deployed on the net-zero transition, will there be a temptation for Governments to use it on other vital subjects? That is a big question that needs to be thoroughly aired and debated before the Bank embarks on a further issuance of QE.
There is a great deal at stake and many questions still to be answered by the Treasury and the Bank. I look forward to the Minister’s responses on those questions.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, if my memory serves me correctly, I was a member of the committee when the decision was made to undertake this inquiry, although I was rotated off it before the inquiry began. We knew at the outset that it was going to be very complex and difficult, and I congratulate the committee and its chairman on producing a ground-breaking report. As has been said, a lot of us have learned a lot in that process.
I turn to the point that has been made about bringing together this remarkable group of people who gave evidence. The witness sessions are really worth reading in detail; so many really exceptionally good sessions were undertaken. What they highlighted for me was that there was a debate between two opposing views on recent developments with QE. That debate is important and has been going on in financial circles for some months.
The first approach argues that the Bank of England has been funding the Government’s borrowing requirement by expanding its balance sheet and avoiding upward pressure on longer-term interest rates that might otherwise have happened. Those who take this view highlight the consequences for the growth of money supply, the risks to inflation and the enormous puzzle of how to unwind this behaviour. They also worry that the episode might obscure and compromise the Bank of England’s independence.
The second view, including that of the Bank itself, is that the amount of QE was a direct result of implementing a policy of seeking to maintain inflation at 2%. They argue that, in the absence of scope to reduce short-term interest rates, which were regarded as already being at the lower band, this intervention was necessary to achieve the inflation objective and that, without QE, inflation would have been below target. They argue that the appearance that the Bank has been financing the Government’s borrowing is illusory and simply a by-product of targeting inflation and insist that the amount and profile of the asset purchases were not undertaken with an eye on the Government’s borrowing.
There is a stark difference in these two views. Personally, I am reluctant to get into a debate about intentions and whether the Bank is sacrificing some of its hard-won independence by giving the Treasury an easy way out. In my experience, the Bank has never been easy to politicise on these matters, and surely that is even more the case with the MPC.
However, it must be faced that, whatever the motivation, what is agreed by both groups is that there has been a close alignment between the Government’s borrowing requirement and the Bank’s purchases of the gilts that were issued to fund it. The subsequent growth in money supply has received much less attention. Far from the MPC’s fear that inflation might fall below target, we now have a situation in which inflation is running well ahead of target. Of course, we cannot know what the counterfactual would have been in the absence of that amount of QE, but I must say that having to justify inflation well above target at a time when you are defending an action that was taken to prevent inflation falling below target must be, to say the least, a rather uncomfortable position for the MPC. Rather than debating the motivation, I am more concerned about the lessons that should be learned from this latest episode. I very much agree with the committee that, if the Bank is to be convincing in dismissing the charge of deficit financing, it will need to be much more explicit about the analysis that justifies the amount of QE that is undertaken.
In the world I remember, the Government’s ability to fund the deficit from the gilt market was an important constraint on government behaviour. I remember Eddie George saying on many occasions, “And if you do that, we will never sell another gilt.” It turned out that he was often exaggerating, but it was a threat that carried a good deal of resonance. Having that constraint was never popular with Governments, but it was always there as a reminder of the danger of going too far. It would be a matter of real concern if we gave the impression of having switched off this important control mechanism by making QE an everyday instrument of policy. There is still a lot of confidence that the MPC is working to meet its remit, but we need greater transparency about the decisions on QE and the analysis that lies behind its decisions if we are to reassure markets that this important control mechanism has not been switched off.
I agree with the committee’s concerns about the risks we face. The exit process faces several risks and hazards, which the report makes very clear. QE has had an important impact in shortening the age profile of government debt, and thus the Exchequer costs of higher short-term interest rates in future. I am also conscious of the impact on the value of the purchased assets if long-term interest rates return to a more normal level.
I also caution the Bank about using the defence that we have not been alone in using QE. The Bank’s response notes that QE has been deployed in other parts of the world. However, we are also seeing increases in inflation in other countries, particularly the US, one of the largest users of QE. This morning, the FT reports a warning from the head of the Bundesbank about the need for countermeasures against rising inflation. I must say that drawing attention to the use of QE elsewhere may not be that much of a reassuring message.
I know from bitter experience that unexpected outcomes are a regular challenge in setting monetary policy. During much of the pandemic, many economic commentators have worried that, in the process of returning to something closer to normal, we would face a significant problem of deficient demand. However, in reality, at present, around the world we are suffering from an acute problem of deficient supply. Following the pandemic, we have had a major supply-side shock: key transportation networks have been severely disrupted, ports are congested, and truck drivers are in short supply. In consequence, many production lines are in difficulty. For the moment, demand remains strong. It is supported by a catch-up of required maintenance in all walks of life, plus a desire to fulfil postponed purchases across a range of sectors. I believe we need to question the view that was evident to me in the early stages of this bout of QE—that, somehow or other, deficient demand is always around the corner and that measures to support demand are the automatic solution to that.
I have retired from the forecasting business and must emphasise that I have no wish to return to that activity; I do not wish to make comments about the future. After all, none of us knows when the supply problems will disappear or whether demand will stagnate once the catch-up effects of the pandemic work their way through. But given what we know now, it is likely that questions will continue to be asked about whether the scale of the Bank’s QE policy was excessive for too long and whether the correction has been too slow. However, I am confident that the Economic Affairs Committee will continue to ask those very questions. I look forward to seeing the answers it receives to those questions in time.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. It is an excellent report: it is well worth reading and the evidence is of very high quality. Some Members of your Lordships’ Committee may well feel that it is a very technical subject, all about the details of monetary policy and central banking. I believe that, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others, nothing could be further from the truth.
What we are discussing today is at the heart of the problem of controlling inflation and the effect that inflation is having on our economy and society. As has been mentioned already, it is also to do with the financing of government borrowing and the national debt. There is also the issue of perception. My noble friend Lord Forsyth is absolutely correct that the Bank of England is not challenged with blurring monetary and fiscal policy; the report says it is the perception of it that raises questions about its independence. The fact is that, after three decades of being anchored at 2%, inflation is now rising. The Bank of England expects it to rise, and I think it would be a very brave person who said that inflation will remain anchored at 2%.
I will raise two issues today. In raising them, I should say that the committee says it is sympathetic to the Bank because of the environment in which it has carried out its mandate: the path of Covid; the large swings in expectations—first of the worst recession since the 1700s and then of a tremendous recovery, which was unexpected; the fact that the Bank has more objectives placed on it from decade to decade; and, of course, the knock-on effects of Brexit.
The first question I put to the Minister is this: does he accept that the £450 billion of debt purchases by the Bank from the market over the last 18 months to two years has had little impact on rising inflation? As far as the Bank is concerned, QE seems to play little role in inflation. In the short term, the Bank explains inflation through a simple Phillips curve—if unemployment is reduced, inflation rises; if unemployment rises, inflation falls—but if you read the MPC reports, it explains inflation by way of energy costs, wage costs, supply-side shortages, input costs, tax changes and so on, but pays very little attention to what it does in its own back yard. As the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, has pointed out, in the longer term the Bank has very little explanation of what leads to inflation. He said that
“Forecasts of inflation made by central banks always tend to revert to the target in the medium term … they assume rather than explain inflation in the long term”.
If you read the evidence to the committee and its report, it is clear that QE supported the economy following the financial crisis by avoiding deflation. Andy Haldane said that it was
“necessary to support the economy and hit the inflation target”—
that is, no deflation. Coppola said that it was
“an effective tool for arresting a deflationary collapse”
and Congdon said that QE in 2009 prevented a deflationary collapse and that money stock would have fallen “rapidly” without it. The Bank of England evidence said that QE has provided “monetary stimulus” to help the MPC to meet its inflation target. The committee concludes that QE
“prevented a recurrence of the Great Depression”.
I recognise the difficulties of disentangling the effects of QE, lower interest rates and fiscal policy in preventing the recurrence of deflation, but if QE has been effective in avoiding deflation, which I think everyone accepts, is it not also effective in creating inflation, when you are in an upswing instead of a downswing? I think that that is exactly the position we are in today. Businesses are finding it easy to pass on prices. We have a million unfilled vacancies in the UK—judged by the ratio of jobseekers to unfilled vacancies, that is the highest for 40 years. We already have strikes in places such as Weetabix and Clarks, and formerly in Glasgow as COP was starting. I would like the Minister to explain this contradiction. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, presented them as alternatives, but I see deflation and inflation as two sides of one coin.
The second issue that I would like to raise has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and others: the implication of the perception of blurring monetary and fiscal policy. The Bank has been under great pressure since Covid to support overall government policy and to be seen as a team player. It has stated on many occasions that the time is not yet right to raise interest rates. After the 2008 crisis, the mandate of the Bank was not only expanded to much greater regulation, apart from controlling inflation, but extended to climate change. I do not think that the Bank would ever bow to explicit political pressure, but I am impressed by the views of three central bankers, two of whom I have known and one I have talked to but do not really know, namely Paul Volcker, Mervyn King and Otmar Issing. I worked for 15 years as an adviser to an investment bank and got to know Otmar Issing well. I was impressed with his evidence to the committee. He said:
“Exit from the zero interest rate policy will bring central banks into conflict with their Governments. It will be a very hard test for the central bank to withstand political pressure and I see a great risk that exit, once needed to”
wipe out
“inflationary development in the bud, might be delayed because central banks have come closer to political decisions during the financial crisis and now in the context of the pandemic.”
I close with my second question to the Minister: are we not imposing subtle but intolerable pressures on the Bank of England in giving it responsibilities and objectives that conflict with each other and undermine fundamentally its target of low and stable inflation?
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I join other speakers in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for securing this debate and for his powerful introduction. The committee’s inquiry into QE reflects the noble Lord’s foresight and leadership, and its timely relevance owes much to him. I was privileged to be a member of the committee. I declare my interest, as disclosed in the register, as the paid chair of the Credit Services Association. I strongly endorse the report and its recommendations and, in the time available, will pick out a couple of points for more detailed comment.
When the inquiry was established, the committee agreed that, despite the exceptional economic expertise of at least some members, we would not seek a collective Nobel Prize by trying to come to definitive conclusions about the inflationary impact of QE here in the UK, let alone globally, but would focus on the implications for the Bank’s independence and governance and the transparency or not with which the programme has been pursued over the past 12 years. In light of the sharp increase in inflation in recent months already referred to, particularly in the US and UK, it would be wrong not to make some comment on this. Of course, issues of governance and transparency go to the heart of how the Bank of England is positioned to respond to that increase in inflation, particularly if it proves more than transitory.
The report is supportive of the principle and much of the practice of QE since its establishment in 2009. With that I also strongly concur. It is clear that the impact of QE, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, is greatest at times of severe dislocation in the financial markets, so the periods from, say, 2009 to 2012 following the global financial crisis and then the early months of the pandemic of March to May 2020 were when the interventions were clearly most effective.
It is also clear that the contribution of QE to maintaining economic activity and hence achieving the target level of inflation is harder to judge. The contractionary fiscal policy of the coalition Government, from 2010 to 2015, left too much of a burden on monetary policy to generate growth during less stressed, but still challenging, conditions. The level of QE that has been pursued since mid-2020, even after the immediate crisis in the financial markets caused by the pandemic had been averted, is also questionable.
For all that, I am not an advocate of immediate rises in interest rates or reversal of QE. The driving forces behind the current inflationary surge are primarily a combination, blended according to your Lordships’ individual tastes, of the pandemic aftermath, global supply chain friction, Brexit, stubbornly poor productivity growth, labour market failures and so on. The question that we should ask is: does the balance sheet position that the Bank of England now finds itself in, with nearly £1 trillion of predominantly government bonds, potentially inhibit it in honouring the “primacy of price stability”, as the Chancellor wrote in its mandate? In theory, at least, it should not, but so much hangs on how well the Bank of England’s independence is maintained and protected.
There was a widespread view in bond markets that it was more than a coincidence that QE amounts so closely followed the borrowing requirement at the time. There were unconfirmed reports of exceptional pressure on the Bank of England senior executives from the Treasury. When the governor gave evidence to us, he said, “Yes, I talked to the Chancellor daily”, in March and April 2020. “What did we talk about? Covid.” Yes, it was hard for any of us to talk about anything else at that time or subsequently, but the question is how much the Government’s pandemic-driven need to fund its deficit has been allowed to influence the Bank of England’s executives’ views and, hence, their positions within the MPC. We may not know for 30 years, if ever, but the independence of the Bank of England is not just a theoretical concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, highlighted the challenge of unwinding QE and the potential accentuated impact of interest rate rises on future funding costs for the Government. Like the noble Lord, I deplore the refusal of the Chancellor to publish the deed of indemnity. This makes it hard to analyse some potential scenarios. For instance, in the Chancellor’s terse response to the report, he said:
“As it relates to the cash transfer part of that deed, there is sensitive information in there.”
Cash transfers? Under the terms of the deed of indemnity, the Bank of England has paid £112.5 billion to Her Majesty’s Treasury in the period between April 2013 and February 2021, with £13.7 billion in the last 12 months of that period.
The Government have been pursuing what the Chancellor, as a former hedge fund manager, would recognise as a giant carry trade and, so far, very profitably. Think how much worse the deficits would have looked without those transfers. However, every trade carries risk and there is the risk in QE not just of running losses when interest rates rise but the possibility of capital losses if the fair value of the bonds were to fall.
The Bank of England does not have to crystallise any of those losses, but it must not be inhibited from so doing if it believes that the control of inflation requires it. I believe that the deed of indemnity would protect the Bank from any loss, but the positive effect of QE on the Government’s accounts would be reversed. How relaxed would this or any future Chancellor be to see that happen? In giving evidence to the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, suggested that any tensions in the relationship between the Treasury and the Bank of England so far will be as nothing when QE comes to be unwound.
The Chancellor wrote in his response to the report:
“Independent monetary policy has been successful in delivering low and stable inflation.”
This Government have shown themselves casual, to put it mildly, towards the independence of so many institutions. I urge them to defend and promote the Bank’s independence unequivocally and to do nothing to breach that principle.
Baroness Morrissey (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Economic Affairs Committee on its excellent and highly insightful report, which, in my opinion, needs not just to be noted by the House but shouted about from the rooftops until someone at the Bank of England actually takes heed of its recommendations and takes action.
The Bank’s dismissive initial response suggests perhaps a degree of complacency or a tendency towards wishful thinking. Other equally concerning explanations are that the Bank may at this point be either too afraid by the extent of what it realises it does not know to take on the challenges or too dulled by its addiction to quantitative easing to act on the report’s very sensible and very practical recommendations. In particular, I highlight its recommendations that the Bank prioritises and shares its research into the effectiveness of QE’s transmission mechanisms into the real economy, and how its effects are distributed, and the impact of QE on the outlook for inflation, which is clearly rapidly changing.
Of course, as other noble Lords have said, the Bank needs to be much more transparent about the interactions between monetary and fiscal policy at this point. The connection between the level of rates and debt servicing costs and the need to finance deficit spending risk fiscal dominance and so threaten the Bank’s independence. That is not an accusation; it is just fact. There is a blatant contradiction between the Bank’s abrupt “This is incorrect” response to comments that the objective of the Bank’s asset purchases has been to ensure that financing conditions remain favourable for the Government and the governor’s own assertion in June last year:
“I think we would have a situation where in the worst element, the Government would have struggled to fund itself in the short run.”
We would all, I am sure, be sympathetic to the difficulties faced by the Bank—no one has all the answers here—but there is no merit at all in shutting down discussion or pretending that things are different from how they really are.
It is becoming absolutely critical, not merely for the Bank of England’s credibility but more importantly for the economic prosperity of this country and its people, that the Bank changes its tune, and quickly, and that it takes the report’s points seriously and focuses its efforts on trying to better understand the implications of what has become, without question, the biggest monetary policy experiment of all time, both nationally and globally.
One explanation for possible complacency is that the first big round of QE—the £375 billion in response to the global financial crisis—did not appear to have any major adverse effects on inflation. Along with many others, however, including the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I think that it had a big impact on wealth inequality. But of course there were massive deflationary pressures in the 2010s: exploding supply; the rapid adoption of online shopping, making it much easier for consumers and businesses to compare prices; the offshoring of labour in an increasingly globalised economy driving down manufacturing costs; and heightened competition in many sectors that had previously been almost oligopolies—for example, between energy suppliers—benefiting end consumers.
That has all now changed, and changed suddenly, with a surge in demand following lockdowns, well-documented supply chain problems, more nationalistic policies—including over energy supplies—rising geopolitical tensions, increasing awareness on the part of consumers about the need for fair treatment of and fair pay for labour, and the mismatch of skill sets that businesses need with those who are unemployed. Demand may settle down but many of the other factors are not going to reverse any time soon, making it highly unlikely that inflationary pressures will indeed prove “transitory”.
In the space of less than two years, we have gone from a deflationary backdrop to an inflationary one, yet the Bank is still pursuing the same hyper-loose monetary policies; it is actually a doubled-down version, following the massive £450 billion—or £460 billion, if you include corporate bonds—QE in response to the economic threats caused by the pandemic. What is more, this is true throughout the western world, with the EAC reminding us in the report that central banks around the globe have expanded their balance sheets by some $5.5 trillion since the onset of the pandemic.
One of the key lessons that I learned from 15 years as a bond fund manager was the critical importance of actively looking out for inflexion points, watching for those moments when the past would not extrapolate into the future and there would be a sudden dislocation. This tended to happen when everyone was looking the other way—complacent, relaxed or just enjoying “dancing to the music”, as former CEO of Citibank, Chuck Prince, infamously said ahead of the financial crisis. Focusing my energies and analysis on deliberately looking for the next thing proved the making of my career when, having persuaded my colleagues early in 1997 that the risks of a Labour Government’s tax and spend policy were already in the price and we should buy the very longest-dated gilts, and as many as we could, the newly elected Labour Government’s first action was to make the Bank of England independent. Of course, I made a lot of less good calls in my time as a fund manager, but that one taught me so much about the need for courage and to stand back from the crowd and hold steady, even when everyone seemed to have a well-reasoned set of arguments on the other side.
In his leaving speech in June, entitled “Thirty years of hurt, never stopped me dreaming”, former Bank of England chief economist, Andy Haldane, put it more eloquently, when he said:
“This is the ‘dreaming’ bit—looking around corners to judge not only what is coming but how to reshape it, seeking out the biggest issues not just of today but tomorrow. It is the Wayne Gretzky”—
a famous Canadian ice hockey player—
“approach to public policy—skating to where the puck is going, not where it is … it is, for me, the essence of effective policymaking.”
Unfortunately, in its approach to policy and to this report, the Bank of England is not adopting Andy Haldane’s essential rule of policy-making. Its analysis, or at least what it shares with the rest of the world, is perfunctory; its representatives defensive and dismissive of challenge. Yet it and other central banks are increasingly out on a limb. As the report points out,
“central banks take a more positive view of quantitative easing than independent analysts.”
Today, market practitioners are truly worried that, first, the current spike in inflation may well not prove transitory; secondly, that central bankers, for whatever reason, may move too late to tighten policy, either through rate rises or unwinding QE; and, thirdly—though this terror is scarcely mentioned—that a loss of confidence in monetary policy catalyses an unaffordable spike in the cost of servicing vast government debts. In that situation, given the extremes of both fiscal and monetary policy today, policymakers run out of options.
It is not too late to do something to mitigate that risk, although it is getting urgent that action is taken. As noble Lords know, US CPI inflation hit 6.2% last week—the biggest inflation surge in more than 30 years. Even stripping out volatile, although rather essential, food and energy costs, the US inflation rate was still 4.6% last month—much higher than expected. The US 10-year bond yield has trebled since August last year, reflecting growing concerns. Here in the UK, the 10-year break-even rate between index-linked and conventional or fixed-rate gilts has topped 4%, a level last seen over a decade ago. That means that inflation needs to be more than 4% over 10 years for the inflation-linked bond to outperform, which is the highest break-even rate across the G7.
The market knows that we have reached a tipping point and that the policy response needs to change. Sadly, the Bank is way behind the curve, and seemingly refuses to listen. Let us keep shouting off the rooftops until it responds properly to the actions recommended in this report.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, we must thank the Economic Affairs Committee for its authoritative report on quantitative easing, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for securing this debate. It has been enlightening to hear the earlier speeches from noble Lords and the noble Baroness.
My remarks will refer to the impact of quantitative easing on pensions, an issue touched on in the report but not dealt with in any detail. That is odd, perhaps, because the explanation of quantitative easing in the introduction refers specifically to the important role played by pension funds in its operation. Initially, I was going to express some disappointment, but we cannot blame the committee, because there is a general lack of information. Those of us who have worked in pensions for the last 10 or 15 years will be aware that there has been a lot of discussion of quantitative easing and its effect on pension funds. We all have views; what we do not really have is any hard information or evidence, and that is inevitably reflected in the committee’s report.
I will not resolve that situation in today’s debate, but it suggests that there is a need for some harder studies on how quantitative easing has impacted on pension funds. You will hear the views but, when you seek the evidence, there is a conspicuous lack. However, I am never afraid to express views, even with a shortfall in evidence, and there are a couple of things that I would like to say.
The committee refers in a couple of places in its report to the impact that quantitative easing has on pension provision. There is a reference to the important evidence from the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association. I very much agree with its statement that
“on balance … quantitative easing had benefitted pension funds due to the support it had provided to the economy, which it said helped businesses which sponsor and contribute to pension schemes”.
However, the association also mentioned the downside, which is that
“quantitative easing had resulted in ‘significant increases in deficits’—
that is, the deficits of pension funds—
“that have had to be filled through higher employer contributions or greater investment returns”.
While that provides a partial picture of the impact of quantitative easing on pension funds, it fails to explain what would have happened without quantitative easing. What is the counterfactual in a pensions world without quantitative easing? That is why the committee’s conclusion—that the use of quantitative easing in 2009
“in conjunction with expansionary fiscal policy, prevented a recurrence of the Great Depression”—
is so important. It would be wrong to point to the reduction in yields that has undoubtedly taken place without also considering what would have happened to investments in general had the policy not been introduced.
As Charlie Bean explained back in 2012, when he was Deputy Governor for monetary policy at the Bank of England, while the policy has led to an increase in deficits,
“the impact of QE is nevertheless small compared to the movement in the deficit associated with other factors, such as the collapse in equity prices as a result of the financial crisis and the recession”.
That conclusion has stood the test of time. He went on to say that higher equity yields were as much a purpose of the policy as lower fixed-interest yields.
The report also refers to the submission received from Professor Davis, who said that there is “some evidence” of pension funds engaging in a “search for yield” through investment in leveraged alternative assets, structured products, private equity and derivatives. Whatever we think of such investments, whether they are problematic depends on their scale and their suitability to match pension liabilities. There is no a priori reason to rule them out.
More generally, the search for yield is surely what pension funds need to do. They should look for investments to provide a decent return on the assets set aside to secure future pensions. The idea that the best, most secure and most appropriate investment for pension funds is government debt has been massively oversold and has led to a poor outcome for those funds.
Coincidentally, I would refer the Committee to the Financial Times and an article by Martin Wolf, the newspaper’s chief economic commentator, who refers to the need to have a sensibly invested pension fund, which he defines as one invested predominantly in equities. It is important to understand, therefore, that the greater the extent to which pension funds follow this sage advice, the less significant will be the adverse effects of quantitative easing.
Equity yields have not suffered from the same effect and, as argued by Charlie Bean, they have benefited from the policy compared to what would have happened in its absence. It is also important to question the extent to which the decline in yields—which has undoubtedly taken place, with the inevitable impact on pension fund liabilities—is due to quantitative easing as compared to other factors. I think that issue was considered by the committee.
Given this reduction in yield, I do not want to paint too rosy a picture of the effect of quantitative easing on pension funds, but the underlying problem is not quantitative easing itself but the utter failure of the Government to address the productivity crisis. Quantitative easing provided a respite during which we could have got to grips with these long-running economic issues. I am sure that we would have a variety of views about how the benefits of increased productivity might be used, but adequate pensions must be a leading candidate. I am sure we all agree that this is at the heart of the financial problems we face as a country—not quantitative easing but the failure to grow productivity.
I agree with the chair of the committee that the Bank has not been subject to sufficient scrutiny in pursuing this policy, but there is a greater question about what objectives the Bank should follow. The report correctly highlights the adverse distributional impact of quantitative easing. The right conclusion is that the Bank should take this more into account by understanding those effects.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this is an excellent report, excellently introduced by the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. At this late hour and with little time, let me revert to being a teacher—which is about all I can do. Quantitative easing is not new. It used to be called open market operations when I was young. The scale was rather small, and it was used mainly to stabilise the market, rather than fundamentally affect the level of interest rates.
Around the time this report came out in July, I was in Delhi. I had not read the report. I was having a shower and suddenly had a lightning flash—a revelation, or at least a question. There are asset markets and goods markets. In asset markets we love inflation, but in goods markets we hate inflation. QE more or less operates on the asset markets. The question I conjectured was this: does money put into the asset market roll over into the goods market? The noble Lord, Lord Monks, asked: where did all the money go? I conjectured that the money that the central bank puts into the asset market stays in the asset market; people just buy other assets. They sell their bonds or whatever it is, interest rates come down, then they take that money and buy equity—so equities are happy, and so on. I conjectured that very little of that money flows into the goods market to cause inflation.
It was never argued that the 2009 quantitative easing caused any inflation. It was meant to compensate for the collapse of equity prices—not to do anything about the interest rate but just to revive equity prices and avoid large-scale bankruptcy. The 2008-09 quantitative easing succeeded in reviving the equity markets, and then the economy did or did not revive, depending on what happened with fiscal policy—but we shall leave that aside.
Remember that quantitative easing comes from Milton Friedman’s work. The man who fought inflation all his life said that the great depression had happened because the Federal Reserve had not expanded money supply. It was necessary to expand monetary supply to avoid the great depression, and nobody did. Ben Bernanke, who did a PhD on that, used that example to launch quantitative easing, which is supposed to act on the asset markets and to revive asset prices. No wonder inequality goes up—because people who hold these assets get richer. Interest rates fall and, as I said, equity is revived.
How did I test this? Basically, I did a very crude test, comparing asset price increases and goods prices. It turned out that they were not cointegrated, to put it technically: there was no correlation between asset prices and goods prices. It is unlikely that quantitative easing by itself causes inflation, unless you add some other things. At least until about September, almost October, there had been no inflation in the market. Now, of course, it is still possible to say that supply-side shocks are causing the inflation and not so much the quantitative easing, which has been going on for a while. We have borrowed 40% of GDP or whatever it is, and in November inflation starts. I am too old to take 4% inflation seriously—I have lived through a time when it was 22% and the Labour Government had frozen academic salaries, and can tell you that that hurt.
We need to make a proper distinction between what the Bank does in the asset markets when it is intervening with quantitative easing and when it is financing the government deficit. These are two different operations and, as many noble Lords have said, they have different effects.
The 2020 quantitative easing was qualitatively different from that in 2008, because the economy had suffered a much bigger shock from the pandemic—a shock that we have never seen before, in which both aggregate demand and aggregate supply collapsed simultaneously. It was not a Keynesian crisis, in which aggregate demand collapses and people are unemployed but ready to go to factories—people could not go to factories as suppliers and consumers could not go to restaurants. That had some strange monetary effects because savings went up for people who had jobs.
Quantitative easing and the parallel fiscal policy interventions, such as furloughs and so on, had very different effects. Normally, we say that, when the Government print money, it goes into the market and causes an inflationary shock. We need—maybe the Economic Affairs Committee could do this—a proper study of exactly what happened during the pandemic around the demand and supply shocks, how we survived them and how we recovered.
On the narrow question of quantitative easing, we should welcome it as a new weapon for economic policy which works much faster than fiscal policy. In the old days, we used to teach that fiscal policy is effective and fast and monetary policy is slow—you cannot push on a string or whatever it is. A central bank can act quickly because markets are deep and it can go and buy billions of dollars of bonds. That is fine, but it will affect interest rates and exacerbate inequalities.
One thing I take away from this excellent report is that real work needs to be done on precisely what happened with quantitative easing and how it is an effective instrument of policy, provided the timing is right and the thinking is subtle.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all members of the Economic Affairs Committee for their report into this vital topic. I suspect this is the beginning of many reports into this.
To me, quantitative easing is part of a welfare programme operated by the state for the benefit of corporations and the financial industry. The first big instalment was the 2007-08 bailout, which added up to £1,162 billion, consisting of £1,029 billion-worth of guarantees and a cash outlay of £133 billion. The next instalment was £895 billion-worth of quantitative easing.
Today, the Bank of England holds corporate bonds issued by tax abusers, such as Apple, Rio Tinto and Thames Water. It also holds corporate bonds issued by entities that have a minimal presence in the UK. These include US telecom companies Verizon and AT&T. There is no convincing explanation from the Bank of England for its choice of these corporate bonds.
Central bankers are now handing out large sums of money to private banks and speculators to create endless opportunities for market manipulations and asset bubbles, but without adequate checks, balances, controls, safeguards and accountability. Through QE, the Government have rewarded the banks, financial markets and speculators that caused the 2007-08 crash and are still involved in numerous scandals. A combination of ultra-low interest rates and vast monetary expansion has encouraged speculation at an epic scale, where gamblers are basically using public money to create bubbles in the housing, securities, commodities and other markets.
The Bank of England’s October 2021 financial stability report says,
“the prices of some financial assets appear high relative to historical norms.”
So what will the Government do when the asset bubble pops? With a vast amount of QE, low interest rates, record government debt, record levels of taxation and never-ending austerity, they will have little room to manoeuvre. I hope the Minister will be candid today and offer us his analysis of where we are heading with QE.
Successive Governments have boosted liquidity in the financial markets, which has enriched holders of marketable securities, as others have said, but there is little tangible benefit to ordinary people. There has been no trickle-down. More people are living in poverty and reliant on food banks than ever before. Wages have barely exceeded pre-crash levels. Even as stock markets gained from QE, it did not really benefit Brits. Only 13.5% of UK-listed company shares are held by UK-resident individuals; 54.9% of shares are held by individuals resident abroad. Who has actually become richer from this vast expansion of QE?
QE and low interest rates have also caused a debt explosion, as households, corporations and financial institutions have taken on more debt, which dwarfs the level of government debt. Rather than investing in real assets, corporations are investing in the QE-driven financial market because it is offering higher returns. The Bank of England’s July 2021 financial stability report warned that the rising levels of debt pose a growing threat to the UK economy.
QE has not delivered economic renaissance but has helped to widen economic inequalities, as has been mentioned. Again, it will be helpful to see the Government’s analysis of the distributional effects of QE, although I note that the Bank of England is somewhat reluctant to do so.
Much of the money released by QE has been used to shore up bank balance sheets. A large part has also escaped into shadow banks, such as private equity and hedge funds—a sector that is now as big as retail banking, if not bigger, and is posing new dangers, especially as it is not regulated. There are no capital adequacy requirements or stress tests on their balance sheets.
Banks have not used the QE money to support businesses or hard-pressed households. Pre-Covid statistics show that lending to businesses has remained stagnant. In the post-Covid world of government loans, a recent survey—barely three weeks ago—showed that more than half of small and medium-sized enterprises say that they are holding back from investing to grow for the future as funds are taken up by debt repayments. Banks are not stepping up to support SMEs at all. In the era of QE, low interest rates, low corporate tax rates and low inflation, we have not seen any great investment in productive assets in the UK, either. The UK invests around 16.9% of its GDP in productive assets, compared to the average of 20.1% in the EU countries. Among major European countries, only Greece and Portugal have invested less.
QE should have been people-centred and used directly to improve people’s lives. Just imagine what we could have done if £895 billion of QE had been used for the green new deal, building social infrastructure, creating energy self-reliance, clearing slums, writing off debts for graduates, starting production of generic drugs to prevent abuses by pharmaceutical companies, and much more. Life would have been transformed.
That is not what the Government chose to do. Instead, they chose to give money to speculators. QE did not cause an increase in inflation, as we have heard, so using it to rebuild the economy and help hard-pressed households perhaps would not have caused inflation either, but we would have had an entirely different country from what we have today.
Finally, QE has sent a signal to the finance industry that, no matter how reckless it is, the state will always come to its aid. We have handed it an £895 billion subsidy, which has not only seen the bankers avoid punishment for numerous scandals but actually entrenched their financial advantage even more. Is that fair?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Lamont, will speak very briefly in the gap.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, thank you for allowing me to speak in the gap. I will keep this brief, not least because so many topics have been touched on. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register as an adviser to Banco Santander. First, let me say what an honour and privilege it was to serve on this committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I express my thanks to our clerks and to all who made such a great report.
Quantitative easing is obviously a complex topic. In that complexity lies a real danger that simple questions go unanswered—perhaps even unasked—and actions are taken that affect us all without proper, meaningful debate. The questions are really very simple, and I hope that the report answers them: what is the purpose of QE, what might its impact be on the economy as a whole, how is it to be unwound and how might it affect the Bank’s independence?
In the heat of the financial crisis all those years ago, it is quite understandable that there was not the time to give answers to these questions and to have a full debate about them. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others have mentioned, QE was begun as an unconventional tool to deal with an exceptional crisis. But as time has passed, these questions have not been clearly answered, while our reliance on this magical money tree has grown, first to meet the impact of Brexit and then the shock of Covid. Meanwhile, as the Bank itself admits, too little has been done to understand its impact, especially on inflation, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths said. This matters for a whole host of reasons that have been touched on. Indeed, when you look at it, all the roads lead back to a core point: are we able to maintain the Bank’s independence in fulfilling its primary aim of price stability?
As our report states, the Bank’s credibility rests
“on the strength of the Bank’s reputation for operational independence from political decision-making in the pursuit of price stability. This reputation is fragile, and it will be difficult to regain if lost.”
I would add that the perception of independence, which my noble friend Lady Morrissey touched on, matters immensely. Those perceptions are shaped by transparency and honesty. The lack of transparency and clarity about the purpose of QE has led a number of investors to perceive the Bank as pursuing deficit financing. This has not been helped by opaque answers from the Bank to basic questions about the process of calculating the amount of asset purchases undertaken.
Now, as we look ahead, and as we have discussed, the design of the quantitative easing programme and the size of the Bank’s balance sheet have increased the sensitivity of the public finances to a substantial rise in debt servicing costs if the Bank needed to raise interest rates to control inflation. As the committee put it, this exposes the Bank to political pressure not to raise rates. The Bank of England is not alone. My noble friend Lord Griffiths was right to highlight what Otmar Issing told us. As the ECB’s former chief economist, his words are definitely worth heeding. All central banks now face a test: whether they can withstand political pressure and raise rates to nip inflation in the bud. The Bank of England is now in the exam hall and it is sitting that test.
Obviously, the impact of Covid has created an extraordinary set of circumstances, which others have touched on. There is indeed a risk that premature raising of rates could choke off the fragile economy, but there is also a risk that the tiger of inflation is let loose and, once out of its cage, we know how difficult it is to grab it by the tail. Once again, I fear that the Bank is making life harder for itself with mixed messages. Just a few weeks back, the governor argued that the Bank of England had to act to tackle inflation but then voted against a rise. He says he “won’t bottle it” when he needs to raise rates. I fear that he needs to beware of protesting too much.
Let me end where I began. QE is a complex issue but, if over the last decade we had had more clarity on its purpose, execution and impact, our concerns about QE’s threat to the Bank’s independence may not have been as great as they are today.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the committee on the report. I hope the Committee will forgive me for intervening. I am just as much an amateur in this subject as anybody else, never having had to deal with it in my days as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I just wanted to ask four questions that occurred to me; I had not intended to speak in this debate when I came in, but four points occurred to me which I, as an amateur, would be very interested to know the answers to.
The first relates to deficit financing. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said that the committee had found that the Bank of England was not indulging in deficit financing. If that is the case, why in his Budget speech did the Chancellor of the Exchequer express the total stock of debt minus Bank of England purchases? It seems to me that the two are not consistent if we are avoiding deficit financing. What do the Government see as the dividing line between intervening to ensure orderly markets and deficit financing? Some of the occasions that Mr Bailey cited when he talked about the fact that there would have been a very large spike in interest rates if he had not intervened seem, with the sums of money involved, to come close to deficit financing.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred to reversing or unwinding QE. How is this to be done? Are the Government content for the Bank of England to hold securities that it purchases all the way to maturity or do they think that unwinding as a process involves selling more debt into the market to compensate for the purchases?
Thirdly, I read somewhere relating to the report that the Treasury can refuse an application by the Bank of England for a tranche of QE. If it cannot refuse, that seems to me an extraordinary position for the Treasury to be in, particularly when it is underwriting the indemnity to the Bank of England. Today, with QE as the main means of—if I can use the old-fashioned phrase—steering the economy, if the Government cannot have a say in that it seems to me that we are in an entirely new situation for the Bank of England. It is going well beyond its remit, which is to do with inflation.
My fourth question is a very simple one about sequencing of policy. Should not asset purchases be ended before the Bank of England puts up rates? Otherwise, it seems to me that the Bank of England would be doing contradictory things at the same time. Surely the one should precede the other.
The only other point I would make is that, listening to this debate, it seemed that the most obvious point about QE was not really made very often, and that is the massive distortion in pricing that has occurred because of QE. People may be a bit sceptical about how far that is true of the stock market and of housing but there can be very little doubt that, in the fixed interest market, where the Bank has been intervening directly, this has had a massive distorting effect. A man cannot be drunk for ever. At some point this has got to end: at some point the hangover will come and at some point the crash will come.
I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said: that if we believe that QE has been effective in preventing negative inflation surely, with the amount of liquidity in the economy and the banking system, it is likely to have an effect on prices in an upward direction from a positive base. I fear that, because of the issue of fiscal dominance and the need for Governments to be able to finance their programmes, central banks—not just the Bank of England but everywhere—will put up interest rates to counter inflation only in baby steps because that is going to have such a devastating effect, not just on the economy but on government finances as well. I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer those four questions.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am so glad that I am not the Minister. If the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is the amateur, I am afraid that I am back in primary school. I know how to lend you money and make very sure you pay it back to me, but I am not an economist by training, as will become very evident. That leads me to thank in particular the staff to the committee, who took people like me by the hand and through this incredibly complex topic. I also want to thank our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because this report is a good example of a willingness to speak truth to power and to hold the powerful accountable to Parliament, which is at the core of what we do. I suspect that this report, because it is so challenging, deals with such complexity and is so critical, will be one of the most used and most remembered of the reports that the Economic Affairs Committee has brought forward.
There have been many comments about the contents of the report, and they tended to echo one another, so I shall focus on the issues that most exercised me. I was somewhat tempted to take apart the replies that came from the Bank of England and the Treasury, which were both inadequate to the circumstance. I hope that, in future committees and in various other venues, they will be held to account and required to answer fully and properly, because this issue matters greatly.
I take the position, as I think do many—not all of us but many—that QE is a powerful and appropriate tool in times of panic in the financial markets, especially when liquidity is compromised. To my mind, the Bank was absolutely right and very much on target in using QE in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, when the banking system seized up almost completely, and again in the spring of 2020, when Covid undermined market confidence and, frankly, the Treasury was uncertain that it could complete its gilts issue.
But throughout the whole time that we have been working on this report we have heard evidence that makes it clear that QE is not a solution for general economic woes and, particularly, that it does not drive growth. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and I often do not see things in exactly the same way, but it seems to me absolutely self-evident that, in the period following the 2009 crash, when QE was almost constantly in play, we did not see growth coming through in the economy—those numbers have not been there. Even though I cannot describe and explain all the various mechanisms and why they worked or did not, I can see the end result and it seems to be a lesson that we have to learn.
I can understand that people might have thought that QE would contribute to growth because—and I pick up the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies —it tended to push investors along the yield curve and to take greater risk, but, again, we did not see the output of that. This is the UK. When people are forced to move their money into riskier assets, they turn towards property once again, rather than putting it into the productive economy.
I am concerned by the asset inflation that happened —we have talked about that extensively—which benefited primarily the existing asset-rich. In this country, the last thing we need is more unequal distribution, creating real political tension, not just in the narrow sense but in the broad sense of wider political stability.
I am also concerned that, because QE by definition converts fixed-rate debt to floating-rate debt, it can significantly drive up the cost of servicing public service net debt in times of rising interest rates. There will be inevitable fiscal consequences to that, and I wonder whether the Minister might talk about them when he replies.
If we accept that much of the current accumulation of QE did not particularly benefit the economy, the independence of the Bank of England comes into play. Many people take the view that the MPC’s recent decision not to raise interest rates was in large part influenced by its concern about the level of QE. As several speakers have said, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, and the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Griffiths, inflation is now anticipated to go over 5% for a prolonged period; there is no definitive evidence that it will be only short term and temporary. When one looks ahead at the appalling GDP growth rate, which was part of the OBR forecast in the Budget, that combined with those inflationary pressures could lead us into stagflation. That is a situation that none of us wishes to see and which could fundamentally undermine the economy.
I join others in asking the question: can QE ever really be unwound? I take very much to heart Dr El-Erian’s evidence to us, when he said that there was no exit paradigm. My fear again is that it is another case of “Events happen, dear boy”. Have we broken a tool by using QE over and over, in inappropriate circumstances, and building up the size of the asset purchase facility? Have we broken a tool that we might need in the next financial crisis—and if it is not available to us then, what will the consequences be?
I want to pick up on an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. Perhaps the Minister could explain why the asset purchase facility was not included in the public sector net debt calculations at the time of the Budget. I tried to work my way through the OBR’s explanation, but it seemed to me that it left a distorted picture of the UK’s liabilities. I rather liken it to the distortion of a lot of the off-balance-sheet financing that we have seen in the past—PFI being one example—which eventually comes back to haunt the taxpayer. In our report, the committee bent over backwards, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said, to say that, despite the various perceptions, we accepted that the Bank of England was not using QE to fund the Budget deficit, but the decision not to include the APF in the PSND makes a convincing case that the OBR saw this as budget financing. Could the Minister respond to that issue?
We live in fast-changing times and it is very possible that fiat digital currencies, the subject of our next report, and stablecoins will fundamentally change the monetary landscape. A retail CBDC, as many have pointed out, would for example make helicopter money very easy. We need to understand the effect of QE and its purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, raised all the relevant points and they are deeply embedded in this report, but we need to get the answers. I think that we would all concede that there is a great deal more work to do, but I feel privileged to have been part of the work that the committee has done.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Economic Affairs Committee for undertaking this inquiry and to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for introducing the final report. It is wide-ranging in nature, but at its core is the concern that quantitative easing is now widely used by the Bank of England and must be carefully managed. The committee argues, quite reasonably, that QE’s short-term benefits to liquidity need to be balanced with concerns around inflation, wealth inequalities, risk-taking in markets and general long-term economic performance. Colleagues are particularly concerned about the potential inflationary impact of QE. With that in mind, it is worth acknowledging that we are debating the Bank of England’s monetary policy against a very different economic backdrop from that which existed when the committee’s inquiry began.
All these points and concerns are valid and they deserve a detailed response from the Government. However, as with topics such as poverty, I worry that technical discussions about policy processes and outcomes inevitably become detached from broader considerations of people’s day-to-day lives. We find ourselves in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. A perfect storm of rising costs, an energy crisis and one of the highest peacetime personal tax burdens has changed how people see and experience the UK economy.
The Bank expects inflation to reach 5% in the coming months, with some commentators warning that it may rise higher. As the report notes, the Bank views the current spike in inflation as
“a transitory, rather than a more long-lasting, problem.”
That will be of little comfort to households over the winter months. It also relies on the Government getting a grip on the various supply issues, which risk inflation becoming more embedded. Given the Office for Budget Responsibility’s recent warning that families are in for a hard time until 2023, I hope that the Treasury and the Bank will, where appropriate, make use of their collective toolkit to relieve the pressure on families.
Since its introduction in 2009 as a response to the global financial crisis, asset purchasing has become an important tool for the Bank. We have seen QE on a significant scale in recent times, with new rounds forming a key part of the Bank’s response to the economic impact of the pandemic. The artificial inflation of certain asset prices is one of the controversial elements of QE. While the Governor of the Bank may not agree, the committee notes that a body of evidence points to a QE-fuelled widening of wealth inequalities. This is a significant concern and, as I will return to shortly, one of the areas in which more research is required. Until then, can the Minister outline the Treasury’s views?
Looking at the bigger picture, it should also be acknowledged that the UK suffered a disproportionately large downturn at the height of the pandemic. We had the worst contraction of any G7 nation and are forecast to experience a comparatively weak recovery. Disappointing GDP figures last week suggest that we remain the furthest from recovery of any G7 nation. QE is neither the perfect nor the only solution to the UK’s current economic challenges, but it is undeniably a tool that should be used in times of need.
The Bank’s monetary policy has arguably mitigated some of the Treasury’s shortcomings over the past 18 months, whether its lack of urgency in announcing support schemes last spring or its failure to close gaping holes in them. I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts on how much larger our recent downturn may have been without the Bank’s asset purchases, and what additional impact they may have on income distribution.
I raised the issue of wealth inequalities a few moments ago. It is important to note the committee’s identification of several “knowledge gaps” that, it argues, require urgent additional research. I was heartened by a section of the Bank’s 20-page response outlining a variety of ongoing workstreams that aim to improve the quality of its evidence base. The Chancellor, in his shorter response, noted the committee’s recommendations. It is disappointing that he made no firm commitments. While it is important for Mr Sunak to respect the operational independence of the Bank, he should not hide behind it. I was underwhelmed by the wider content and tone of his letter and I hope that the Minister will be more considered in his response to this debate.
Speaking of the Bank of England’s independence, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the importance of the last Labour Government’s decision back in 1997. Noble Lords need not take my word for it; Mr Sunak’s letter outlines the stark difference in the effectiveness of monetary policy during the 20 years before and after Gordon Brown’s decision.
We are proud of our role in giving the Bank its independence but, as with all public bodies, transparency is key. I was particularly interested in the report’s consideration of how the Bank makes and communicates its QE decisions. Openness and clarity are vital to maintaining both public trust and industry confidence. To its credit, the Bank has accepted that communication around QE can be improved. Its commitments around the accessibility of communications represent a step forward, as does the promise of changing how relevant parties are told about the adoption of new monetary policy tools.
Elsewhere, the committee made interesting recommendations about the Bank’s role in delivering the Government’s new net-zero ambition. Given the recent COP 26 summit, this could not have been more topical. The Chancellor does not believe it appropriate to update the Bank’s mandate in the manner suggested by the committee. Once again, he cites operational independence without providing any further information. Some may accuse me of cynicism, but it seems that the Chancellor’s appetite for talking about greening the economy is not matched by the political actions needed to deliver meaningful change. Following the Chancellor’s trip to Glasgow, with novelty green box in hand, I hope the Minister has been authorised to say more about how the Treasury and Bank might work together better to facilitate the transition to net zero.
The Economic Affairs Committee has come up with several important questions. There is little doubt that more needs to be done to understand the longer-term effects of QE, but the baby must not be thrown out with the bath-water. The question is not whether the Bank should make use of its monetary policy levers but whether such actions are backed up by the Government through sound fiscal policy decisions. The evidence of recent years and the Autumn Budget suggest not. We have become used to short-termism, rather than seeing evidence of a long-term vision for the economy. While I look forward to the Minister’s response, it seems to me that to get a grip on inflation and start delivering the sustainable, fair growth we so badly need, the Government need to change tack—and quickly.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to conclude this debate for the Government, and I thank the committee and its chairman for this report. I welcome my noble friend Lord Forsyth to this Committee for his debut opening a debate. I feel as if I should call him a new boy but, of all Peers in this House, he is no new boy. I am aware of the considerable number of experienced and knowledgeable Peers contributing on this subject today, including a certain former Chancellor who remains as sharp as ever, I am pleased to see.
I will begin by setting out how monetary policy operates, before turning to QE specifically. Noble Lords will know that monetary policy is the responsibility of the MPC, the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, and I reiterate the Government’s commitment to independent monetary policy. Several Peers have made this clear too, as an indisputable fact. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, refer to the decision made in 1997. The Government set the objectives, but the policy choices and the tools used to meet them are up to the MPC. This includes decisions on bank rate and, more recently, unconventional policies such as quantitative easing, which we are debating today.
As the Bank set out in its response to this report, monetary policy is most effective when its objectives are clear, and the independence of the MPC is paramount to its effectiveness. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, pointed out and my noble friend Lord Bridges touched on, this helps to ensure that the Bank meets its price stability objective—the 2% CPI inflation target. It has a strong track record of doing so. Since independence, inflation has averaged close to 2% whereas, in the 20 years prior, inflation fluctuated between 1% and 22%—a point also alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
Over the past 18 months we have seen just how important independent monetary policy is, playing a critical role in supporting the economy through the Covid-19 pandemic. The MPC took unprecedented action, reducing bank rate to a historic low of 0.1% and extending its QE programme to a target stock of £895 billion to support households and businesses. I note that Andrew Bailey, the governor, has said that the economic response has been designed to ensure that long-term damage to the economy has been
“as small as can be.”
As your Lordships know, this crisis is not the first time that the Bank of England and central banks around the world have used QE. It was first used in the UK in 2009, in response to the financial crisis, providing additional stimulus to the economy when bank rate reached what were then record lows. The Bank of England purchased an initial £200 billion worth of assets.
The next round of QE took place in 2012, when an additional £175 billion of assets was purchased to provide additional support to the economy during the eurozone debt crisis. This took the total stock of assets to £375 billion. To support the economy after the EU referendum, the MPC increased the stock of QE to £445 billion in August 2016. As your Lordships will be aware, the MPC has undertaken a further three rounds of QE since the start of the pandemic, bringing the target stock of assets purchased to £895 billion—of which £20 billion is corporate bonds.
The UK was not alone in turning to QE to support monetary policy objectives, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and my noble friends Lord Griffiths and Lord Bridges said. The Fed, the ECB, the Bank of Japan and many other central banks across the world also expanded their QE programmes during the pandemic. The UK’s QE programme is now close to 40% of GDP, as was mentioned in the debate—in line with many of our international peers. QE has lasted longer than originally expected for a variety of reasons, but the Bank—alongside many other central banks around the world—deems it to be an important part of its toolkit.
I turn to the issues raised in the report, which, as a good few Peers have said, are indeed complex and wide ranging. Many of the recommendations are for the Bank to take forward, and it has responded thoroughly —as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. Recommendations for the Bank were focused on four issues: the Bank’s independence, the effects of QE, communicating decisions on QE and unwinding QE. I will turn to the fourth issue—unwinding QE—nearer the end of my speech, as I know it is of interest to your Lordships here today and was raised by many Peers, including my noble friend Lord Forsyth.
The Bank responded in full to these recommendations in September. The Chancellor has also responded to the five recommendations for the Treasury, as set out in his letter to the committee in September. I will outline his response, which I am sure will be familiar to members of the committee.
First, the report asked the Chancellor to clarify his expectations as to how the Bank should help to achieve the transition to a net-zero economy, following from the update to the remit to reflect the Government’s aim to transition to an environmentally sustainable and resilient net-zero economy.
The Bank has already started work on this, setting out in November how it will green its corporate bond holdings to help to achieve net zero. It is for the Bank to make these decisions, given its independence, and it would not be right for the Government to instruct it in any way.
The report stated that Her Majesty’s Treasury has not helped to clarify its relationship with the Bank and noted that adding additional objectives for the Bank risks the MPC losing its focus on price stability. This issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Griffiths, and several Peers raised the relationship between the Treasury and the Bank.
The Chancellor reaffirmed the remit for the MPC at the Budget on 27 October 2021, reconfirming the inflation target for the MPC as 2%, as measured by the 12-month increase in the consumer prices index, reflecting the primacy of price stability and the forward-looking inflation target in the UK monetary policy framework. When reaffirming the MPC remit, the Chancellor also confirmed that the Government’s commitment to price stability, and the Bank of England’s operational independence, remained absolute.
Thirdly, and responding to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, the report noted that monetary policy has distributional effects and invited the Treasury to reply to any research that the Bank produces on these effects. A few Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, have noted the potential impact on wealth and pensions; that was the main subject of his speech. Of course, all public policies have distributional incomes, including monetary policy. The Government consider a wide range of research and consult a wide range of stakeholders when making policies, and the Bank’s research forms part of this evidence base.
Fourthly, the report requested the publication of the deed of indemnity of the asset purchase facility and queried the potential policy of ceasing to pay interest on the Bank’s reserves. My noble friend Lord Forsyth also raised this point. I point to the Chancellor’s response to the report in this area, where he reiterated that the Treasury is not considering a policy of ceasing to pay interest on reserves and that the decision not to publish the indemnity is in line with the approach taken since the inception of the APF.
Finally, the report noted the uncertainties surrounding QE, specifically regarding its impact on inflation and output, and that the Treasury should do more to acknowledge this. As previously stated, since independence, monetary policy has been successful in delivering low and stable inflation, but the Treasury will not comment on monetary policy conduct or effectiveness to ensure operational independence is upheld.
I now turn to the final recommendation made to the Bank. The report called for the Bank of England to set out a strategy of how to unwind QE; my noble friend Lord Lamont also raised this question. Alongside its August Monetary Policy Report, the MPC outlined guidance for the conditions needed to reduce its balance sheet. The response from the Bank of England stated that the MPC’s view is that the recent rise in inflation, while likely to continue over the short term, is likely to be transitory. The MPC further said that it intends to
“begin to reduce the stock of purchased assets, by ceasing to reinvest maturing”
assets
“when Bank Rate has risen to 0.5% and if appropriate given the economic circumstances.”
Then the MPC stated that it
“envisages beginning the process of actively selling assets … only once Bank Rate has risen to at least 1%, and depending on economic circumstances at the time.”
The MPC also stated that
“Any asset sales would be conducted in a predictable manner over a period of time so as not to disrupt the functioning of financial markets.”
Monetary policy has played a critical role in supporting the economy through the Covid-19 pandemic, and the monetary policy framework remains a central pillar of the Government’s macroeconomic strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, asked how the Treasury would respond to rising inflation and interest rates. As the Office for Budget Responsibility set out in its most recent economic and fiscal outlook, a rise in inflation and interest rates will directly increase debt interest rates. This is why the Government have taken action to ensure that the public finances return to a sustainable footing. The fiscal rules seek to tackle the risk associated with the increased sensitivity of the public finances to changes in interest rates and inflation. Of course, this may put further pressure on household incomes, as several Peers alluded to in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked for our views on inflation, and several other Peers, including my noble friend Lady Morrissey, also raised this. As the Chancellor said at the Budget, the majority of this rise is due to two global forces: demand, which has increased more quickly than supply chains can meet, and a surge in energy demand. I should emphasise what the Bank has said about this. It thinks that these global pressures are transitory and takes decisions to target inflation in the medium term, which is an interesting point. As the Chancellor noted, these are shared global problems which we cannot address on our own, but where the Government can ease these pressures, they are acting to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the outlook. The latest data show that, by September, the economy was just 0.6% below its pre-pandemic level, and we are forecast to have the fastest growth in the G7 this year. This means that 2 million fewer people will be out of work than had previously been feared.
At Budget, the Chancellor set out targeted actions to support living standards: cutting the universal credit taper rate and raising the national living wage; helping with essentials through the energy price cap, the warm home discount and frozen fuel duty; and supporting the most vulnerable families through our £500 million household support fund. Matters relating to poverty were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Sikka, among others. The Bank has a strong record in ensuring price stability, and the Government are taking action where appropriate. The extraordinary policy responses from both the Government and the Bank of England have been vital in continuing to support businesses and households through this period of disruption.
My noble friend Lord Lamont raised at least four questions. I may not be able to answer them all, but his question on whether QE will be held to maturity is of course a decision of the Bank. Quantitative easing is its tool, and it is for the Bank to set out how it will unwind it. Indeed, it has set that out, as I mentioned earlier. He also raised a question about whether the Chancellor can refuse QE. The expansion of the maximum size of the asset purchase facility, which is the vehicle that delivers QE, as he knows, requires authorisation from the Chancellor. I am afraid I am not able to say anything on his question about sequencing.
I will just give one example of the transparency of the Bank of England and the MPC. At 2.30 pm today, the governor, Andrew Bailey, and other members of the MPC attended the Treasury Select Committee to discuss the November monetary policy report. This answers a few questions about transparency and accountability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked why the Government excluded QE from PSND. QE is included in PSND, but it is excluded from the PSND excluding Bank of England measure. This measure is used to better reflect the Government’s decisions.
There may be some other questions that I have not answered, but I will look at Hansard with great care. The Committee knows that, because of the independence of the MPC, I have been unable to give opinions on everything—that is rather obvious—but I hope that I have given some sort of round-up, and I now invite my noble friend to respond.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious of time. There is a message here. Over the weekend and today, I have been reading various comments from the likes of Andrew Neil, Mr Paxman and others about what a useless organisation the House of Lords is. I hope they listened to this debate and to the expertise that was apparent throughout.
I am grateful to everyone who participated, particularly to the Minister for having to read out that speech from the Treasury, in these circumstances, and also for being asked to say that a meeting of the Treasury Select Committee this afternoon showed accountability. Clearly, the messages that come from this report are about accountability, complacency and the risks that there are to inflation and to the Bank’s independence. I hope that my noble friend answers some of the specific questions that were raised during the debate, rather than telling us what we already know, in writing to members of the committee subsequently. But I am grateful to him for drawing the short straw, and to other members of the committee.
One point I should make is that every member of the committee declared their interests. I perhaps should have declared mine as the chairman of a rather small, quoted bank. These interests are declared and, with them, comes a degree of knowledge. I will single out one member of the committee, my noble friend Lady Morrissey, who explained what she thought after 15 years as a bond fund manager. If I were a Minister listening to this, I would go back and say to my officials, “We really have to do better than this”.
Brexit: Food, Environment, Energy and Health (European Union Committee Report)
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Beyond Brexit: food, environment, energy and health (22nd Report, Session 2019-21, HL Paper 247).
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I can see that the Opposition are rather outgunned on this report, so it is very useful that we co-operated right across party lines in the committee. It is a bit like a Frankenstein moment, because we are bringing to life a sub-committee that died back in March but one that I found extremely competent in its work. Although the report is now somewhat old, having been produced at the beginning of this year, many of the issues are exactly the same and are live now, as they were then. Many of the questions that we asked of the Government and to which they responded are still there.
First, I welcome the Minister to the sub-committee, as it were. I am very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in his place. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, came in front of us regularly, but, of course, he has moved on to the post of Senior Deputy Speaker.
It has been some time since the report came out. I shall briefly go through what has gone on during that time, but one thing we have to say at the beginning, and we say it strongly in the report, is thank goodness there was a trade and co-operation agreement, the TCA. It is there; it was landed. It is as good a free trade agreement as we were going to get given the red lines that we had. Sure, it affects only 20% of our economy but more of the European Union’s so it is rather more biased towards it. I remember many times during the evidence sessions that we had with our farming constituency that its view was that there was nothing worse than no deal, and we have saved that situation. We have a number of other frictions that I will come on to, but we have a TCA there.
Since then, of course, we have had rollover deals with South Korea, Japan and Canada and new deals with Australia and New Zealand, which I will perhaps touch on later. There is noticeably no deal with the United States and nothing there on the horizon. There is no practical fisheries agreement with Norway, which is something I also wish to come back to later in this debate.
Of the live issues that we still have, clearly, at the top in terms of temperature apart from fisheries—I will come on to that in a minute—is Northern Ireland and the protocol. We still have checks there, which are major frictions to trade within the United Kingdom. We still have not, as I understand it, solved the issue of medicines going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It may be that we have; I think that is being sorted out at the moment and is one of the areas that should be resolved. We still have a number of prohibited products such as seed potatoes and we are unable to import some chilled products because Northern Ireland is part of the single market for goods.
In terms of labour, we did not talk in the report about HGV drivers but they are clearly vital in the supply chain of perishable goods and we have issues there. We have issues still, I believe, with vets, with healthcare—particularly on social services—with butchers and with farm workers. I know from my own experience down in Cornwall and the south-west that we have not cropped all that we have grown because of those labour shortages.
We have issues with paperwork still. We have no single window to deal with documentation electronically. I find this quite staggering. We have had five years to prepare ourselves from that referendum result and still we have paperwork-based systems. We are still not connected, I understand, to the TRACES system for imports of animal and vegetable products. Groupage is better but still not solved. The noble Earl, Lord Stair, was unable to be with us today but, where he is based in Scotland, he sees some of this with Northern Ireland. He particularly notes veterinary surgeons being used to check details of paperwork while hardly having to bother about animal welfare and animal health. We are having to use that resource in that way.
Then there are the sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements that were not resolved in the TCA. This has been one of the big frictions in the trade in food and animals, and it particularly affects the area that we looked at in this report. Because of that friction, we have had a major fall in trade with the EU.
We have an issue on fisheries the moment. We have, maybe, a certain amount of unreasonableness—I would say absolute unreasonableness—from France and the threats it made towards our Crown territories. Again, we have an issue there that has not been sorted out. We do not have an agreement with Iceland, Greenland, the Faroes or Norway. That affects a number of our fleets, particularly that out of Grimsby. We still cannot export bivalve molluscs and there are a number of other areas that were not really foreseen.
On the chemicals side, we still have the issue of UK REACH. British chemical firms—and, indeed, foreign ones trying to export to our supply chains—are finding much additional cost that in many ways is dogmatic rather than necessary.
Having said that, a number of achievements have happened since then. We have our own emissions trading scheme in the UK, which as I understand it is working well. We now have an Office for Environmental Protection, which is but one week old, with an appointed chair and staff. Some of us might question its independence, but we have it and it will be working. That is good. Replacing the CAP we now have ELMS, which if delivered properly in the way it was meant to be—I hope that happens—will mean we have a much more environmentally friendly form of agriculture ahead of us. We have interconnectors that are still working; indeed, the Norway-UK interconnector has become operational since Brexit happened. On Euratom, many of us were concerned about that relationship and being able to trade in nuclear and radioactive products. That has been sorted extremely well, even with the United States, where we felt the Senate would get in the way. We have a universal health card as well. A number of positives have happened.
However, I have a number of questions for the Minister; perhaps I can just go through them. There are quite a few of them, and it is fine if he wants to reply to me in writing on some of them. Will the UK and EU ETSs, the emissions trading schemes, come together as we want?
I had sympathy for our not doing the EU waters Norway deal, because Norway seemed to get a lot more out of it than we did, but we still do not have a deal in the subarctic area either, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he reckons we will as we move into next year.
On sanitary and phytosanitary rules, the whole Northern Ireland side and EU exports, we could get over this if we agreed to regulatory alignment as opposed to offering equivalence. Why do we not do that? We can withdraw from that whenever we want to. It would solve the short-term problem while we do not have divergence. When will that single window of documentation start?
On chemicals, we are going through UK REACH. What divergence does the Minister predict? Will that happen now?
The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, was so involved in biosecurity. As I understand it, we are now not going to check goods coming into the UK until July 2022. How will we ensure that our biosecurity is good up until that time?
What has happened to the specialist committees, particularly the sanitary and phytosanitary and fisheries specialist working committees? Have those met yet? There seems to be a silence there.
In some ways most importantly practically, certainly for my region, will we have an extension of the seasonal workers scheme? It seems to me that now we have full control over movement of people across our borders, we can afford to make sure that supply equals demand while the electorate know that it is not going to be for ever and that we have control over it ourselves.
Those are some of the questions in our report that are still there. I will say one or two things as a conclusion. I will not go into Brexit in detail, but the thing that saddens me is the confrontational attitude we still have between the UK and the EU. France is to blame on fishing, but I believe we have had an almost proactively aggressive attitude to the European Union, which does not help any of the constituent parts of the economy that our report looked at. If Article 16 is enacted, I believe that is a threat to the TCA altogether and effectively takes us back to a no-deal Brexit, which is something that no one of any sense wants at this stage.
I come back to COP 26. I never believed the Treasury’s forecasts for Brexit that the Minister’s Government put out at the time of the referendum campaign. However, one area that I did believe was that one of the losses from Brexit would be in our influence on the continent among the other 27. The performance of the EU at COP 26 illustrates that: the EU was seen as not being a good enough player at COP 26 in Glasgow. Why was that? It was because we were not there. Whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, back in the Kyoto protocol days, Ed Davey under the coalition Government or Amber Rudd under David Cameron, we led that negotiation—we drove it from the European Union point of view. Its relative failure at Glasgow is because we were not there, and I find it unfortunate on the environmental side. We were in that last foursome—but with Alok Sharma, whom I praise along with everybody else for his work at COP 26, at COP 27 in Egypt, which now looks like being equally important, we will not be there in that cabal, or there to make sure that Europe does not backslide on its environmental needs and leadership.
This report is still alive. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I very much hope that in all these areas we will find a way forward. I beg to move.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who has covered so many of the issues, and most of the ones that I would like to touch on. I feel that the title of the debate this afternoon goes well beyond Brexit. Like many others, I offer the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, congratulations on securing a debate on this report, which was our committee’s swansong back in March this year. It encapsulated a great series of reports into every possible aspect of Brexit that our remit contained, beginning with Brexit and fisheries in December 2016, almost five years ago.
I declare my family’s interest in the rural and agricultural sector.
Throughout the process of producing these reports, the staff did wonders in summoning witnesses involved in every conceivable aspect, unravelling the many technical aspects and then hammering the findings into a series of succinct reports. The Government’s response is full of the idealism that characterised much of our approach to the whole Brexit deal. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, emphasised, there are many promises on which we are still waiting to see whether Europe can be brought to agree with our wishes—not just on Northern Ireland. Our concerns were largely due to the reliance of various sectors on trade with Europe and the perishable commodities involved.
As we negotiated, we waited anxiously until, at the last minute, Europe agreed to grant us third-country status. Then we welcomed the Government’s achievement in gaining a tariff and quota-free deal but, as our report pointed out, they got nowhere near a sensible approach to the sanitary and phytosanitary measures.
I must thank the NFU and the National Sheep Association for giving me an up-to-date position in their sectors. Another sector greatly affected has been fishing. Since January, UK agri-food exporters to the EU reckon to have lost more than £1.8 billion in income, while we have given extended grace periods to our EU competitors to sell in our market. In particular, 30% less lamb has been sold into Europe in this period. When it comes to exporting live animals for breeding, there has been a barrier due to the complete lack of border control posts with live animal facilities, to the extent that there are now sheep breeders with orders from EU farmers valued at £40,000 each who have no hope of getting a deal.
The Government laid great emphasis in their plans on a trade specialised committee on sanitary and phytosanitary matters. Has this ever been established? What sign is there of it facilitating trade between the parties?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I ask how much of the funding provided this year for setting up a single trade window based on electronic documents has been spent, and with what outcomes. At present, our processes are faced with between £1,600 and £4,000 of additional costs per lorry going over to Europe. The fact that we have delayed setting any further controls for goods coming in from the EU may go some way to keeping supermarket shelves stocked as we go towards Christmas, but the food production issues that we currently face are due largely to workforce availability. As a consequence, I understand that the food industry has asked for a 12-month Covid recovery visa to expand the seasonal workers scheme. Has this been fully implemented?
A couple of sections of our report were on energy and the environment, topics that occupied many hours of discussion at the recent COP 26 gathering in Glasgow. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, our committee was considerably concerned about the remit given to any Office for Environmental Protection. Given that this has now been brought into existence, it was interesting to hear the noble Lord remark that the office is fully functional. I would like confirmation on that.
I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the session which my noble friend the Minister chaired at COP 26, on nature and the environment. Forestry and farming were much in focus as areas where carbon sequestration measures are practical possibilities. For the last couple of years, the NFU of England and Wales has been aiming for net-zero production by 2040, and in Scotland the aim is 2045. The mechanisms and results are fairly new science, and it is not clear whether the current calculations are based on the complete, whole-farm carbon cycle. This may become even more important as we negotiate the present trade agreement with Australia. I believe that it is as yet unwilling to sign up to any climate agreements and yet it seems to think that, by its calculation, its meat and dairy production will be net zero before the dates that we are considering.
From my day in Glasgow it was obvious that, as well as the environment, agriculture and food play out on a global stage, so much emphasis was placed on the need to establish norms which will allow us to compare and learn from what is happening in Australia, New Zealand and even the United States. I was particularly interested to hear the approach of the US Secretary for Agriculture, whose stated policy at the conference was to achieve more effective use of fertilisers and a reduction in methane emissions and to look after his 200,000 farmers. At that rate, we can expect a lot more competition from that quarter. Can my noble friend the Minister give the Committee any indication of the Government’s view of how this will affect our farm production in the UK?
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his committee for their excellent report. As he rightly said, some of it is out of date, but the basic questions are very important and still relevant, despite the Government’s response. I am the odd one out this afternoon, as I am the only Back-Bencher here who did not serve on the committee. I shall ask my noble friend a host of questions. I know that he will not be able to reply to them all today, but I hope that he will give me detailed responses in due course.
I start with fishing. Just before the Trade and Cooperation Agreement was finalised, the Government told us all that there would be an incremental benefit to the fishing industry to the tune of about £148 million by 2026. Where are the figures to justify this? We do not have them yet and we do not have a balance sheet, and it is quite wrong that the Government have not produced them. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has produced its own report, which shows a totally different figure; it shows that the fishing industry is likely to lose £300 million by 2026 and that the UK fishing fleet has serious problems ahead of it. That report was prepared by a former Defra official, so I presume it to be well based and fairly accurate.
To continue on the theme of a full report from the Government, does my noble friend agree that no assessment of the TCA provisions is relevant for fishing without including the non-quota species? Fundamentally, does my noble friend agree that any deal that allows EU fleets to catch 42,000 tonnes of fish in our waters and for us to catch only 12,000 tonnes in EU waters is doomed to be a failure and a continuation of a rather disastrous 1983 agreement?
Inevitably, leaving Europe has led to more bureaucracy. Does my noble friend agree that the cost of extra bureaucracy and filling in forms for the non-tariff barriers, health certificates, catch certificates and border checks is going to cost the fishing industry a further £24 million?
I want a vibrant, economic fishing industry, but I also want one that is environmentally friendly. British trawlers catch fish by dragging nets along the seabed; they are not the only ones to do so. On average, bottom trawling fisheries release about 1 billion metric tonnes of CO2 annually. Of that, Britain produces about 90 million metric tonnes of CO2. Why were these figures not included in the COP discussions? We produce more CO2 from the seabed than the aviation industry does—and the aviation industry is getting stick, but the fishing industry is not. Why does my noble friend not stop this abysmal habit? Only 1% of UK waters are fully protected, and 97% of our offshore MPAs are subjected to destructive practices of bottom trawling and dredging. What plans has my noble friend to change those figures?
Finally on fishing, does my noble friend agree that the economics of deep-sea trawling do not stand up, and that the UK’s marine heritage is being damaged to destruction by other nations’ fisheries in the vast majority of cases? I hope that he agrees with that; it was a statement made by his fellow Minister and our noble friend Lord Benyon when he was in another place.
Moving on to agriculture, we recently had the trade deals with New Zealand and Australia, which have put the fear of God into our farmers. There is no detail from our Government about how they are going to work with farmers to promote exports, to drive efficiency and to increase productivity in the same way that the Governments of Australia and New Zealand have been doing for many years. Let us not forget that the cost of producing lamb in New Zealand is 63% lower than in the UK, and milk is 25% lower in New Zealand.
In the foreword to the Government’s reply to the Trade and Agriculture Commission report, we find the words:
“Promoting the interests of our farmers … is a priority of our trade policy and our trade deals are delivering on this.”
How do the Australia and New Zealand trade deals tangibly benefit UK farmers? We have had no reply to that, and it is time we had one. Could my noble friend tell me how he expects the bilateral safeguard to work and for how long it will apply?
I return to the Trade and Agriculture Commission report and the Government’s response to it. Any government response that states that a report makes “innovative and far-reaching proposals” means that that report is condemned to the shelf that gathers the most dust. It is obviously too difficult for the Government to get their minds around it. What is happening to the new export council to open up these new market opportunities? Where are the details? Where is the budget? There was nothing in this year’s Budget on export promotion, so where is the money coming from for that?
As we look to the future, we must not achieve our climate change ambitions by exporting UK production of food. In the way that farmers are being treated at the moment, it is likely that we will increase the percentage of food that is brought in from abroad, rather than the home-use percentage. It must be galling for our farmers to produce high-quality food to the highest standards, only for most of it to be turned into processed food that is bad for our health. Why do we have the highest standards and the highest level of processed foods in western Europe? If that is not enough, farmers have to plough in and lose a vast amount of crops because of a lack of workforce. The crop wastage in 2021, so far, is estimated at £61 million and there is a labour shortage of 18.8%. Can my noble friend tell me what plans he has for that?
Finally and quickly on the environment, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about Europe not coming up to the mark on COP 26. Will my noble friend confirm that he is looking at the question of land management, and biodiversity and nature management? We have just done the Environment Bill and have ELMS coming up, but nowhere in there have we looked at how management will happen. There has never been a time when more surveys have been carried out by the Government into nature and how we treat it, and never have they changed the goalposts so often. The farmers, who are under pressure anyway, are the custodians of our countryside. We need to help them in order to help nature and biodiversity.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate, and refer to my interests as recorded in the report. Since the time I was a staffer with the Conservatives in the European Parliament—before I went on to serve with our excellent chair, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—and prepared submissions for EU committees on behalf of our spokesman, I always wanted to serve on one of the committees or sub-committees, so I am delighted that I just snuck in before our demise. I pay tribute to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, my fellow members and our excellent team, Jennifer, Oliver, Laura and others, who looked after us during my time on the committee.
For the purposes of today, I will focus in particular on farming and the environment, but with a word on health and the future of the EHIC—I think that is what it is called—and clinical trials. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can guarantee the long-term futures of both, because they bring enormous benefits to us. We refer briefly to these in the report.
Farming faces an onslaught, in particular through forthcoming government regulations that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others have referred to, as set out in the report. I met local farmers in North Yorkshire at Thirsk mart last Thursday. While prices are buoyant, there is genuine concern as we progress from the common agricultural policy to ELMS.
It is not generally understood—I learnt it for the first time—that tenants will potentially be in breach of their farming agreements with landowners, because they are technically agricultural arrangements and now the support is moving from agricultural support to environmental support. Anything the Government can do to facilitate the discussions that have to take place as a matter of urgency will be very welcome indeed. I realise that this is a private arrangement—a matter of contract between landowners and individual tenants—but it is a source of mounting concern, in particular in North Yorkshire, where almost 50% of our farms are tenanted.
On the trade and cooperation agreement, there is general relief that we have reached an agreement for tariff and quota-free trade. I will dwell for a moment on the implications for farming of the Northern Ireland/Ireland protocol in particular. While I think it is generally realistic and welcome that there is a delay until 2022, to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, alluded, in the arrangements for implementing checks on imports from the EU to the UK, I refer to our conclusions in paragraphs 35 and 80 of the report. Paragraph 35 says:
“Trade in food and agricultural produce between Great Britain and the EU will suffer if significant policy divergences on either side lead to tariffs and increased checks being introduced. Both sides should thoroughly assess potential trade barriers that may arise as they develop approaches to regulating and supporting food and agricultural production.”
Paragraph 80 says:
“If workable arrangements cannot be found soon for the movement of food and agricultural produce from Great Britain to Northern Ireland the potential impacts on Northern Ireland’s consumers—as well as the political implications—will be acute. All parties should continue to focus on finding solutions so that goods can be moved as smoothly as possible. We trust that Lord Frost will recognise the urgency of the situation for Northern Ireland.”
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, related that it will be a breach of the TCA if we invoke Article 16. It is also potentially a breach of the EU withdrawal agreement that would have ramifications for all parties concerned.
As has been said, with food and other agricultural products—in particular live animals—being highly perishable, any delay at a border can be particularly costly. In their response to our recommendation 8 about a single window, the Government merely stated that they are working on creating one. They said:
“Work is underway to develop a delivery roadmap beyond 2022”.
That sounds like a very lax response. I ask my noble friend the Minister exactly where we are with this. Can the Government ensure that there will be no further delay to the introduction of import border controls and that they will work smoothly? How confident is my noble friend that they will indeed work smoothly?
Leaving the EU, no one expected that the UK Government would place our farmers in an even less competitive position by going further—by gold-plating, for example, the EU nitrates directive. Banning the spreading of manure in autumn months will cause great difficulties and increased expenditure and will pose particular problems for those in parts of the country such as North Yorkshire, where there is a very high density of livestock, and other areas, such as East Anglia, where nitrates already appear naturally in the soil in a high degree.
I also echo those, such as my noble friend Lord Caithness, who alluded to the promise made at the most recent election in two parts. It was that we would maintain the high standards of animal welfare and animal health production, which found favour with both producers and consumers alike, attracting a million signatures on a petition which, I understand, was instigated by the NFU. The flip-side of that was to ensure that any import of food and agricultural products must meet those same high standards. It is a matter of deep regret that, as alluded to by the Minister in the other place, our honourable friend Victoria Prentis, the Government may be unable to deliver on that pledge, and that free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand already seem to pose a direct threat to the future of British farming in that regard.
On the environment, I also echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the additional costs of meeting the UK register. I know that many who have been affected by this are putting out feelers to meet members of the committee and others. On fisheries, this is proving particularly problematic. Can my noble friend update us today, particularly on the concerns of the Scottish seafood industry on exports to France? It is completely dependent on those exports. It has gone very quiet; is that no longer a problem? What is the situation, to which we allude in the report, for our inshore under 10-metre fishermen? Have they now had access to the additional quota they were promised? Can my noble friend confirm, as others have asked, whether the specialist committee on fisheries has met?
On the environment, diverging environment and climatic change goals could pose challenges ahead. Will my noble friend confirm that the Government have engaged with the devolved Assemblies through the common frameworks, and will he update us today on how many common frameworks have been finalised and how many touch on those potential divergences?
I end by saying that I welcome this debate on our report and the government response. I realise that many of the questions that have been raised today will be beyond what the Minister is able to summarise in his response, and I would welcome any written answer as a result.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, as always, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who made some extremely important points in her speech, as did all colleagues who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. He was an admirable, exemplary chairman of the committee and it was a joy to serve under him—particularly as the committee never met. Nobody has mentioned this during the debate, but all our meetings were on Zoom and Microsoft Teams. I grew to know those two devices, to have enormous admiration for those who made it possible, but to develop an increasing hatred for the wretched business, because I could not sit, as I can now, with my colleagues, look them in the face and discuss things with them: we were all on the screen.
That is where the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was brilliant, because he made enormous efforts to make sure that every one of us got in. We had to raise hands or press a yellow button, but his eyesight was impeccable, his judgment marvellous and we all got in. During all that time, as has been referred to, we were served by a wonderful staff, with Jennifer, our clerk, Laura and the others. They, too, were exemplary, but I have still not met them, and we will not meet them until the beginning of next month, when we are having a retrospective on the committee. I just think that ought to go on record.
I find this a somewhat dismal occasion, not just because the committee no longer exists but because—and one hates to say this—we told you so. When the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, quoted from paragraphs 35 and 80, my immediate reaction was would that people had taken these points seriously. The underlying lesson—and I hope the Minister takes this back—is that when you try to achieve great things to artificial deadlines you almost always fail. I made the point time and time again. I was not trying to be a remoaner; I was not trying to suggest Brexit could or should not happen. But I begged the Prime Minister in this very Room when he came to speak to a gathering of the Association of Conservative Peers not to be driven by a deadline.
Of course, what happened as a result of the deadline is the Irish protocol. The Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who were responsible for agreeing it—not only commending it to Parliament but urging us to get it through—now seem to find that it is full of holes, which indeed it is.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, my noble friend Lord Caithness, in a perceptive and excellent speech, and my noble friend the Duke of Montrose—everyone —has pointed to things that could have been done better and to threats that now exist to British farming, in particular. Deals that have been driven through with Australia and New Zealand are going to threaten the sheep farmers in Wales, potato growers in Scotland and all sorts of other people. I took part in the debates, as I think did everyone present, on the Agriculture Bill and the Environment Bill. We welcomed both of them but their success hangs in the balance, and it is important that we notch things down a bit as we move over the next few rather difficult weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made an extremely good point about COP 26. Like him, I metaphorically take off my hat to Alok Sharma for the way in which he conducted proceedings. He deserves the thanks of us all, but he did not have united European back-up, because we were not able to lead it as we had done when the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, was wielding his stick a few years ago. It really is crucial, more important than anything else, that we repair relations with our European friends and neighbours. The world is getting more dangerous almost by the day, but the atlas does not change. The map of Europe does not change. France remains our nearest neighbour. Germany, although going through a difficult time at the moment, remains the most powerful member of the European Union. We are no longer part of that team and we cannot be. Talk of having another referendum is rubbish, but we owe it to ourselves to try to have the closest possible relations with our European friends and neighbours who, until a short time ago, were our partners as well.
When the noble Lord, Lord Frost, delivered his Statement in the Chamber last week, I reminded him of the famous saying—which was actually written by WS Gilbert, but it was on the desk of Harold Macmillan—that
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot”.
This is the time when we must not bang drums or issue threats, warnings or deadlines. We must come to an agreement. The statement made by the European Union a few weeks ago indicated that it is ready for that.
Negotiations mean that everybody has to be prepared to give, take and compromise. But it would be a political tragedy of the worst sort if we did poison relations with our European friends and neighbours through over-haste. Your Lordships should think of the trouble brewing in the Balkans at the moment, the stand-off with the Polish-Belarusian border, and the trouble brewing, which has been there for a long time, in Ukraine. Never has there been a greater need for a cohesive Europe: one that can develop relations with some of the difficult countries—we must have better relations with Russia—but one that can work so far as possible together.
I have strayed off the subject a little. I do not apologise for that, because I believe this report was extremely perceptive and far-seeing. The evidence we received from some very fine people had one thread running through it: we must not leave with no deal. Thank God we did not leave with no deal, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, indicated in his opening remarks, a real bust-up over the protocol could put the deal itself in jeopardy. We must not have that. We owe it to our farmers, our fishermen and others.
It was a privilege to be on this committee. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and all my colleagues for that privilege, and all the officials. But if this report —which is now outdated; we have all said that—can be reread in the Government and if they could realise that some of the pitfalls could have been avoided, this debate will not have been in vain. My only request to my noble friend is that he draws the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, to this debate and to what colleagues have said. We are united across party, as we were in this committee throughout its deliberations, in wanting the Government and Brexit to succeed. But we must use all our diplomatic gifts—and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is a trained diplomat—to make sure that that happens.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his introduction to this report. As someone who was not on the committee, it was very useful to get that broad oversight in his introduction. As he said, it was a huge relief to many of us that there was a trade and co-operation agreement at the time. While recognising that it is great that we have this agreement, despite the tariff-free access to European markets for food and agricultural products, we have heard about some of the problems that still exist and some of the trade barriers—for example, further paperwork and checks at borders—that our markets are having to deal with. I will not go into the concerns around sanitary and phytosanitary measures as they have already been discussed by other noble Lords.
I would like to come back to a point the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made about the issues of sticking to an artificial deadline, as I think the TCA negotiations were rushed because of that. The report said they were “agreed at extraordinary pace”, and I think this is one of the reasons why we have many of the problems and concerns that noble Lords have raised today, including increased costs and significant disruption to our food supply chain.
We know that the agri-food sector in particular has faced additional trade frictions and challenges. It is hard, as other noble Lords said, for it to remain competitive in a very changing trading market, where our high standards, which it is important to keep—and I very much support them—mean that other countries that do not have those high standards may be able to undercut us. It is really important that we keep a proper grip on this, as we go forward making future trade deals.
There has also been discussion of the fact that the full import controls will be coming in in July next year. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about the plan for this, and how it would be looked at beforehand to make sure that everything moves as smoothly as possible. That is a very important question that needs to be answered.
We had quite a discussion on fisheries, so I shall not go into great detail on that, but I draw attention to a recent NFFO report that was critical of the quotas agreement, saying that there would be losses of £64 million a year unless changes were
“secured through international fisheries negotiations”.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned the fact that those did not seem to be happening at the moment —we do not have the deals that were being promised. Obviously, we have a current issue with France but, outside of that, I should be interested to have an update from the Minister on how further negotiations are going and when we are likely to see some.
On the environment, the TCA is clearly a long and complex agreement with many interconnecting environmental provisions, so we very much welcome the inclusion of the environmental and climate change chapter, but have some concerns about the enforceability of some of the provisions—particularly the challenge of how different policy areas may move at different speeds and how the UK will project its influence into the EU. Other noble Lords have raised that question as well. There is also the challenge of when and how we update retained EU law. Will the Government carry out timely revisions and reviews? On that point, I raise the issue that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised around the environment and the impact of bottom trawling, because that may be an area on which we want to make a different rule. How will those things come into place? How does the TCA provide a minimum baseline for future free trade agreements so that we do not have an environmental race to the bottom? I know that provisions are in place to stop that, but they are cumbersome. How, practically, do we see them being used?
On something that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, which was important, there is the issue of devolved policy-making. It is really important that we all pull together as a United Kingdom. Someone raised the point to me that the UK could find itself triggering the rebalancing clause because Wales decides that it wants to be more ambitious than the EU. How are we going to make this work properly with our devolved Administrations?
On energy, the committee agreed with industry and environmental groups that the UK and EU should prioritise linking their emissions trading systems. In response to this, the Government said that they would take forward their commitments to co-operate on carbon pricing and consider linking with the EU ETS. I am not sure whether I have missed anything on that, but it would be useful to have an update from the Minister on that.
I turn to chemicals, and the setting up of UK REACH. I have raised this a few times, in the short time I have been in your Lordships’ House, and I know that the Government acknowledge that there are challenges facing the chemicals industry—but the committee challenged the Government’s position on this.
One big area is costs in accessing data and potential increased costs if there is divergence. I want to reference the UK in a Changing Europe’s divergence tracker, which notes that, since the end of the transition period, the EU has legislated to restrict 13 more hazardous chemicals, or is in the process of doing so, only two of which Defra has said would be restricted under UK REACH. The UK in a Changing Europe suggested that this was because the UK had been slower than the EU in bringing in new chemicals regulations. It then says—which is what worries me—that
“regulatory standards are likely to be lower in the UK, especially in the early phases of the UK REACH programme”.
It also assessed that, where divergence meant there were distinct standards to comply with in Great Britain and in the EU, companies would be likely to prioritise conforming with EU standards, as it represented a larger market. My concern is that the Government may not always, whether meaning to or not, act in the interests of the chemicals industry. I would like reassurance from the Minister on how that is all going.
I want to end by briefly referencing health. I am aware that it is not the Minister’s brief, but, clearly, health is part of the report. Both the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, talked about the seasonal worker scheme. That is very important, but the report also talked of alarming staff shortages in the health sector—so this goes beyond seasonal workers.
Almost 15% of NHS staff in England report a nationality other than British, with 8.7% of doctors in England’s hospitals and community health services EU nationals. They also make up 5.6% of all nurses and 5.8% of scientific, therapeutic and technical staff. Although they are not huge percentages, these are a lot of people. The percentage of doctors and nurses of EU nationality also grew between 2009 and 2016, but, according to figures from the House of Commons Library, these percentages have all fallen since the referendum, which is clearly of concern, when we know that we have a large number of shortages among our NHS staff.
That also has an impact on the social care workforce. In the last decade, EU migrants became the main group of foreign-born social care workers, accounting for 80% of all new non-UK labour. Again, this of real concern. It worries us that, under the post-Brexit points-based immigration system introduced in January this year, most social care workers do not qualify as skilled workers, so they are excluded from that route. A report for the Migration Advisory Committee said that the new rules are
“expected to deprive the UK of a non-negligible source of foreign adult social care workers”
and that European Economic Area nationals have been
“a non-negligible contributor to securing adequate care workforce in an aging society”.
I am sorry to have gone on about that, but, as we go into the winter, it is a critical point that the Government need to address. I do not think that the Government’s winter plan for social care will solve all these problems. As I said, I appreciate that this is not the Minister’s brief, but if he could find out and perhaps write with the answers, I would appreciate it, because this is an important area and we need answers.
There have been recent government actions that have caused friction—other noble Lords have mentioned this. Putting France aside and the issue of the fishing dispute, I think it is important that we do not take such an aggressive stance with our nearest neighbours. There is still a lot of work to be done. The importance of maintaining good relations with the EU cannot be overstated. I would welcome the Minister’s response to my questions and his confirmation that he would certainly want to work constructively and co-operatively with our neighbours to move forward in this area.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for securing the debate and to the environment sub-committee members for this excellent report, Beyond Brexit: Food, Environment, Energy and Health. We have had some excellent contributions today and I am grateful to everyone who has taken part. I start by agreeing with the last sentiment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. It is absolutely in all our interests that we work together, not least for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, cited.
The committee detailed a number of conclusions and recommendations in the report. We considered them in the Government’s published response, and I will try to provide a further update this evening. We were elected, as noble Lords will know, to get Brexit done and we have done that. We are already realising some benefits of our departure from the EU, particularly in relation to the department for which I am speaking today, Defra. We are revolutionising the way that we support farmers—I will come back to that in a second. The goal is to help them to improve the environment and animal health and welfare while reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We have passed the flagship Environment Act—it is wonderful to be able to use that term after nearly 100 hours of debate—which sets the framework for how we will deliver for the environment freed from some of the more burdensome and poorly-targeted EU directives. Freed from the common fisheries policy, we can help our fishing fleet recover and strive to be the most sustainable fleet in the world.
Before I pick up on some of the individual points made in the debate, I will briefly recap on the context of what was achieved with the TCA. It was the first time that the EU had ever agreed a deal with a trading partner based on zero tariffs and zero quotas. It is an agreement based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals, centred on free trade and inspired by our shared history and values. I am pleased that the committee’s report recognises that many of our sectors benefit from the tariff-free access to the EU market secured by the TCA.
The agreement recognises UK sovereignty over our fishing waters and puts us in a position to rebuild our fishing fleet by regaining control of our waters and delivering increased fishing quotas through annual negotiations with the EU and other coastal states. The agreement means that the UK can now regulate in a way that suits the UK economy and UK businesses, doing things in a more innovative and effective way.
On the environment, it is worth acknowledging that the huge tangle of EU law that exists has not halted the decline in nature. That is not to say that those regulations are without value, many of them do have value, but I think it is a mistake to regard the existing ecosystem of environmental law in the European Union as being effective as a whole. We are now free to really deliver on nature recovery and biodiversity by taking what works and building on the rest, which is what I think the Environment Act seeks to do.
We are ensuring businesses get the support they need to trade effectively with Europe and to seize new opportunities as we strike trade deals with the world’s fastest-growing markets.
The UK and the EU have very similar animal and plant health measures. The Government are committed to maintaining those high standards in biosecurity, food safety and animal welfare. Indeed, it is our intention to go further in many of those areas. We have the freedom now to introduce our own SPS rules based on more up-to-date science, better targeted to manage biosecurity risks and food safety issues specific to the UK and better reflecting UK needs and priorities.
The SPS chapter in the TCA recognises that the UK and EU’s independent SPS controls must be risk based and should not create unnecessary barriers to trade. The Trade Specialised Committee on SPS, which the TCA establishes, is tasked with regularly reviewing the parties’ SPS measures and their application. The chapter allows the UK and the EU to take informed decisions to reduce their respective SPS controls where justified, with that commitment to avoid unnecessary trade barriers while respecting each party’s right to regulate. We believe it is in both parties’ interests to use this framework to reduce the rate of SPS checks required.
In answer to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the first meeting of the Trade Specialised Committee on SPS has now taken place. It provided the opportunity to take stock of our new relationship with the EU on SPS matters. Both the UK and the EU agreed on the importance of ongoing collaboration across a wide range of issues, including e-certification, animal welfare and the fight against antimicrobial resistance. At the committee, the UK raised concerns about the justification for the EU’s import conditions covering live bivalve molluscs and seed potatoes, including their impact on businesses. The UK and the EU agreed to further technical exchanges on these and future constructive discussions on import restrictions on chilled meats.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, asked, I think, when the single trade window stops. The answer is that the capabilities of the single trade window will grow iteratively over the coming years, with functionality being extended to users in stages. Work is under way to develop a delivery road map beyond 2022, and we will be engaging extensively with the broader industry and traders over the coming months to ensure that we deliver a genuinely transformative approach for users.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised so many issues that I am afraid I cannot possibly answer them all, but I will answer some and write to him afterwards on others. He made the point of the importance of nature and land use in the context of our climate battle and mentioned COP 26. One very clear win at COP 26 was our having put nature and land use at the heart of those discussions. In previous COPs, nature, forests and land use generally have always been at the margins of the margins of the debate. We have a small room with forestry experts on the outside of the conference, and discussions happen and are then completely ignored. That has changed. One of the two main leaders’ days was completely dominated by commitments being made by leaders and businesses on forests. Even some of the more sceptical environmental groups were both taken by surprise and very happy that we had a package on forests which, cumulatively, represents a turning point in our relationship with the natural world. Clearly, we have to make that stuff happen and follow through, and that is what we will do for the remainder of our presidency, which lasts a year.
I disagree with the point the noble Earl has made today and in a number of debates we have had, not least on the then Environment Bill, that the choice is between food production and ecological restoration. I know that is a crude summary of his point, but I think it is its essence. There are so many examples, both here and around the world, of food production being reconciled with the biodiversity crisis we find ourselves in. Fundamentally, no matter how difficult that is, it has to happen. If we are to stop deforestation, it means reconciling commodity production with forests. If we do not do that, all our efforts in relation to emissions reductions are worth nothing. That is the central challenge we face as a species, and it matters here in the UK just as much as in the Amazon.
The committee registered concerns from the fishing industry about the TCA. Although it did not deliver everything that we and the industry hoped for, it has delivered an uplift in fishing quota shares for the UK fleet across a wide range of stocks. The annual consultations that followed were protracted, as we know, and we know that this has also caused uncertainty. The annual consultations for the 2022 fishing year started last week, with both parties keen to make faster progress this year. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the specialised committee on fisheries, the SCF, provides a forum for discussion and co-operation with the EU in relation to sustainable fisheries management, and the first and second meetings took place on 20 July and 27 October respectively.
I am not ignoring the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I will come back to her point in a second. In fact, I hope the next thing I say is reassuring to her on some of the points she raised. The fish trade sector is now showing some clear signs of recovery. Overall seafood export value in July 2021 was similar to pre-pandemic levels. Exports to the EU remain 9% below pre-Covid average values, while non-EU trade is up 4%, so a semblance of normality is returning to the sector. While we are generally seeing exports recover, we recognise that there is still disruption caused by hospitality sector closures, freight issues, coronavirus and so on, and we continue to work with the sector to try to resolve those challenges. A Defra-led UK-wide seafood industry forum on trade has been established to support the seafood industry with trade and supply chains in all markets, at home and abroad. It has representation from right across the sector—small and big businesses and everything in between.
The TCA provides for limited access to specific areas of the UK 6 to 12 nautical miles zone until the end of the adjustment period, which is on 30 June 2026. Access will be limited to qualifying vessels, namely those that have historically accessed the UK 6 to 12 miles zone with a demonstrable track record of fishing between 2012 and 2016. Access arrangements for the Crown dependencies are different in the TCA. The approach of the UK and Crown dependencies throughout this year has been to implement the new access requirements of the TCA in good faith and in a reasonable and evidence-based way, recognising the sensitivities and importance for both parties.
Before I move on from fishing, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned bottom trawling, and I very strongly agree with both of their remarks. The ecological devastation it causes is akin to clear-cutting the Amazon rainforest; it causes untold damage. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned the CO2 contribution caused by bottom trawling. Although the science is not clear and there are wildly varying estimates on the contribution that bottom trawling makes in terms of CO2 emissions, there is no doubt that it does contribute, and it probably contributes very seriously. Consequently, our management of the ocean should be a much more central part of our COP negotiations. But as the noble Earl and others who have taken interest in this will know, that is a very sensitive political issue which has always been shunted to the side in COP negotiations. However, I think we made significant progress at this COP, not least with the help of Secretary Kerry, who has a passion for oceans and was able to help us bring this issue much closer to the heart of the discussions. I do not pretend we are there yet; I can say only that serious and measurable progress has been made.
The TCA recognises our ongoing commitment to high environmental standards while retaining flexibility for us to tailor our approach for the UK and maintaining our strong levels of protection. This protects our sovereignty while reinforcing our role as a global leader in environment and climate policy. These arrangements are typical of the sort you find in other free trade agreements and will ensure that both parties retain full legislative autonomy while also providing reasonable assurances that both sides will not engage in aggressively anticompetitive practices in a way that distorts trade between each other. The report welcomes the inclusion of climate change provisions in the TCA. It notes that the TCA reflects the importance that both parties place on tackling climate change by making that challenge an essential element in the agreement.
I say briefly in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who mentioned the challenges inherent in free trade agreements and the risk that poses to our own standards, we have been very clear that we will not pursue free trade agreements in such a way that our own standards are compromised. That is not to say that there are not challenges, but alongside those challenges there are a lot of opportunities, and the goal surely has to be to reach a situation where the kinds of sustainable practices that we know the world needs are favoured in trade arrangements and those things which are less sustainable face bigger obstacles. There are plenty of opportunities where the UK could be more ambitious in our pursuit of free trade agreements. I am having those discussions with the new Secretary of State for International Trade in the coming weeks, and I very much look forward to them.
The UK already has in place some of the highest environmental standards in the world and the Government have no intention of weakening or lowering them, as I said earlier. On the contrary, it is our intention to continue raising them. The UK will use the TCA committee structure to monitor EU implementation and engage with the Commission on any issue of suspected EU non-compliance, including through the dispute resolution mechanism of the TCA if necessary.
Reflecting our commitment to high environmental standards, on 9 November 2021 the UK Parliament passed into law the Environment Act 2021 to protect and enhance our environment for future generations. The relevant sections of the Act will be commenced imminently to bring about the legal establishment of the office for environmental protection. In fact, I have a bit of an update on that. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, asked when the OEP will be fully functioning. I can confirm that we will commence all the relevant parts of the Environment Act to enable all the OEP’s statutory functions and duties within three months of Royal Assent, which is in roughly two and a half months from now.
The report also covers energy and carbon pricing, urging for delivery of new arrangements and concerns that consumer electricity prices could increase. The global gas price spike provides yet another good reason why we must move away from a dependency on fossil fuels and towards clean sources of energy at home. As we decarbonise our electricity system, wholesale prices will be less affected by the fluctuations caused by fossil fuel prices, and all else being equal we would expect wholesale prices under a renewables-based electricity system to be lower than our current one based on fossil fuels. This will protect consumers by reducing our exposure to these volatile prices while lowering prices as electricity becomes cheaper to produce. We already have a strong, home-grown renewable energy sector, but we need to go further to reduce our reliance and protect British consumers.
The Government are committed to developing and implementing new efficient electricity trading arrangements as agreed to in the TCA to support the further integration of renewable energy sources, along with our ambition on net zero, and our need to protect consumers from high prices. As part of that, we have recently consulted on the current arrangements for trading electricity on power exchanges in the GB wholesale electricity market and our proposal to support efficient cross-border trading. That consultation closed on 3 November. We are currently considering responses to those proposals and will publish our response soon. On carbon pricing, as noble Lords know, the UK and EU agreed to co-operate and give consideration to linking our respective carbon pricing systems under the terms of the TCA. We will be taking forward our commitments in due course.
As the report states, securing a trade agreement with the EU was a key priority for the UK chemicals sector, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. The agreement removes the vast majority of the £1 billion per annum tariff costs that the sector would have faced in a non-negotiated or no-deal outcome, and has been welcomed by industry. Again in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, of course we want to support a sustainable, innovative UK chemicals sector which thrives in the longer term. This must be done without undermining the capacity of the regulator to adequately ensure that chemicals are traded on the GB market safely. Striking this balance clearly comes with challenges, and I do not underestimate the strength of feeling around the move to UK REACH and the challenges and costs of that. We have debated that many times in the House, and I recognise that the House takes a very strong view, one that has been very much noted by Defra.
We are grateful to those in industry who have worked closely with us through the complex issues around the transition, generating ideas for Ministers to consider and working with us on the practicalities of the set-up. Since UK REACH launched on 1 January, companies have successfully submitted information to HSE ahead of the key milestones for grandfathering and downstream user import notifications, via the IT service “Comply with UK REACH”. Ministers are still considering proposals put forward by industry for making changes to the UK REACH registration requirements. These are very difficult issues, which Ministers are grappling with, but they are taking the proposals seriously, so I would ask for noble Lords’ patience while they do so.
As acknowledged by the committee report, the agreement that the Government have reached with the EU means that reciprocal healthcare arrangements continue. UK residents are covered if they need urgent healthcare when in an EU member state, and the arrangements ensure that all those with long-term conditions will continue to be able to benefit from necessary healthcare in the EU. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, since the start of the year, over 1.5 million global health insurance cards and 240,000 UK European health insurance cards have been issued.
In relation to a question put to me on Northern Ireland, which I think was also put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—apologies if that is wrong—a lot of concerns have been raised by Peers about Northern Ireland generally. I confirm that there remains a substantial gap between the positions of the UK and the EU. We think and hope that that gap can be bridged, but it will clearly require very intensive discussions.
We will seize the opportunities enabled by our exit to realise ambitions to make the UK a life sciences superpower. We will use the provisions of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 to overhaul our clinical trial frameworks, based on outdated EU legislation, giving a major boost to the UK’s world-class research and development sector and getting patients access to new life-saving medicines more quickly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, kindly acknowledged that this was not an area that I normally cover, but I shall address her point on the NHS workforce. The Government are, of course, hugely grateful for the tremendous contribution that front-line workers within the health and care sectors are playing at the current time, and recognise their commitment and the dedication they have to keeping vital services running. We are committed to growing and supporting the workforce to ensure that it continues to provide world-class health and care. There are record numbers of doctors and nurses working in the NHS today.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the NHS people plan recognises that international staff are critical, as she says, to a sustainable workforce in the short to medium term while domestic supply is increased. There is a gap there that needs to be filled. Recognising this, in 2020 we introduced the health and care visa and waived the immigration health surcharge for key health and care occupations to make it quicker and cheaper for international health and care professionals to come and work in the UK. The recently updated code of practice for the international recruitment of health and social care personnel will ensure that the UK remains a world leader in ethical international recruitment.
I apologise for speaking for longer than the allocated 20 minutes. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his committee for this report and for his remarks earlier. I know I have not answered all the questions that were put to me. I will go through Hansard and ensure I do so in writing. In the meantime, I hand back to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to wrap up. I thank the Committee for its patience today.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank all Members who have contributed today. I suppose I must particularly thank Members who were not members of the committee, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. It has been an excellent debate. I have found it very interesting, and I think we have had a fairly common agenda.
One of the things I have learned in my 15 years in this House is that you do not spend a lot of time summing up after a debate. What I want to do is thank the clerks team of the committee, although they are not here—Jennifer Mills; Oliver Rix, our policy analyst; and Laura Ayres, our administrator—for the fantastic work that they did for the committee. I am sure they are all going to go on to much greater things.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is right, though I had not even thought about it: this is the first time that any of the committee have met physically for some considerable time—and certainly the present membership. That is something to celebrate, perhaps.
I thank the Minister for everything he said. It is interesting that, during the whole time that I have been chair of this committee—which has been for something like five years—whenever we had a Minister from Defra in front of us, the message was that we will maintain welfare standards and we will maintain, in all our international agreements, all of those areas that British farmers have to comply with through our own legislation. But then when we have had International Trade Ministers in front of us, the emphasis from them has always been on free trade and all the benefits that British consumers will have from a much greater range of products and, dare I say it, even cheaper prices in the shops. I found it very interesting that the Minister, rightly from Defra’s point of view, emphasised the traditional line from Defra of welfare standards and equality of environmental standards.
As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, the Australian and New Zealand deals just do not have that. There is no greater critic from the Government’s own side than the noble Lord, Lord Deben; I have never heard anybody more critical of those arrangements than him. It is interesting to see that divergence is still there in government.
I thank the Minister, as always, for going through all the questions he has promised to go through—those that he has not answered—and for his fulsome reply to the Committee. Again, I thank everybody for having contributed.
House of Lords
Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Exeter
Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
Levelling Up White Paper
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will publish their white paper on levelling up.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
We aim to publish by the end of the year. However, our priority is to have a White Paper which meets the scale of ambition and sets out our transformative agenda to deliver real long-term change across the United Kingdom. Levelling up is at the heart of this Government’s agenda to build back better after the pandemic. The recent spending review showed the significant action we are already taking to empower local leaders, boost living standards, spread opportunity and restore local pride.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to levelling up and to reducing some of the inequalities in our country. But if levelling up is to be more than a slogan, does it not need clearly stated objectives, transparency in the allocation of resources, and measurements so that we can monitor progress? Is my noble friend able to tick those three boxes?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, in July, the Prime Minister set out that we will have made progress in levelling up when we have begun to raise living standards, spread opportunity, improved our public services and restored people’s sense of pride in their community. The forthcoming White Paper will set out the further detail, so that I hope we will be able to tick my noble friend’s three boxes.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, as the official Social Mobility Commission has made clear, levelling up is about people as well as places. Why therefore, to quote the commission, is England the only nation in the UK without a strategy to address child poverty?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, levelling up covers all these issues. We have an approach to child poverty and take those issues very seriously indeed. More detail on these and other matters will of course be outlined in the forthcoming White Paper.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Young, on criteria, I note that the levelling-up fund, the towns fund and the community renewal fund all prioritise GVA over income deprivation as a metric to rank places according to need. This can lead areas with low economic output but affluent households to rank above places with high-value employment but low local incomes. Will the White Paper clarify whether the priority for levelling up is to help the poorest people wherever they live or to target the least productive localities? How do the Government want to be judged—on how individuals are faring, or on how far left-behind areas improve?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we need to understand that different funds have different priorities. The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund seeks to improve infrastructure and productivity, while the UK shared prosperity fund will deal with the issues around skills and replaces much of the funding that we saw through the EU structural funds. We need to see that in the round and, of course, the White Paper will provide further detail.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, with the much-awaited publishing of the White Paper on levelling up, growing the private sector is what we all want to see in progress. As we see businesses planning at record levels of digital investment, does the Minister agree that priority must be given to reforming the skills system to better align with employers’ demands because of the acute skills shortage?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I agree entirely with my noble friend. We do not want anyone to have to leave somewhere they love in order to have a truly fulfilling career. That is why we are investing £3.8 billion in skills by 2024-25 and have just set up our new adult numeracy programme, Multiply, to get hundreds of thousands more adults with functional numeracy skills across the United Kingdom.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Minister, successive Governments have grappled with this one under various names and the consensus is that they have largely failed. Do the Government recognise that the fragmented system of funding and bidding is part of this failure? Recently, the LGA found evidence that £23 billion of public funds aimed at regeneration were fragmented across 70 different funding streams and managed by 22 different departments or agencies. Are there any signs that the Government will change this scattergun approach?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, just because previous Governments have failed does not mean that this Government will not succeed. However, I take on board the importance of ensuring that there is appropriate streamlining and that we do not have a scattergun approach to funding. The point is well made.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I declare my role as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harms. Have the Government included alcohol harm as the top priority in the levelling-up agenda, given that, regarding place, alcohol-related mortality is over 20% higher in the north-east of England than the English average? Alcohol-related violence is up to five and a half times more prevalent in lower socio-economic groups, and alcohol consumption is linked to poorer child development and poorer general well-being.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I expected this Question to go in any number of directions. It is important to address the barriers for people getting on in life. We are looking to spread opportunities and, of course, we need to address issues such as alcohol harm, which the noble Baroness has raised.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. Will income disparity be addressed in the forthcoming White Paper, given that people in London are paid £16,150 more per year on average than people in Burnley? Do the Government plan to level up wages?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that is the way to think about these problems. We need to recognise that, as well as the income disparity, there is the cost disparity. Admittedly, living in a great capital city comes at a price. We want to level up some of the areas that have been left behind. That does not mean we want a reduction in income in places such as London. We need to ensure that we lift all boats—that is the philosophy behind levelling up.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that financial inclusion—that is, ensuring that people have access to essential banking services and financial products that are fairly priced—is particularly important for areas that the Government are looking to level up, and that incorporating a clear financial inclusion strategy into the levelling-up agenda could make a big difference? Can the Minister say whether Treasury and DWP Ministers who lead on financial inclusion are part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, financial inclusion is very important in particular areas, and it is important in addressing it to bind together different departments. That is why there is a new levelling-up task force under the leadership of Andy Haldane that brings together the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Cabinet Office, precisely because we need that Whitehall join-up.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how he believes that levelling up can be squared with cancelling the eastern leg of HS2? Is he aware that if HS2 East is cancelled, it will take four times longer to get to Sheffield and Leeds, and six times longer to get to Durham and Newcastle, than it takes to get to Birmingham? Does he appreciate that this will introduce a new east-west divide into the country, which will be the equivalent of our Victorian forebears deciding to build the railways in the western part of the country while leaving the eastern part of the country with the canals?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord’s expertise on high-speed rail. However, I do not want to comment on the specific scheme. The most important thing for the Government is to back up the investment we have in transport infrastructure in our city regions, and we have committed £5.7 billion for transport settlements for those regions. Of course, decisions about high-speed rail will be taken in due course.
Nagorno-Karabakh
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) reports of violations of the Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement by the government of Azerbaijan, and (2) the number of Armenian military and civilian personnel who have yet to be released by the government of Azerbaijan.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the Minister for Europe and Americas has repeatedly highlighted the need for both countries to avoid provocative actions. She has also raised the long-standing issues of prisoners of war, detainees and the missing or deceased in calls with both Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Bayramov and Armenian Foreign Minister Mirzoyan. We urge both Governments to engage in substantive negotiations to settle all matters relating to the conflict.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but the impunity enjoyed by Azerbaijan has encouraged continuing violations of the ceasefire agreement by Azerbaijan. As Azeri forces continue to advance into Armenian territories, a few weeks ago I visited a village, Davit Bek, in Syunik province, and witnessed the suffering of the Armenian people there. Azerbaijan also refuses to release Armenian prisoners, subjecting many to torture and killing. What will Her Majesty’s Government do to require Azerbaijan to stop violations of the ceasefire agreement and of human rights?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK has engaged very actively both during and after the conflict. The Minister for Europe and Americas, Wendy Morton, speaks regularly with her counterparts in both countries. She continuously urges de-escalation and a return to the negotiating table under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group, and she has condemned the alleged war crimes, including the deliberate shelling of civilian areas, videos purportedly showing beheadings of soldiers, and alleged deliberate use of white phosphorus against civilians. The allegations come from both sides in this conflict.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, in June, I visited the border inclusion area of Syunik province, at an earlier stage than the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. In Khoznavar, the incursion had cut off the nearby village from its main water source, and access to grazing land had been denied, threatening the survival of this poverty-stricken village. Following my letters of 7 July to the Foreign Secretary and of 5 November to the Minister for Europe and Americas, what further steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to challenge those illegal incursions, to ensure the integrity of Armenia’s borders and to press for the withdrawal of Azerbaijani troops according to the terms of the November 2020 ceasefire?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK notes the ceasefire agreement reached in November last year. Both countries had to make difficult decisions to secure stability and peace, and it is important that remaining issues relating to the conflict are resolved through negotiation. In particular, the OSCE Minsk Group is the obvious and key forum for this, facilitated by France, Russia and the US. The UK is not a formal member of the OSCE but we continue to support its efforts to negotiate a permanent and sustainable settlement.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, for years, one of the major causes of tension and violence has been the lack of a clear and mutually acceptable demarcation of the international border. Although the border agencies of both Armenia and Azerbaijan are now in contact, given our close connections in the region, have we considered assisting or promoting this vital process, which is essentially technical, on the basis of clear international principles?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, as I said, the UK supports the OSCE Minsk Group process and, alongside that, the basic principles. Last updated in 2009, these include a return of the occupied territories and the acceptance of a free expression of will on the status of the Nagorno-Karabakh region.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, I just returned at the weekend from a visit to Karabakh, where I saw thousands—yes, thousands—of homes which had been demolished or vandalised by the occupying troops over the last 30 years. First, can the Government now confirm that they recognise that Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan? Secondly, were all the Armenian prisoners of war captured before the ceasefire released by Azerbaijan? Thirdly and finally, have either the Russian peace observers, whom I saw, or the Minsk Group reported any breach of the ceasefire by Azerbaijan, and will Her Majesty’s Government continue to encourage UK investment in Azerbaijan, including Karabakh, now that it has been liberated?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat the last answer, relating to recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh region, but in relation to the ongoing conflict, the UK Government continue to raise at every opportunity the critical importance of settling all matters related to the conflict, in particular last year’s conflict, with the Armenian and Azerbaijani Governments. That includes, for example, the return of all prisoners and the remains of the deceased, which has been a particular focus of the Minister for Europe and Americas, Wendy Morton, who has raised this repeatedly with her counterparts.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, on the first anniversary of the ceasefire, the US State Department statement, as well as listing all of the humanitarian issues that are supported by allegations on both sides of this—the Minister has referred to almost all of them—expressly called for an investigation into alleged human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law. Do the Government support that call and, if so, have they discussed it with the United States, and how do they intend to advance this really important initiative?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government are of course aware of allegations that war crimes were committed by both sides during last year’s conflict. There is credible evidence for that. My colleague Wendy Morton, Minister for Europe and Americas, has raised this issue with both Governments, and she has urged that those allegations be thoroughly investigated. Where we can, we support the trilateral OSCE on a regular basis.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, Azerbaijan has handed over, bona fides, Armenian POWs who had been detained during the course of hostilities, but the cessation of hostilities provides huge opportunities to reopen transportation and communication routes between Azerbaijan, Armenia and the Zangezur corridor. Once fully operational, this could provide inter-and transregional trade and economic connections, bringing significant benefits for Armenia’s own economic development. Will HMG consider encouraging the Armenian Government to seize this opportunity to ensure that the transport corridor is reopened?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. Of course, we continuously urge both the Armenian Government and the Azerbaijani Government to honour in full the agreement reached last year. That is why our support for the OSCE Minsk Group is also important: the opportunities for both countries in a lasting settlement are enormous, as he rightly says.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, what representations do the UK Government intend to make to the Government of Armenia to encourage the latter to fulfil its obligations under the 10 November bilateral ceasefire agreement—specifically to fully withdraw its troops from the Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh region, where the Russian peacekeepers are currently stationed, and to reverse its lack of co-operation with Azerbaijan in helping with the opening of communication and transportation routes?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The UK Government have not made a full assessment of the impacts of the Russian peacekeeping efforts, but this is an area that my colleagues in the other House keep under regular review.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister make urgent representation to the Government of Azerbaijan to allow UNESCO to investigate all Armenian cultural and religious sites to ensure their physical preservation, and to guarantee the rights of Armenian clergy and religious communities to continue to run and live in them?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The Government strongly support the noble Baroness’s appeal for full access and full transparency, in relation both to cultural heritage and the allegations that have been made, and to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which does not currently have full access to all prisoners of war. That is something that we are pushing hard for.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, six months ago, I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, the fact that Russia had taken significant control over the administration of Nagorno-Karabakh. Last week, a Russian news agency suggested that the Armenian President wanted the Russian army to remain for good. What assessment has his department made of this move, and what impact will it have on security in the region?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
As I said, the UK has not yet made a full assessment of the deployment of the Russian peacekeepers, but deployment of peacekeepers clearly has to have the support of both parties to the conflict, or the aims become almost impossible to achieve.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Charities: Landmines
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to provide funds to charities based in the United Kingdom that work to remove landmines and dismantle improvised explosive devices in other countries.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, over the next three years, the UK’s demining work will continue to save lives, limbs and livelihoods across the world, supporting those most in need and delivering our treaty commitments. The Global Mine Action Programme 3, due to begin in 2022, will involve landmine clearance and risk education to help affected communities keep safe, and capacity development to help national authorities manage their landmine contamination. We are currently working towards finalising funding and country allocations for this programme.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an ambassador for HALO, which has an agreement with the Taliban to continue to carry out mine and IED clearance in Afghanistan. It employs 2,500 locally engaged staff with financial support from Germany and the United States for this work. However, there is no support from the United Kingdom. Why not?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, in Afghanistan, since 2018, the FCDO’s funding to UNMAS has cleared landmines and unexploded ordnance in 27.2 square kilometres of land. It has released a further 211 square kilometres of land by assessing it as no longer being dangerous. That has directly benefited nearly 1.5 million people. UNMAS has also delivered landmine-risk education to at least 1.2 million people, including more than 450,000 women and girls. The UK has a long track record in Afghanistan.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, a long time ago, back in 1982, while the Argentinians had a short occupation of the Falkland Islands, they laid a number of landmines there. These were mostly still there when we retook the islands a few months later. What is the present position? Is everything now safe?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I shall have to write to him with an answer on the current assessment.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, in September, the United Kingdom assumed the presidency of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Since then, the FCDO has removed funding for mine-clearance operations in Vietnam, South Sudan and Zimbabwe, some of the countries worst blighted by cluster munitions and landmines. Will the Minister explain how this decision will help the UK achieve its objective of the universal application of the convention? From outside, it looks as though we are failing to put our money where our mouth is.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord is right that the funding has currently been reduced in relation to demining. The Global Mine Action Programme, which I mentioned earlier, will begin next year. We are reviewing funding and country allocations and hope to be able to share our plans for the programme in due course.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, further to the last question, is not the truth that the cut in our support for clearing landmines, cluster bombs and cluster munitions will result in thousands of people either being killed or having their legs blown off? How can we justify such a cut?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK has invested really significant sums; it is one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to funding demining. We have saved, as a consequence of taxpayers’ contributions to programmes backed by the Foreign Office, the lives of many, many hundreds of thousands of people. As I said, the FCDO recognises how critical this work is. That is why we are reviewing the decisions that were made: we are reviewing funding and country allocations and we will come back with details as soon as possible.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the Zimbabwe APPG. I may be able to help the Minister with the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Last year, landmine clearance in the Falkland Islands was completed, with Minister Wendy Morton paying particular tribute to the brilliant contribution of the team of Zimbabwean deminers. In the context of this assistance, does the Minister recognise that it is absolutely unacceptable for the Government to cut entirely our mine-action funding to Zimbabwe, which has some of the densest and most dangerous minefields in the world? Will he review this decision and restore funding so that Zimbabwe can meet its goal of being landmine-free by 2025, and will he meet me to discuss this matter?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, as I said in answer to the previous two questions, we are reviewing the funding decisions. We are reviewing country allocations and we will come back with figures when we can. No one disputes the importance of this work to people’s lives and to the stability of countries. Yes, I would be very happy to meet the noble Lord.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think it is worth repeating this really important point so that the Minister hears: there has been a 75% cut in our landmine clearance work. That will result in deaths. While the Minister is waiting for another nine months, many children and women will be killed as a consequence of this action. It is no good talking about the past; it is the future we are concerned about. Will he, therefore, go back to his department and say, “Restore these cuts now”?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the department is currently—not in nine months—reviewing funding decisions in relation to demining. As I said, none of my ministerial colleagues and no one in the foreign office disputes the importance of this work. Every penny that we put into this programme is a penny that will contribute to saving lives and we are very aware of that.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, as a qualified bomb disposal officer, this is an area in which I have some experience. I confirm that it is difficult, dangerous and challenging work, and often poorly paid. The HALO Trust is an exemplar, offering a five-week training package. I witnessed its people finishing clearing the Falkland Islands back in 2019. What assurances has the department put in place to ensure that all charities offer appropriate training packages for their workers and—crucially, should the worst happen—appropriate insurance and compensation packages for their workers as well?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and for his work in this area. All FCDO contracts and NGOs are held to the highest standards. GMAP 2 partner organisations have robust training and monitoring processes in place to ensure the safety of their staff and of the beneficiaries. The FCDO conducts due-diligence assurance checks on all areas of their work, including staff training and safeguarding before any funding is released.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in April 2017 the then International Development Secretary, Priti Patel, standing alongside Prince Harry at a Landmine Free 2025 event, announced the UK’s funding commitment and said of humanitarian demining:
“Global Britain has a historic role in tackling the indiscriminate and lethal legacy of landmines … We have a moral duty to act - and it is in our national interest to act.”
Until we discharge that moral duty and until it is no longer in our interests, we should not reduce our investment in either of them by one penny.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK remains a leading donor in this sector, notwithstanding the recent cuts, and our demining work will continue to save lives. We are committed to all of our international treaty obligations. We are finalising our plans for GMAP3—the global mine action programme. As I said a few times, we will release details as soon as we can.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, it has been only in the last few weeks that NGOs have heard that the cuts they will face will be between 75% and 80%, so I welcome the confirmation from my noble friend the Minister that this is being reviewed. Could he tell me when this review will be completed and assure the House that we will be informed of its findings?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I will have to get back to her in writing when I have a date that I can share.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
The Indo-Pacific is a region that is heavily contaminated with landmines and unexploded bombs, and is set to lose UK funding despite the Government’s ambition to strengthen their relations and influence there. In fact, Vietnam will no longer receive any funding at all. What assessment has been made of the impact this will have on UK relations in this region? Will the Government commit today to reinstate Vietnam’s funding to rid that country of its dreadful mine legacy?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The legacy in Vietnam of live mines that are still in place is appalling, of course. I know that our funding has been valued by the Vietnamese Government and the Vietnamese people, and has helped to support wider diplomatic objectives. I cannot make any commitments on funding today, other than to say that those decisions that were recently made are being reviewed. I hope they will be reviewed as quickly as possible and that we will be able to continue the work that this House is rightly proud of.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, some 15 years ago I was chairman of the Halo Trust, which has been mentioned, and a very good organisation it was too. I was also on the DfID Select Committee for some six years. I have seen that not all international aid from Britain is well spent: a lot of it ends up in overseas bank accounts, fast cars and weaponry. However, the Halo Trust got the money and spent it on exactly what it said it would. I plead with my noble friend, when the Government review it, to look at what is achieved. I saw the Halo Trust achieving fantastic things around the world.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord is right. There will never be enough public money to resolve the various issues we are committed to help resolve around the world—this being an important one, but just one. It is incumbent on us to ensure that, when we invest money, it is invested as well as it can be. The point he makes about the Halo Trust is a view that I know is shared by colleagues in the Foreign Office. I will convey his words back to colleagues.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the next Question.
Islamophobia
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sheikh
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their position on adopting a formal definition of Islamophobia.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
The Government remain committed to acting against Islamophobia in all its forms. We utterly condemn the prejudice, discrimination and hatred directed towards British Muslims due to their faith. While we are considering definitions of Islamophobia, this in no way restrains our ability to monitor, prosecute and punish those perpetrating religiously motivated hate crime. We have provided Tell MAMA with £4 million over the last five years to monitor anti-Muslim hate crime and to support victims.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response. I first raised this matter in your Lordships’ House on 11 July 2019. We were told then that the Government agree that there needs to be a definition and that two advisers would be appointed. One adviser was appointed more than two years ago and nothing tangible has been done since. The Muslim community is concerned about issues relating to Islamophobia, and would ask that a second adviser now be appointed and their terms of reference agreed, which must include consultation with the community. We need to do this without any further delay and to commence the process.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising the concerns of the Muslim community, for his contribution to how we tackle the issue of Islamophobia and for his advice on how best to proceed. We remain committed to tackling Islamophobia where it exists across our communities, and we will continue to consider this issue with the utmost seriousness.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s own hate crime statistics show that nearly half of all recorded religious hate crimes were against Muslims. What specific urgent steps have the Government taken to end this abuse and will the Minister commit to working with Muslim groups to ensure urgent progress?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it is quite correct to say “nearly half”—around 45% of religiously motivated hate crime was against Muslims. As I mentioned in my Answer, we provided Tell MAMA £4 million over the last five years to monitor anti-Muslim hate crimes and support victims. We have also awarded £1.8 million through the faith, race and hate crime grant scheme to support established community groups and civil society organisations to boost shared values and tackle religiously and racially motivated hate crime.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has acknowledged that the Home Office’s own figures show that 45% of all recent recorded religious hate crimes in England and Wales targeted British Muslims, but he has not yet said why the Government are so reluctant and are dragging their feet over coming up with a clear definition of Islamophobia. Why have they refused to do this? Is he aware that it is mainly Muslim women who are being targeted, because of the way they dress? Young people are being targeted and bullied in schools and on the streets. Given the scale of this problem, and given the rise in far-right extremism, can the Minister tell me what actual action, besides funding an organisation to monitor it, the Government will take to reassure the 3 million British Muslims of their commitment to tackling hatred, and the violent crimes and discrimination they are experiencing?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the seriousness of this, but we also recognise the point made by Khalid Mahmood MP in the other place that there are issues with the term “Islamophobia”. It has been weaponised by particular groups to tackle free speech. We recognise that it is important to establish a definition, but as he himself says, this is a difficult thing to solve and the first principle is to do no harm. We will proceed slowly and carefully in order to get this right.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I think the House will be united against anybody who discriminates against somebody on their beliefs, but I will follow up on the last question about what exactly we mean by “Islamophobia”. I understand that it means fear of Islam. Why should one be frightened of one of the great religions of the world? It is fair enough to be frightened of the people who blew up the Manchester Arena or whatever, but surely not of Islam itself. I think the Minister is on my side in this: could we please be absolutely clear what it is that we are trying to do?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, part of the difficulty of adopting some of the definitions that are being proposed, including that proposed by the APPG, is that they effectively conflate anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia with race. They also do not deal with issues around sectarianism. I completely agree that we want to tackle prejudice that discriminates against people based on who they are.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, a phobia is a fear. An irrational fear of Muslims is best countered by leaders of the community explaining that discrimination against women and violent attitudes to other faiths have nothing to do with Islam. Will the Minister agree with a previous government statement that all faiths and beliefs should be given equal protection, and that giving special consideration to one or two groups at the expense of others is totally contrary to the Government’s levelling-up agenda?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I can give that assurance. We must provide our faiths and beliefs, particularly a religion such as Islam, with the same protections as all other important religions, but we must not make the mistake of conflating religion with race, as I said in the previous answer.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is crucial that we distinguish between aberrant anti-Muslim bigotry and the highly contentious concept of Islamophobia which threatens free speech for fear of it being labelled Islamophobic. Does the Minister acknowledge this chilling effect for liberal Muslims, as is well described in the Don’t Divide Us film “‘Islamophobia!’ The Accusation that Silences Dissent”, muting any criticism of Islam as a religion and even muting critiques of political Islamism, however dangerous? Does the Minister accept the nervousness of politicians from all parties in supporting the Batley Grammar School teacher who was forced into hiding under shouts of “Islamophobic”, effectively allowing a default blasphemy law to be snuck in for fear of being called Islamophobic?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I do recognise that issue and I was trying to point that out in the responses I gave to previous supplementary questions. There is no doubt that the term “Islamophobia” is used as a heckler’s veto to shut down alternative opinions. We need to come up with a way forward that does not compromise free speech, and that is absolutely what we are committed to doing.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
Imam Qari Asim, whom the Government appointed to assist with this in 2019, has been a magnificent ally in the fight against anti-Semitism and had a huge impact in West Yorkshire on Covid vaccinations in the Muslim community. Would it not be in the Government’s interests to find more work for Qari Asim to do?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, as someone who has spent time with and engaged with Qari Asim—I met him in my previous role as Faith Minister—I recognise that he has much to contribute and I am sure we will continue to make best use of his undoubted reputation and track record.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Islamophobia is a real problem in the UK. Prejudice against Islam must be taken very seriously. The Government are certainly proceeding very slowly—there is no question about that—as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention to adopt a definition, or are they not planning to do so? It is very easy, either way.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I always thank the noble Lord for providing me with an easy question. Of course we want to work on establishing a definition that can be adopted, but I want the House to recognise that this is not a straightforward matter and will take time.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that in any attempt to elucidate a formal definition of Islamophobia, religion and not race must be the central tenet? I agree with the noble Lord’s earlier response. Will the Minister give a personal assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, me and others that he will do everything he can to resolve this as a matter of urgency?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I can give the assurance that we are tackling this as a matter of urgency. I completely agree with the point made about the need not to conflate race with religion. We need to get the definition of Islamophobia right.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to secure the release and return to the United Kingdom of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, it is unacceptable and unjustifiable that Iran has chosen to continue with this second, wholly arbitrary case against Nazanin. Iran has put her through an inhumane ordeal. We continue to call on Iran in the strongest possible terms to allow her to return to the UK to be reunited with her family. The Prime Minister raised her situation with former President Rouhani, and the Foreign Secretary continues to engage with Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian, most recently on 8 November.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I commend the bravery of Richard Ratcliffe—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
—in his determination to get his wife home safe. We understand why he ended his hunger strike, and it was right for him to do so.
Will the Minister now confirm that there is no doubt whatever that the United Kingdom Government owe Iran £400 million for tanks the Iranian Government paid for but which were never supplied? Secondly, when the Prime Minister was Foreign Secretary, he pledged that that debt would be paid, and it is further acknowledged that when it is paid, Nazanin will be released. Can the Minister therefore use his undoubted influence with the Prime Minister to get him to make it his top priority to resolve this issue and get Nazanin released and returned home to her husband and daughter, because it is the Prime Minister’s moral duty to do so?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Like the noble Lord, I recognise the commitment and huge sacrifice that has been shown by Mr Ratcliffe and the families of other British detainees in seeking the release and return of their loved ones detained in Iran. We continue to call on Iran to end Nazanin’s suffering immediately and to allow her to return home to her family in the UK. But I need to be clear, in the place of my colleague and noble friend Lord Ahmad, who is not here to answer the Question, that the UK does not and never will accept our dual nationals being used as diplomatic leverage. Our priority is securing Nazanin’s immediate release so that she can be reunited with her family.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
While it is absolutely right that the dreadful detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe should be kept totally separate from other issues in the relationship with the Iranian Government, will my noble friend explain the delays in the payment of the proper debt for the Chieftain tanks that were never delivered? It seems to me a straightforward matter, entirely separate from this horrible detention issue, which surely could be settled, and settled fast. Can he explain what the delay is because we do not understand?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
As we have said—I know my colleague has said this many times from this Dispatch Box—we are actively exploring the options to resolve this case, but it is not helpful in any way to connect wider bilateral issues with those arbitrarily detained in Iran. It remains in Iran’s gift to do the right thing and to allow British dual nationals home to be reunited with their families.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I have met Richard Ratcliffe and I associate myself and colleagues who have met him with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. In May, the Foreign Secretary said that the treatment of Nazanin amounts to torture. There is no point in a British Government making clear assertions on the contravention of a UN convention if they do not follow through with any actions. When I asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, why the Government had not formally requested that Iran investigate the accusation of torture, he said that he would ensure that it was in the Foreign Secretary’s briefing pack when she met Richard. Why have the Government not formally requested that Iran act on the convention which it is duty bound to carry through?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, no one disputes that Iran’s treatment of Nazanin and others in similar circumstances is inhumane and cruel, exceeds any normal boundaries of behaviour by a state and is completely unacceptable, but I cannot add more to what my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said in answer to the same question just a few weeks ago.
Lord Judge (CB)
Do we owe money to Iran? If we do, why has it not been paid?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the IMS payment is a long-standing case relating to a historic debt owed to pre-revolution Iran. We continue to explore options, as I said before, to resolve this case.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my interests as set out in the register. I totally support what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said. The behaviour of the Iranian Government in this affair is disgraceful, but the Government have not been clear. They have been very ambiguous in answering questions in the House about this issue, including, as was said, in the previous debate in which it was raised. Will the Minister confirm or deny that fear of American sanctions is preventing this money being paid?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, from my vantage point, if I may couch it that way, I am absolutely certain that the premise of the noble Lord’s question and the assumption within it is not correct.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, what does the Minister think Governments on both sides might have to learn from a simple prayer that was once prayed on this day in Coventry, after the destruction of the city? It is a simple prayer but a brave one; it simply says: “Father, forgive.” It does not try to forgive the other side, or even to absolve the other side from responsibility, but it does say that, somewhere along the line, both sides, in whatever proportion, need to accept that a very deep hole has been dug and suffering people have fallen into it. In this case, there is a suffering woman at the bottom of the hole, and her husband and child. Can we not do more to accept that there is something we have a responsibility for?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I do not accept, and the Government cannot accept, that we have a responsibility for the incarceration and appalling treatment of Nazanin. This is a decision made by the Government of Iran, and one that they can reverse. Of course, we will, and we continue to, do as much as we possibly can to secure her release. That is why this issue—this appalling case—has been escalated to the highest level, not least in the form of diplomatic protection, which means that it becomes a case between states as opposed to the prior situation.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, many people still do not understand the issue of the £400 million that we owe to Iran; it keeps getting raised. The Americans have paid money to the Iranian Government despite their sanctions. Can the Minister please explain clearly what is going on? Many of us who have met Richard Ratcliffe on his hunger strike outside the Foreign Office have given him an undertaking that we shall continue to press the Government. This will go on and on until the Government do something.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the Government are doing something. We are engaging at the highest possible level; whether it is the Prime Minister or the previous or current Foreign Secretary, engagement happens on a very regular basis. I do not accept the idea that the Government are doing nothing. However, were the Government to pay hundreds of millions of pounds to the Iranian Government, that would undoubtedly be seen as payment for a hostage situation.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very surprised at the Minister’s answers in relation to the £400 million. Does he accept that an international arbitration tribunal—an independent tribunal—has ruled that this country owes £400 million to the state of Iran? Does he accept that? Does he also accept that it is vital that this country complies with its international obligations to meet international arbitration tribunal reports? Does he also accept that to pay that sum without further delay would be to meet our obligations, and not to pay a ransom?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, no one disputes that there is a historic debt, one which was owed to pre-revolutionary Iran. There is no dispute or debate about that. However, here I am answering a Question about Nazanin, yet the majority of questions relate to that money. The combination of that issue with the issue that we are dealing with—an appallingly tragic human case—is exactly what we should be avoiding. Otherwise, this does become a hostage situation and any payment of any money becomes payment for a hostage. That is not in our international current, medium or long-term interests.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let us put it a different way. When I met Richard outside the FCDO, he described the policy of the Government as a “policy of waiting”. The Minister has said that they are doing things; well, this House wants to hear precisely what they are doing. One thing this Government should be doing is ensuring that we improve relationships with the Government in Iran—to ensure that all the outstanding issues, including of those who remain in prison, are properly resolved. So what are the Government doing?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The Government certainly want to improve our relationship with Iran. In direct answer to the noble Lord’s questions, we have raised this case at the highest levels of government at every opportunity. The Prime Minister raised it with President Rouhani on 10 March this year. The previous Foreign Secretary engaged regularly with Foreign Minister Zarif. The current Foreign Secretary, who has been in post for only a few weeks, has spoken twice now with her counterpart, most recently just a week and a half ago. Our ambassador and the wider team continue to lobby Iranian interlocutors at every opportunity. They helped to secure the release of Nazanin on furlough and continue to push for a full and permanent release, most recently on 9 November. As I said earlier, escalation in the form of diplomatic protection on 7 March 2019 represented a formal recognition that her treatment breaches Iran’s obligations under international law and raises the status of this case to the highest possible level.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the ambitions of this country is that Iran should adhere to the rule of law? If so, should we not be adhering to the rule of law—and, therefore, will he now give us a very clear “yes” or “no” reply to my noble and learned friend Lord Judge’s very straightforward question, which he has yet to answer?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Yes, of course, it is in everyone’s interest that Iran as a country adheres to the rule of law, just as the UK does on a routine and permanent basis.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the Government do have some responsibility for the suffering that Nazanin is experiencing because our Prime Minister told a lie that she was teaching journalism. That meant that the Iranian Government were much more exercised about her presence in Iran when, in fact, she was only there to see her family. Has the Prime Minister shown any remorse?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The Prime Minister continues to engage on this issue with his counterpart, as does the entire FCDO. The Government continue to prioritise this case, as I have relayed to the House, and will continue to do so.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister not accept that the answers that he is giving this afternoon—stonewalling answers—are doing no good to the Government and, most of all, no good to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe? Can we please accept that this country does owe this money? Can it not be paid immediately to the United Nations? That would be a good way of having it transferred. Can we not have a positive move to get back this poor woman, who has been tortured and incarcerated as an innocent being?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, at the risk of being repetitive, it would be a grave error for this Government to behave as though that historic debt is in any way connected to the incarceration of Nazanin, in the manner in which the noble Lord suggests. It would be disastrous foreign policy.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the problem is that the Iranians regard the two as linked. If we will not accept that, how is the difficulty to be resolved? The Prime Minister made a very foolish intervention; one might think that that increases his moral obligation. If there is any question of the Government being in some way concerned about the attitude of the United States, does anyone here think that the United States would hesitate for a moment if the circumstances were reversed? There is, not least, very strong anecdotal evidence that President Obama did exactly that: release in return for resources.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, if it is the case that Iran conflates these two issues—and I think the noble Lord is right to say that it does—that is even more reason why we should not allow dual nationals to be used as diplomatic leverage.
Hereditary Peers By-election
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I am grateful to our Clerk for acting as returning officer and giving us the result of another dramatic by-election. Normally, when by-election results are passed on, the resulting great excitement and drama are watched by the national media, but I have noticed that throughout this by-election process the House has remained calm, and that is to be commended.
One of the numerous reasons why there is no further interest in the by-election once the name of the winner has been announced is that in normal by-elections—if I can refer to them as such—the returning officer, in a scene familiar to all of us, not only announces which individual has won the by-election but goes on to announce the figures for all the other candidates too, whereas in our unique system we learn who the winner is but if we want to find out any more, such as how many votes our candidate attained, you are referred to the Printed Paper Office. I do not think it would work in by-elections as they normally apply if the returning officer announced who had won and then said, “If you want to know who got how many votes, you need to go to the council offices tomorrow morning where a paper will be issued with the details.”
I suggest that we add a bit more detail to these announcements. Why not give the individual results for the candidates, the number of spoilt ballot papers and details of that sort, and maybe allow two or three minutes for the victorious candidate to make a short speech thanking—
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Yes—thanking the returning officer and commiserating with the other candidates. I think that would enhance the by-elections and our understanding of them. Maybe, if we really wanted to analyse their significance, perhaps a room could be set aside where an analysis of the result could be presented by Professor Sir John Curtice, who is an expert in these things.
The House may know that I am not a fan of these by-elections, so maybe we should have a bit of sunshine on the results in future. This would aid public interest in them and I am sure that supporters of these by-elections—there are a few left—would like to see a bit more detail presented. I think this is something that the Procedure Committee should consider.
Business of the House
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 17 November to enable the third reading of the Professional Qualifications Bill [HL] and the continuation of the Committee stage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to be taken before oral questions that day.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move this Motion on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House. In doing so, I shall make a short statement about the arrangement of business on Wednesday.
The House will meet at 11 am. After Prayers we will take the Third Reading of the Professional Qualifications Bill followed by the continuation of the Committee on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Proceedings will adjourn at around 2 pm and then resume at 3 pm for Oral Questions. We will then continue with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee. The Grand Committee will meet at its usual time of 4.15 pm.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
Monday 15th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 64-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (12 Nov 2021)
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will recall that this Bill will create one of the toughest telecoms security regimes in the world and ensure the security and resilience of the UK’s telecommunications networks and infrastructure.
Amendment 4, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Fox, would insert a new clause into the Bill. The clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the Government’s diversification strategy on the security of telecommunication networks and services, and would allow for a debate in another place on the report.
I ask that this House do not insist on its amendment for two reasons. Our first objection to this amendment relates to the flexibility necessary for diversification. The reporting requirement, which is based on the risks as we find them today, is restrictive and premature for a market and technology that is evolving and rapidly changing. Policy work is at an early stage, and the criteria for how we measure its success is evolving in line with our policy. It would not be suitable to set out specific reporting criteria in legislation.
The diversification strategy and any reporting on its progress must be flexible so that we can focus on achieving the greatest impact. As we hope diversification to be a short-term problem, enshrining it in legislation—a long-term solution—would be counterintuitive and unnecessary. We are currently focused on diversifying radio access networks, for instance, but that may change in the future.
The Government take diversification seriously. I reassure noble Lords that mechanisms are already in place, through Parliamentary Questions and Select Committees, to thoroughly scrutinise the strategy and its progress now and in the future. This is the appropriate method of scrutiny for an evolving, time-limited strategy.
Secondly, this is principally a national security Bill intended to strengthen the security and resilience of all our telecoms networks. The Government’s 5G telecoms diversification strategy has been developed to support that objective but it is not the sole objective of the strategy. In addition, the strategy is focused on a specific subset of the telecoms supply market, not the security of public networks as a whole.
From debates in your Lordships’ House so far, it is clear that this amendment intends to hold the Government to account on the impact of the diversification strategy on the security of public networks. We will be happy to provide updates on the strategy’s progress through existing channels, and are encouraged by the developments that we have seen since the strategy’s launch. The amendment would extend the Bill beyond its intended national security focus and creates an inflexible reporting requirement on a strategy that, as I say, will evolve as it fulfils this important work. That is why I ask your Lordships’ House not to insist on Amendment 4.
I shall also speak to Motion B, which asks that this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A. As noble Lords will recall, Amendment 5 was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool, Lord Coaker and Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to review decisions taken by Five Eyes partners to ban telecommunications vendors on security grounds. In particular, it would require the Secretary of State to review the UK’s security arrangements with that vendor and consider whether to issue a designated vendor direction or take similar action in the UK.
As I said on Report, I welcome the intention of the amendment. It demonstrates that noble Lords across the House take the security of this country and its people incredibly seriously. However, while we support the spirit of the amendment, we cannot accept it for four reasons.
First, this amendment is unnecessary as the Bill already allows the Secretary of State to consider the policies of Five Eyes countries. Clause 16 includes a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Secretary of State may take into consideration when issuing designation notices regarding high-risk vendors. That list illustrates the kinds of factors we will be considering proactively and on an ongoing basis as part of our national security work. A decision by a Five Eyes partner or indeed any other international partner to ban a vendor on security grounds could be considered as part of that process. The amendment asks the Government to do something that has been part of the Bill from the outset. We believe that our existing approach is the right way to continually consider the decisions of all our international allies and partners.
Secondly, the amendment is unnecessary because we are already committed to a close and enduring partnership with the Five Eyes countries. We engage with our partners regularly and, where relevant, consider their actions when developing our own policies. The Five Eyes intelligence and security agencies maintain close co-operation, which includes frequent dialogue between the National Cyber Security Centre and its international partners. This dialogue includes the sharing of technical expertise on the security of telecoms networks and managing the risks posed by high-risk vendors. Engaging with our partners in this way is at the very core of our national security work.
In another place, members of the Intelligence and Security Committee agreed that the amendment was not necessary as the existing intelligence relationship with the Five Eyes, and other international parties, is strong. The chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Dr Julian Lewis, said:
“We looked at Lords amendment 5 and we understood the temptation to flag up the importance of the Five Eyes relationship. We agreed ... whenever a serious objection is raised on security grounds by one of the Five Eyes partners, we take that with the utmost seriousness.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/11/21; col. 119.]
The chairman of the DCMS Select Committee, Julian Knight MP, agreed and said that
“any Government worth their salt would take very seriously the approach of our closest security partners.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/11/21; col. 117.]
Our third reason is that naming individual countries in legislation would be restrictive to the development of wider international relations and set an unhelpful precedent on national security legislation. The Five Eyes alliance was not created through legislation and it has not required legislation for us to develop and strengthen that relationship in the past. Moreover, we need to consider the policies of a wide range of countries, including those of our European neighbours such as France and Germany, and those of other nations such as Japan, South Korea and India, to name but a few. It is highly unusual to refer to specific countries in legislation in this way, and the amendment would set an unhelpful precedent for future legislation.
Finally, the amendment is impractical because of the many different ways other countries operate their national security decision-making. It may not be immediately clear when a country has taken a decision to ban a vendor, particularly if it relied on sensitive intelligence. It also may not be clear why a country has taken this decision, and it may not always be based on national security grounds. So, while I welcome the intentions behind the amendment, we cannot accept it and that is why I ask that the House does not insist on Amendment 5 either. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Fox has given his apologies to the Minister for being unable to be here due to a Select Committee engagement. However, that does not mean that on these Benches we are any less disappointed—or indignant, as I think my noble friend Lord Fox would put it—about the Government having turned down both amendments, which my noble friend signed. The Minister is developing a fine turn of phrase in turning down amendments that appear perfectly sensible. On Report he talked about sharing the ambition and warmly welcoming the intent and then said that they did not quite fit the Bill and the Government could not accept these amendments. It is rather baffling since both are built very firmly on the Government’s expressed intentions —indeed, ambitions—set out in the integrated review. That was very clear in our debates on Report. It seems that the Government’s motives are much more firmly based on resistance to scrutiny and the idea that, somehow, they would be constrained in their work on diversification by having to report, in the case of Lords Amendment 4. However, the words he used were:
“legislating for a reporting requirement would be limiting and inflexible.”—[Official Report, 19/10/21; col. 86.]
Having reread the debate and heard again what the Minister had to say, I still cannot understand the Government’s rationale for this.
The rejection of Lords Amendment 5 is equally baffling because the Minister talks again about the limitation of the amendment to a particular set of countries. Surely, one of the reasons we are where we are, and the Government had to backtrack on their treatment of high-risk vendors, is precisely that they were not in step with their other Five Eyes allies. Therefore, the Government are not even learning from experience. We are where we are, however, and clearly we are not going to take this further, but I believe that the Government will regret not accepting both amendments.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the matters under consideration today are about not party politics but the first duty of any Government: to ensure the security of our citizens and the United Kingdom. Following majorities in this House and considered debate in this and the other place, it is regrettable that the Government have rejected sensible amendments to this important Bill, which I still believe would have improved and enhanced our collective security. The arguments against these amendments have been somewhat wanting, generally conveying the message, throughout the passage of the Bill, that it is all being take care of—a view that this House, on all sides, has not shared.
Our extensive use of new technology throughout the pandemic shone a very bright light on the degree to which we rely on telecoms networks and our experience has reinforced how intertwined these networks are with issues of national security. So, to ensure our security, diversification is crucial and thus far an effective plan to diversify the supply chain has been absent. As I recall, we do, however, have broad agreement that we cannot have a robust and secure network with only two service providers, which is what will remain when Huawei goes. This is why we need to ensure diversity of suppliers at different points of the chain, with sufficient support for the UK’s own start-up businesses. I, too, will quote, from the debate in the other place, the words of Dr Julian Lewis MP, the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who is obviously much quoted today. He said, of Lords Amendment 4:
“For the life of us, we cannot understand why the Government are opposing it. We believe it would strengthen parliamentary scrutiny and provide a valuable annual stocktake on the progress being made on the diversification strategy and how it is helping to improve national security.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/11/21; col. 119.]
The Government have said that they are serious about protecting our telecoms security and they respect the vital role that diversification plays in achieving that. I would therefore have thought that the Government would welcome the added layer of diversification scrutiny that Lords Amendment 4 provided. It is disheartening, therefore, that the amendment is rejected by Motion A.
On Motion B, our telecoms security also depends on strengthening our international intelligence bonds and the Five Eyes provides the perfect opportunity to do so. It is therefore similarly disappointing that the Government, having promised to work with this alliance in the integrated review, have resisted introducing a requirement that the Government should automatically review vendors—and by that we meant only “review” vendors when others in the Five Eyes ban companies from their networks. This was provided for by Lords Amendment 5. Such a response, as outlined in Motion B, flies in the face of common sense and it is very disappointing to see this rejection.
I accept that on this occasion we have reached the end of the parliamentary road with the Bill. However, as time goes on and the provisions of the Bill take effect, I hope that the Minister will reflect on the debates in the House and the other place concerning the intent and practical considerations that would contribute to security improvements, as provided by Lords Amendments 4 and 5. I hope the Minister will not feel constrained when he further considers making improvements in this area.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I certainly hear the disappointment and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, even the indignation of his noble friend Lord Fox, in his absence. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who is not able to be with us today, were here he would have had something to say as well. However, I hope to be able to reassure all noble Lords that the Government certainly have listened to and taken on board the points which have been made. Where we respectfully disagree, I would point to the fact that another place has disagreed as well, but, as I said in my opening remarks, we are very conscious of the spirit of scrutiny in which these amendments have been put forward. Noble Lords have wanted to ensure that the Bill does what the Government intend: to set up a framework to protect the national security of our country. We simply disagree about the practicalities of some of the amendments which remain at this late stage.
It may be helpful to say a little more about the opportunities for parliamentary oversight of the diversification strategy which noble Lords and Members of another place will have been able to take advantage of. Since its publication, Members of another place and noble Lords have had the opportunity to scrutinise and provide feedback on the strategy. The Science and Technology Select Committee in another place held an inquiry earlier this year on 5G Market Diversification and Wider Lessons for Critical and Emerging Technologies. The Government responded to the committee’s report in April, agreeing with its assessment of the scale of the diversification challenge and that there is a need to work swiftly to make early progress and build momentum as we work towards our long-term ambitions. We have not yet committed to a specific way of reporting progress, as policy work is at an early stage and the criteria for how we measure its success is evolving in line with our policy, as I said in my opening remarks.
However, we have made and announced a lot of progress on our diversification strategy already: for example, on our programme of targeted R&D support, including the future RAN open competition, the winners of which will be announced soon. We will continue to update on progress and are planning to launch further policy commitments at the same time as announcing the winners of that competition later this year. I know that noble Lords, if they agree with us and do not insist on their amendments today, will certainly continue to watch this issue vigilantly and find every opportunity to pursue these important issues in your Lordships’ House and through Parliamentary Questions and Select Committees, and it is right that they do.
I end by thanking again the Bill team and all officials who have been involved in the development of this important Bill. I listed them in full last time, so I will not try the patience of the Hansard editors by repeating their names but I will add one final name: Daniel Wilson, who has been of great support to me and my noble friend Lady Barran in working on this issue in private office.
I commend the Bill to your Lordships’ House. It will create one of the toughest telecoms security regimes in the world and ensure the security and resilience of the UK’s telecommunications networks and infrastructure.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B, and I beg to move it formally.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 15th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40-IX Ninth marshalled list for Committee - (15 Nov 2021)
Lord Blunkett
“Review of the arrangements for the resettlement and supervision of prisoners serving sentences of IPP: effectiveness
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament on the effectiveness of the arrangements for the resettlement and supervision of prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection (“IPP”) released on licence.(2) The report must include, but not be limited to—(a) an assessment of the factors underlying the rates of breach and recall of prisoners serving sentences of IPP released on licence, and what could be done to address them, including—(i) the effectiveness of the arrangements for the preparation of prisoners serving sentences of IPP to be released on licence, including the adequacy of information and guidance for prisoners on licence provisions, breach of licence and the risk of recall;(ii) the adequacy of existing probation service guidance on breach and recall;(iii) whether more use could be made of alternatives to immediate recall to custody including electronic tagging;(iv) the extent to which a failure to properly support and supervise prisoners serving sentences of IPP on release is contributing to the high proportion of this group breaching the terms of their licence and being recalled to prison.”Member’s explanatory statement
This, along with another amendment after Clause 115 in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is a probing amendment intended to require a review of the arrangements for the resettlement and supervision of prisoners serving sentences of IPP.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 208A with its proposed new clause, I give my wholehearted support to the other amendments which have been laid, to which I have appended my name, and a strong encouragement that we build on the alliance that has been put together. I thank noble Lords and, where they have them, their staff—and mine—for the terrific co-operation that has emerged over recent weeks. I give apologies from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who wished to be here but has a medical appointment. Members of this House will recall that the noble and learned Lord was Secretary of State for Justice when the IPP proposal was set aside and the 2012 abolition of that sentence agreed by the two Houses of Parliament.
At the time, I took the late and much lamented Paul Goggins to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, to discuss what might be possible as a rapid wind-up of the consequences of the original Act, part of which is my responsibility and which I want to speak about in a moment. The noble and learned Lord has reflected with me on a number of occasions, as he did on that occasion with Paul Goggins, who had been a Prisons Minister and the Minister of State in Northern Ireland responsible for the prison service there, on the massive political challenges in getting agreement. I hope that this afternoon we can take a step in finding a way forward almost 10 years later, when so many prisoners still find themselves subject to the original imprisonment for public protection.
I thank the Prison Reform Trust, the Howard League and many others for their advice. I will take a moment to thank Frances Crook for her many years of dedicated commitment and service in the cause of reform. Frances, who retired at the end of October, will long be remembered as a beacon for her commitment and dedication. But in an area which is so unfashionable and difficult to gain the public’s attention in, you also really need the utmost stalwart tenacity to carry it through. I particularly want to offer my appreciation and thanks to campaigners, individuals and families for their understanding, determination and tenacity, particularly the campaigning group UNGRIPP: Shirley Debono and Donna Mooney have been with me for almost as long as I can remember in trying to put right something which, as I mentioned a moment ago, I had a hand in getting wrong. The remarkable coalition that exists inside your Lordships’ House and outside, should surely give the Government the cover and courage to take steps now that will put wrongs right and ensure that we have a journey—a road to travel—for the future.
I want to refer briefly, because I am aware of the enormous pressure on time for the Bill, to how we got here in the first place. Back in 2003, with the Criminal Justice Act’s provisions on sentencing, we thought—this was held across both Houses at the time—that the steps we were taking would be beneficial rather than ending up with the disaster, let me call it that, which has occurred over those subsequent 18 years. The intention was, first, to put right a wrong which existed with those who were on indeterminate sentences—they were not called that, but that is what they were—who had no route out because the therapies and courses, or the journey as I like to call it, were not present.
For many years I have been trying to help a prisoner called David McCauliffe, who was sentenced for the second time in his life, that time for seven years, and is still in prison. He was sentenced at the end of the 1980s for a crime that undoubtedly created unsafe conditions for the public at the time but fell short of rape or murder. He is still in prison today after 33 years. The longer he has been in, the more difficult it has been for him to show he is safe to be released. Many IPP prisoners find themselves in that position today.
The intention was that there would be a route for those caught in that trap, like David McCauliffe, to find a way forward. At the same time, there have been a number of incidents where people who were known to be unsafe—they had declared their intention to commit further heinous crimes such as kidnap, rape and murder—were allowed out without any clarity as to how their behaviour was going to be monitored, and they were not on licence. That is why, going back to the Halliday report of 2001, the good intention was that there would be mechanisms put in place to supervise and support—I emphasise “and support”—prisoners on release, to provide safety for the public and rehabilitation for those who were safe to be in the community. Both those elements went badly wrong with the IPP sentence.
First, we had not fully agreed with the Treasury for the resources to be put in place from 2005, after I had left the Home Office, which at the time had responsibility for what is now the Ministry of Justice and sentencing. Therefore, the resources were not available, and are still not, to do the job properly for those who needed rehabilitation and preparation for release. Secondly, we had not understood that, because those therapies and courses were not available, it was quite likely that cautious members of the judiciary would take a “safety first” view in applying an indeterminate sentence rather than a determinate sentence, which in some cases would have been a matter of two or three years, in the initial phases, rather than the 10 years plus originally discussed and envisaged. This was not applied as a mandated sentence because of the understandable requirement of the judiciary to have flexibility and be able to determine a sentence without it being laid down by Parliament.
So, here we are all these years on, with two strands having gone very badly, and the lessons that needed to be learned still in front of us today. I do not think any of us could have envisaged the impact—I certainly did not—of the recall provisions which were later strengthened and therefore made more draconian. This has led to a large number of prisoners finding themselves back in prison, sometimes for committing a crime that could be very minor and sometimes for a breach of their licence conditions. Out of the 3,000 people who are still in prison on IPP, 1,300 of them are there because of recalls. That is 100% up from 2016, five years ago. If we are not careful, that trajectory will lead to more prisoners being in prison on IPP on recall than are actually in prison for the original IPP sentence applied, which is a farcical situation and a tragedy for them.
More than 60 clinical and forensic psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists have written to me, and I hope they will write to the Minister, setting out the trajectory from those early days, where the lack of therapies and courses led to caution and to the inability of prisoners to demonstrate that they were safe to be released; in other words, the failure to put the other mechanisms in place led to prisoners not being able to demonstrate their safety for the community. By not being able to do so, they spent so much more time in prison that the impact of that lengthy sentence and the hopelessness of not having an end date made their emotional, mental and psychological situation worse. The original sentence was supported by those who believed that the right kind of psychological conditions and help were essential to make them safe and, having undermined those conditions, we now have a situation where they are seen as unsafe; in other words, we have gone full circle, undermining the original intentions and, by doing so, having people in prison far beyond what was originally envisaged.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I commend the speech of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I agree with every single word of it. I am as culpable as he is in relation to this. I was a junior Minister in the Home Office at the time, and the Lord Chancellor did not foresee the consequences of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, who I am glad to see in his place, described as
“the greatest single stain on our criminal justice system.”
Our purpose on these Benches is to participate in a coalition of people with a view to persuading the Government to make sensible changes to the regime to get rid of this injustice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett, have referred to. The amendments before the Committee today provide a number of sensible options, but we put them forward, or support them as part of that coalition, with a view to reaching agreement with the Government to do something about them.
I may try the patience of the Committee too much, but I will speak to the amendment to which my name is put, and then I will speak again indicating the Labour Party’s position on the whole range of amendments. The amendments I speak to at the moment, therefore, are Amendments 208A and 208C, which deal with the position in relation to those IPP prisoners who have been released, and what the Government should be doing about them. I add my thanks to those of my noble friend Lord Blunkett to the Prison Reform Trust, which has provided an incredibly valuable briefing to the whole House. I also thank the Howard League for Penal Reform, which has done the same; Frances Crook, who has, over a very long period, provided real guidance to policymakers on these issues; and UNGRIPP, a group of friends and prisoners who have suffered as a result of this regime.
I turn now to the probing Amendments 208A and 208C, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. He gave the figures. The basic proposition is that to reduce reoffending, energy and resources need to be devoted to ensuring that IPP prisoners who secure their release are able to live successful lives thereafter, avoiding recall to prison. That is what is best for society and for them. Without this, the current incidence of recall will soon, as my noble friend said, lead to a situation in which the number of people serving the IPP sentence may start to grow rather than decrease. From 30 September 2015 to 30 June 2021, the number of never-released IPP prisoners fell by 61%, from 4,431 to 1,722.
However, at the latest date for which I have figures, which is June 2021, there were 1,332 people back in prison having previously been released—more than double the number of five years ago. Recalled IPP prisoners who were re-released during 2020 have spent an average of 20 further months in prison before re-release. The hopelessness and despair that engenders is incredibly effectively described in the Prison Reform Trust’s report No Life, No Freedom, No Future. Its findings are based on data provided from Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service on recalls and re-releases and on interviews with 31 recalled IPP prisoners. A briefing from the Prison Reform Trust said:
“The report found that IPP prisoners’ life chances and mental health were both fundamentally damaged by the uniquely unjust sentence they are serving. Arrangements for their support in the community after release did not match the depth of the challenge they faced in rebuilding their lives outside prison. Risk management plans drawn up before release all too often turned out to be unrealistic or inadequately supported after release, leading to recall sometimes within a few weeks of leaving prison, and for some people on multiple occasions. The process of recall also generated strong perceptions of unfairness.
At its worst, the report found that the system … recalled people to indefinite custody”
for what appeared comparatively trivial matters,
“defined needs (e.g. mental health) as risk factors … ignored the impact of the unfairness of the sentence on wellbeing and behaviour … could not provide the necessary support; and … provided no purpose to time back in custody or a plan for re-release.”
Not all IPP recalled prisoners endured that, but it was common enough to say that the system needed looking at overall. As I indicated, many IPP interviewees suggested that the recall decisions were taken too lightly. At most, 23 of the 31 participants had not been convicted of a subsequent offence when they were recalled.
What to do about it? To prevent the current situation continuing—and I am dealing only with people being recalled—there are basically eight things to do. First, the process for licence review should be automated, and the qualifying period reduced from 10 years to five. That is in line with Amendment 208D. Secondly, the test for recall should be changed. It should be that there is imminent risk of the person committing an offence causing serious harm, and that that risk cannot be managed in the community. For other things, such as not staying at the address named in the conditions, other measures should be thought about—for example, adjusted reporting requirements, use of electronic tags and curfews. Thirdly, where a person has been charged with a further offence, the normal criminal justice processes should apply, with a court considering whether remand in custody is appropriate for the new alleged offence. Fourthly, if a person is convicted of a further offence, the court should decide what happens to that person, not an official. Fifthly, if a person is convicted of a further offence and the court decides to recall them under the provisions of their IPP sentence, the Parole Board should be required to consider release alongside any considerations of discretionary release that attach to the new sentence—for example, an extended determinate sentence. Sixthly, IPP prisoners who have been recalled, not having received a new custodial sentence and not being re-released on the papers by the Parole Board, should have the right to an oral hearing if they so wish. Seventhly, if the Parole Board panel upholds the decision to recall, it must set a fixed date for a further review. Eighthly, all recalled prisoners should be entitled to annual reviews of their continued detention at an oral Parole Board hearing with free legal representation.
We, on this side of the Committee, are very much aware that proper measures need to be in place to provide public protection, but that has to be balanced against a system where once people on IPP are released, they are not recalled except when something significant has happened and there is proper and serious support. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, first, I commend, as others have, all those who have, in recent times, been building the road on which we are set today—none more so than the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. For many years, I have urged, with no success thus far but with great hopes today, the reform of what remains of the IPP sentencing regime. It is in no way hyperbole to describe it, as I already have, as the greatest single stain on the justice system. Indeed, it is a deeper, growing stain because of the situation with the recalls.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, but, for the sake of brevity, I will specifically address Amendments 208B, 208G and 208H, which stand in my name. Like the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, I add my thanks to all the organisations and charities that have helped us so assiduously and briefed us.
In January this year, a young woman on an indeterminate sentence wrote to me. I will call her Ella; I will not use her real name to preserve anonymity. I said that Ella was a young woman: she was 25 when she first went to prison in 2007. Her tariff expired in 2010, but 11 years past that date, she was still in prison. She was at the time she wrote waiting for a parole assessment in April, by which time she would be 39.
I wrote back to her and said that I was not willing to take up individual cases, but, having read her story, I would address the issue if suitable legislation came along. That is why I am here today. I am here for Ella and the more than 3,000 people still languishing in prison under the provisions of this law, despite the IPP sentence having been abolished nearly 10 years ago.
I wrote to her a few weeks ago to tell her that I was going to raise the matter of IPP sentences under the Bill, but I received no response, which was odd. Having contacted the authorities at HMP Bronzefield, I was told that Ella had been released, but recalled because she had
“failed to attend an Approved Premises at a specific date and time as directed.”
She was therefore back in prison awaiting another Parole Board hearing—a yo-yo process which happens to the majority of IPP prisoners.
To be released they have to jump through hoops, in the form of various training courses—when those courses become available—but if they do not show a sufficiently positive response, they are not deemed fit to be released anyway. It quite reminds me of something by Kafka, or perhaps Catch-22. When the Parole Board in its wisdom decides an IPP prisoner is fit for release, if they infringe their conditions, such as by failing to attend an approved premises at a specific time and date, they can be hauled back to prison to start the whole thing all over again.
Indeed, the situation for IPP prisoners is often much bleaker than for lifers. We heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, about some of the statistics. The biggest group of IPP prisoners still incarcerated today received tariffs of only two to four years. Some 96% of IPP prisoners are still in prison, after their tariff has expired. Their rate of self-harm, as we have already heard, is double that of lifers. It is a form of modern-day torture, fuelled by a constant sense of anxiety, hopelessness and strong feelings of injustice and alienation from the state. You would feel like that too, wouldn’t you?
Even when they have been released on licence, there is a constant sword of Damocles hanging over their and their families’ heads—that some contravention might trigger a recall. Because of this constant threat they are fearful of asking for help with problems, and families often bear the brunt of shielding and protecting the ex-prisoner for fear of recall.
That, in a nutshell, is why we need a better system. This one certainly does not work. Through my Amendment 208B, I am trying to suggest ways in which we can start removing the Catch-22 element from inside prison. I am proposing a review to examine the quality, effectiveness and availability of offender behaviour programmes, progression programmes and other opportunities to demonstrate reducing risk to the public; the availability of welfare and mental health support to help redress the damage that the system and the constant powerlessness and uncertainty of being an IPP prisoner creates; and, if and when prisoners have been recalled, the support available to help them pick up the pieces while they face another interminable wait for a Parole Board hearing.
That brings me to the Parole Board. There are many who believe that parole boards are becoming more and more risk-averse, because they conflate the behaviour of some prisoners with the increasing deterioration they experience arising from the treatment they received in prison, not their likelihood of reoffending. Therefore, Amendment 208B describes several measures aimed at improving the parole system and providing better support in the community to facilitate a safer release.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my Amendment 208C. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer eloquently introduced it. He took all my best lines—in fact, all my lines—so I will be very brief. This is a very modest amendment. It simply requires a review of the resources and support available for the resettlement and supervision of prisoners serving IPP sentences who are released on licence.
I very much hope the Government will listen to this afternoon’s debate. There is such a powerful force behind these amendments all around the House; it should provide enough cover to the Government to do the right thing. One comes back, time after time, to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, when he described this situation as the greatest single stain on our criminal justice system. Surely the Government must respond sympathetically to what noble Lords are saying this afternoon.
All I want to do is emphasise what the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, said about the Catch-22 situation that applies particularly to those who have been put out on release. First, if those people are honest about the fears and problems they have faced in prison, they can often risk being considered unsafe to be released in the first place. Secondly, if they ask for help with a mental health problem in the community, they could be assessed as being high risk and be recalled to prison. It is an extraordinary situation. If they enter into a new intimate relationship, they do so in the knowledge that an upset partner could make false accusations which would result in recall. How are people meant to live in that situation? As the authors of the Prison Reform Trust report say—it is an extraordinary and moving piece of work—it is hard to imagine how any of us could hold on to our sanity and self-belief in this situation. I plead with the Government to take note and be sympathetic to the plight of these people.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 208D in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have lent it their support.
At Second Reading, I said that I considered it a shame to this country that there were still prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for the public protection. I do not propose to elaborate on this today, although I associate myself with the remarks made by noble Lords in the debate so far.
Some amendments in this group are probing amendments, but Amendment 208D seeks to change the law in a way which is helpful to the Government. It does not concern those in prison under an IPP, only those living in the community on licence; that is, those who have already been found by the Parole Board to be safe for release without presenting a threat to public safety. As noble Lords have described, currently these persons are potentially subject to a lifelong licence. They can be recalled to prison for a breach of the licence conditions at any point while the licence is in force. The only way in which the licence can be terminated is for the individual to apply to the Parole Board for a licence review after the expiry of the qualifying period. This is currently set at 10 years. The Government have stated that, in future, they wish these reviews to be automatic, and not to require an application from the prisoner.
On 21 July, in response to a Question for Written Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar said:
“From September this year, officials will refer automatically to the Parole Board the case of every offender serving the IPP sentence who has become eligible to apply for termination of his/her IPP licence.”
There is a problem. Close examination of the current legislation makes it clear that the review can be undertaken only on the prisoner’s application. Therefore, the Government cannot make an automatic referral to the Parole Board without the prisoner’s active co-operation. This somewhat holes the policy of automaticity. Amendment 208D addresses this deficiency by amending the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 to require the Secretary of State to make an automatic referral to the Parole Board at the end of the qualifying period. If the application is dismissed, it can be made annually thereafter. The referral does not depend on the acquiescence or collaboration of the prisoner. It allows the Government to do what they have said they want to do. I hope the amendment will command their support. It does not prejudge in any way the decision of the Parole Board on that referral. The decision as to whether or not to terminate the licence remains entirely in its hands.
Noble Lords may wonder why a prisoner entitled to a review at the end of the qualifying period should be slow to make one on his or her own initiative; in other words, why is there a need for automaticity? It certainly seems strange not to apply for a termination of the licence. As noble Lords have explained, a person on licence under an IPP and who commits an offence for which an ordinary criminal might receive a short determinate sentence can be recalled to prison for an indeterminate term.
None the less, there are reasons why IPP prisoners do not apply for a termination of their licence. First, many do not know what the qualifying period is, nor what it means. Nobody is obliged to contact them to tell them. There is evidence of confusion, even among probation officers, as to the rules. In any event, many prisoners out on licence will not be in regular contact with a probation officer, since, although the licence lasts for a minimum of 10 years under the current system, supervision can be terminated after five. Many IPP prisoners out on licence after that many years simply do not want to take the risk of re-engaging voluntarily with a criminal justice system which they believe has treated them so unfairly. Automaticity is good and necessary. The Government agree and I hope this amendment will pass.
There is one more part to the amendment which is easily missed. I referred earlier to a qualifying period after which a review of the licence can be applied for. If this amendment passes, it will take place automatically. The qualifying period is set by law at 10 years. The very last words of the amendment would have the effect of reducing it to five years. As far as I know, this is not government policy. It is, of course, open to my noble friend to accept the part of the amendment dealing with automaticity, while rejecting the reduction in the qualifying period.
I hope that noble Lords will support me in pressing this on the Government. For those IPP prisoners who receive a short minimum term, the 10-year licence period is wholly disproportionate to the term that would have been attached to the equivalent determinate sentence, had one been imposed instead of an IPP. It can hardly be argued that it is necessary for public protection. As I said earlier, under this amendment, the decision whether or not to terminate a licence would remain with the Parole Board. Reducing the qualifying period to five years would simply reduce the length of time after which an individual out on licence would be entitled to a review. These people would be out on licence with the approval of the Parole Board and would have shown themselves to be safe in the community for five years. The number of IPP prisoners out on licence who are recalled after five years is, in any case, very small. Furthermore, the latest available data show that no IPP prisoner committed a serious further offence five years or more post release. Their supervision can be—and often is—terminated after five years.
I believe that everything argues in favour of a reduction in the qualifying period to five years. I hope that the Government will accept this part of the amendment as well. A person in this position—with a track record of living safely in the community for five years—needs the opportunity that we wish for all prisoners: to serve their sentence and return to the community to make a useful contribution to their own and to others’ lives.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall contribute very briefly to this group of amendments. I fully support the views already expressed. I will not repeat them. I strongly commend the opening speech by my noble friend Lord Blunkett. He set out clearly the direction of travel which this House wishes to take.
I will speak briefly on Amendment 208B, particularly proposed new subsection (2)(b), which the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has already eloquently described. It states the need for
“an assessment of the welfare and mental health support available to prisoners”—
still serving an IPP sentence—
“including measures to reduce the risk of self-harm and self-inflicted death”.
I declare my interests in the register as trustee and vice-chair of the Prison Reform Trust. Again, I thank it for the excellent work it has done over a number of years in this area, culminating in the report by Edgar, Harris and Webster, entitled No Life, No Freedom, No Future. I think this sums up the mood of the House this evening.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, because of the quality and content of the speeches already made this afternoon, I hope I can be quite brief. I begin by declaring an interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and by commending the report that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, just mentioned: No Life, No Freedom, No Future, the title of which brilliantly encapsulates the Kafkaesque state of affairs that we see when we consider IPPs. I also briefly thank Frances Crook, the retiring director of the Howard League, for all the work she did and for trying over the years to improve and inform the debate about what goes on in our prisons.
Our prisons are a secret world. When I was a Member of Parliament I once explained to a local journalist that I thought that all prisons should of course have walls to keep the prisoners in and to protect the public from the prisoners. However, all these prison walls should have windows in them so that the public could see in and learn what is being done on their behalf inside these prisons, but also so that the prisoners could see through those windows out into the world and into society, to see that if things went well for them and if their life, educational and employment prospects were improved by what they were doing and learning in prison, there was a world out there waiting to welcome them back. The journalist said, “Have you considered the public expenditure implications of building all these windows in those walls?” It is occasionally possible to lose the will to live when discussing something as complex as the state of our prisons.
Where it is not necessary to lose the will to live is when one listens to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, explaining and accepting—very publicly and bravely—that he got it wrong in the early part of his time as Home Secretary. I congratulate him. Most former Home Secretaries—most politicians—spend their post-government life rewriting history. This former Home Secretary has accepted that he got it wrong—I thank him for it—and he is now trying to assist us in getting it right again. I also congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on following on that particular train of thought. It behoves all of us in this Chamber, whether we are interested in this subject directly or indirectly, to mend this problem, and it is a problem that needs mending. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, describes IPPs as the greatest stain on our justice system, and he is entirely right. However, it is a stain that we can remove.
I tabled Amendment 208E and have co-signed Amendments208F and 208G, but I could have co-signed any of these amendments. I simply want to see IPPs abolished. I want to see all those who are on IPPs at the moment either released under supervision or transferred to some other form of more humane sentence which gives those people hope, a life, an aspiration of freedom and a future which they can aspire to. At the minute, they are literally hopeless.
Some 14 or 15 years ago, when I was shadow Minister for Prisons in the other place when the Conservative Party was in opposition, I made a point in that job of visiting as many of the prisons in our system in England and Wales as I possibly could. There were then about 140 or 145 institutions—adult male prisons, adult female prisons, YOIs and secure training units—and I think I managed to get to about 70 or 75 of them. On a number of occasions I visited prisons where there were IPP prisoners, and the governors universally said, “This cohort of prisoners is the most difficult to manage because they have no hope.” They did not know when they were going to be released or whether they were going to be there for ever or whether they might be released in a year or two’s time. They had no idea which it was going to be.
One of the reasons I tabled Amendment 208E is that proposed new subsection (2) of that amendment describes the things within prison which are hopeless and entirely damaging to a fair justice system. Amendment 208E is one of several “six month report” amendments—I say in parenthesis that Amendment 208F is the one to go for if we are to do anything of a positive nature this evening. Amendment 208E, along with others of these “six month report” amendments, describes what is wrong with the system as it currently is. It asks
“whether there are sufficient places available for prisoners serving sentences of IPP on offending behaviour programmes”.
No, there are not. It asks
“whether prisoners serving sentences of IPP are able to complete offending behaviour programmes in appropriate time to aid progression milestones such as parole or recategorization”.
No, they cannot do that. You may be queuing up for a course while you are in, let us say, Maidstone Prison, and then you are churned—moved to another prison—so you will go to the back of the queue, or moved to a prison which does not have the relevant people to lead you on that particular course. Your mental and physical health records take months to follow you to your prison, and when they arrive and when the new governor or the new teaching staff of that prison to which you have been sent catch up with your request—guess what? You are moved to a prison in Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool or somewhere else. It is a hopeless state of affairs, and we should have done something about it years ago.
It follows that there are not sufficient places available for prisoners serving sentences of IPP in prisons providing progression regimes, for the practical reasons I have just pointed out. Is there availability of other opportunities for prisoners serving IPP sentences to enable them to progress and demonstrate reduced risk, particularly for those who have completed opportunities afforded to them by offending behaviour programmes and progression regimes? Of course not; it is a shambles—a cruel shambles.
Even on what I call ordinary life sentences, prisoners can do a particular course to demonstrate that, before long, they may become suitable for release on licence. However, if they do them within the first two or three years of their imprisonment, then remain in prison for another 14 or 15 years, all that they may have learned on that course all that time ago has long been forgotten, and all the people who have supervised them in prison have no corporate memory of what prisoner A, B or C learned all those years ago. So when they are reassessed after having completed the tariff, they fail the assessment. Can they get on a course again? Of course not. They are told, “You’ve been on one already. You’ll have to wait your turn, after all the other people”. The simple, practical organisation in our prisons is not fit to cope with this troubled and troubling group of prisoners on IPPs.
I will end on this point. The thing that a convicted defendant on sentence wants to hear is not a moralising judge telling them that they have behaved very badly and must never do it again, but the number—that is, how long they are going inside for. When they are sentenced to an IPP and hear the tariff of two or five or 10 years, that is the number that sticks in their mind among all the noise and clatter that is going on in their heads and in the courtroom. It is only when they get into the prison van—the sweat box—or get to the prison for their first reception that it dawns on them that the sentence does not mean two years; it means for ever unless they can do something to help themselves. Of course, because of the lack of availability of the factors that I have just addressed, it is almost impossible for that prisoner to help himself to improve, to see some chance of release and to come out as a better citizen again.
This obscenity must now end. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister and his government colleagues have it within them to do that, and I am sure that they will.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I add my voice to those who have already spoken in favour of these amendments. I declare my interest as Anglican Bishop to Her Majesty’s Prisons.
All the detail I was going to mention has already been carefully and expertly explained; again, I pay tribute to the organisations that have been named, including the Howard League, the Prison Reform Trust and UNGRIPP, for their excellent briefing reports and research. It resonates strongly with all the conversations I have with people in prison and family members who write to me or send me emails. The thing I am struck most by is the sense of hopelessness; many noble Lords have mentioned that. I am a proud patron of Prison Fellowship, whose motto is:
“We believe no one is beyond hope.”
We really need to listen to that in this debate.
The indefinite IPP licence goes against all the evidence about what enables people to move away from offending. As we have heard, people need to feel hopeful about their future. They need to have a plan to work at. As we have heard, the IPP licence stops people being able to look forward to a different future. It disrupts relationships and breeds anxiety, despair, hopelessness and alienation. Much more could be said, but I think it has all been said; I am heartened by the strength of feeling so apparent in your Lordships’ House.
I agree that this Bill provides a timely opportunity to address this enormous injustice of IPP sentences. I stand with those seeking to make these changes.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate and precede, I think, the noble Lord over there. I just want to say, it all may have been said, but not by me. None the less, I will be brief because—it is not often I feel like saying this—it has been an absolute privilege to listen to today’s debate. Every point of morality, sensible practice and detail on this compelling menu of amendments has been made.
I want to make the briefest of pleas to the Minister, who has been a distinguished commercial barrister for many years; I, by contrast, have been a humble student of the miserable world of justice and home affairs. I also want to make a political point, of all things, in a debate that has been so rarely elevated above politics. I believe that today presents the beginning of an historic opportunity in our politics in this country. For most of my adult life—indeed, pretty much all of it—we have been embroiled in an arms race, particularly around incarceration, that has put us on a path which is more like the American one than a sensible path from anywhere else, let alone the path we might be on. How often do you hear someone of the stature of my noble friend Lord Blunkett say, “This was a mistake. Hands up; it is a fair cop. I am offering a bipartisan hand to help set this right”? I have not heard anything like that in justice and home affairs in my time as a student of these issues.
What is more, this is about rectifying a mistake that the Minister’s party already accepts was a mistake; that is why these sentences are no longer available to new offenders. The Minister, his party and his Government ought to be half way—indeed, three-quarters of the way—there already, in rectifying what my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, called “the great stain”. We are so close. The Minister has an historic opportunity to begin to put this right. How often does an opportunity like that come about? The point about this stain is that it is wrong in itself, and it is terrible for all those hopeless people whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and other noble Lords mentioned. It is also a symbol of both injustice and the arms race I mentioned. That is why this opportunity is so precious and important.
It is ever harder to justify an unelected second Chamber—your Lordships’ House—nearly a quarter of the way into the 21st century but, if the Minister listens to the debate and does not slam the door closed to reason, today might just be enough for the moment.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support all the amendments in this group, not least because the cause of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences has been languishing ever since such sentences were formally abolished by LASPO in 2012.
I commend the tireless work of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood on their behalf. For nearly 27 years, since my first inspection as Chief Inspector of Prisons, I have been campaigning for changes to be made to the operational management structure of the Prison Service to bring it in line with the practice in every business, hospital or school: to appoint named people responsible and accountable for particular functions within the organisation concerned.
In the case of prisons, I have campaigned for separate directors to be appointed for every type of prison, and for certain types of prisoners—lifers, sex offenders, women, young offenders, the elderly, foreign nationals, and those serving indeterminate sentences. Imagine how easy it would be for Ministers interested in IPP, for example, to send for the relevant director and question him or her about what was happening or not happening to all prisoners in that category. I had hoped that somewhere in the 298 pages of this monstrous Bill, space might have been found for something so practical. However, as that is clearly not going to happen, I stringently commend the change to the Minister.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I find myself in a puzzle. The Government of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who introduced this form of sentence, have indicated that they would not have introduced it if they had known how it would work. A different Government, the coalition Government, of which the present Government formed the majority, saw the iniquities of it and Parliament got rid of it. Therefore, we now have a strange system. We have people in custody under the old system and people with the same record, the same problems, the same issues arising, who are not subject to the same sentences as each other. That seems rather strange, but in terms of an Act of Parliament, it is an utterly illogical situation for the Government now not to at least address the consequences of the sentence having been abolished in the 2012 Act.
Quite rightly, that was not made retrospective. I see that retrospectivity must be avoided, but we have been going on with the sentence that has been abolished for eight or nine years now. We all know that something must be done. I am not making a personal comment about the Minister, but everybody knows that it must be done, including Ministers in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. We must do something about it, in fairness and logically.
I added my name in support of the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, but all these amendments are asking one simple question: “You must do something, so will you now tell us what it is?” It is no good us being in a situation where “Something must be done” when “What is going to be done?” is the real question.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I hope that the Minister can acknowledge that this is one of those comparatively rare occasions when noble Lords from all parties and none and from across the House have come together in the face of overwhelming evidence that a great public policy, in this case a great criminal justice policy, has gone disastrously wrong. It is beyond argument that IPPs have resulted in periods of incarceration out of any reasonable proportion to the gravity of the original crimes for which they were imposed. That is wrong. It is beyond any reasonable argument that these sentences are beyond any proportion to the risk that continues to be represented by any of the offenders to the public. That is wrong. There is the strongest evidence before the Government that IPPs are observably responsible for persistent and continuing injustice. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke very movingly about the reality of those injustices for those who are suffering under them.
I declare an interest as president of the Howard League and in doing so repeat what a number of noble Lords have said about the contribution made by Frances Crook. She has been a monumental figure in criminal justice, which is better today for her work than it would have been without it. The Government now have an opportunity to make a startling improvement to our criminal justice arrangements by the simple expedience of doing away with IPPs in their entirety; I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, in this respect. The evidence could not be clearer. I support all these amendments and urge the Government now, in the face of this overwhelming case, to act.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I hope that when the Minister responds to this debate, he can put away the departmental brief and respond to two simple questions. The first is whether he accepts that the present system is unacceptable. The second, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, posed, is: what will the Government do about it? This is not a new problem. The Government have had years to think about the options and to consider what to do. The noble Lord is already a very distinguished Minister of Justice. Can he say what the Government will now do to address a manifest injustice?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I have met a few of the people who these sentences are designed to control, and quite often they are terrifying. Some of the things that they have done are awful. However, the present situation is indefensible. It is unfair because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has said, they do not know how long they will be detained, and because many of them have been detained since before the law was changed. It is really trying to deal with the basic problem of dangerousness, which is very hard to define. Doctors cannot define the mental illness that they suffer from, as has been mentioned already. This should be addressed far more clearly.
There are only two ways forward. First, many of these amendments are talking about research in the future, but we need more research into the medical definition of the type of illness which we define as “dangerousness”, of people seeming likely to commit an offence in the future. This is not mentioned anywhere in the amendments. I recommend that there is good investment to be made there.
Secondly, what is presently indeterminate must be made determinate. I do not suppose that anyone has yet argued that all the people who are detained under these restrictions should immediately be emptied from the prisons on to the streets, but it is entirely possible to see a transfer of that risk either into the health element of prison control—Broadmoor or similar institutions—or a far better way of dealing with them within the community. To continue carrying the risk entirely within the prison estate in the numbers that are described is entirely wrong and I cannot see that it is defensible for this Government to continue doing so.
Lord Woolf (CB)
I was not intending to contribute to this debate, but I think decency requires me to do so, because looking in the past, I was the person who perhaps failed the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in persuading him at his time as Home Secretary of the extent of the error which he was making. I think he may remember that I did attempt at the time to dissuade him from this course, but I obviously failed and we see now the consequences of the biggest mistake made in the criminal justice system during my period as a judge. I hope that the House will bear in mind that, if a mistake of that nature is made, there is a huge burden on each one of us to try, as far as we can, to put it right.
This is the first time I have contributed on this subject and I apologise to the House for not doing so earlier. For reasons of health, I was not for a time taking part in the activities of the House, but I thought the House would like to know how I feel about this as a former Lord Chief Justice and the person who carried out an important report into prisons, which I hoped would provide a better system than we have now.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am humbled by speaking at the end of an extraordinarily strong debate. It was eloquently and, as many have pointed out, courageously opened by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. He has been supported by many movers of amendments and others, among them the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, whose campaigning against IPPs has been a model for us all. I hope the Government will take note of the unanimity in this House on the issues surrounding IPPs.
From these Benches, my noble friend Lady Burt, with her extensive experience of working in the Prison Service and of the injustice of IPPs to individual prisoners, has spoken movingly to her amendments and supported all the amendments in the group, so I will add only very briefly to what she and others have said.
These amendments give this House a chance to send this Bill back to the House of Commons to give it an opportunity to right a wrong that has for far too many years been a scar on our penal system, on our national self-esteem and on our international reputation for fairness and justice. The continuation of the unwarranted detention of IPP prisoners—1,700 never released and 1,300 recalled for breach, often for utterly trivial reasons—has kept them incarcerated for years on end, way beyond their tariff terms, without any moral, intellectual, philosophical or human justification of any kind.
We support the ending of this injustice unreservedly. At Report, we will vote for whatever of the amendments then before the House appear best placed to end this disgrace as quickly as possible.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken once. I speak very briefly to say two things. First, what an impressive debate this has been. I draw attention in particular to the speeches of my noble friends Lord Blunkett, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Bradley, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. I draw attention to them because they are not lawyers; they are people who have had contact in other ways with this system and come to the conclusion that it should end.
Secondly, we on this side of the House support all the amendments. Some are alternative ways of dealing with a particular problem, but we support all the proposals. We are not, in the amendments before the House, going as far as some of the speeches went. We are not suggesting the immediate abolition of the sentence. We are saying: support for those in prison to try to get released; support for those who are released to get proper help; and an easier process of having consideration of the licence being got rid of.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, the one with the teeth is Amendment 208F. It says you get rid of these licences and release the person if they have served more than the sentence for the offence. If you have been sentenced to five years in prison, and that is the maximum sentence, once the maximum is reached, unless the detaining authority can prove that you are still a risk, you get released. If you are still below the maximum sentence for the offence for which you were convicted, but you have been in for 10 years, the same principle applies. It is an incredibly sensible way of ensuring the sentence goes for those who have got it, but you keep inside those who represent a severe danger, as long as the detaining authority can establish that they remain a danger.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give some words of comfort to the effect that these very moderate proposals will be taken up by the Government. If there are amendments to these proposals, of course, everybody in the House will consider them, but it is time for a change. These modest proposals require consideration for this Bill, because the biggest disappointment would be to be told that it is coming at some later stage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 208A to 208H relate to offenders serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection commonly known as IPPs. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who was very kind about my work as a Minister, invited me to put away the departmental brief. I am not going to do that, not least because it might mean that my work as a Minister here ends somewhat prematurely. But that is not inconsistent, I hope, with making it clear to the Committee that I have listened carefully to the debate and to the points raised around the Chamber. I will reread the debate in the Official Report as well.
Of course, I feel the mood of the Committee—that would be impossible to miss. The speeches have been powerful and sometimes heartfelt. Without wishing to ignore others, may I say the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, about their personal part in the genesis of IPPs have been unusual and moving. This politician, may I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—although I see myself still as a lawyer, not a politician—certainly is trying to get this right. I do not think this is an issue which admits of easy analysis. To use the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, it is something of a puzzle, which requires looking at carefully and solving.
I am grateful to those noble Lords who have met with me and discussed the issue. I am sure we will have further discussions between now and Report. I should say that I read Matthew Parris’s column at the end of July as well.
I will go through the amendments and set out the Government’s position, then I will come back at the end to some more general points. Four of the amendments, Amendments 208A to 208C and 208E, the latter from my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, would require the Government to conduct a review on matters such as sentence progression, resettlement and supervision of prisoners serving an IPP sentence, and to lay a report before both Houses of Parliament.
The Government recognise that work needs to be done in relation to this group of prisoners. I will set out the work that has been done so far. We have put together what I think has been a successful action plan dedicated to the rehabilitation and risk reduction of IPP offenders. We continue to work to increase opportunities for IPP offenders to progress through their sentences via this plan. A qualified psychologist leads a review of the case of every IPP prisoner who is not making the expected progress. Between July 2016 and September this year, which is about five years, just under 1,700—1,679—reviews were completed; 440 prisoners were subsequently released and a further 474 secured a progressive move to more open conditions.
My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier commented on the availability of courses for IPP prisoners to help them make that progress. It is right that during the pandemic there were fewer places on some group interventions. We asked offender managers to look at other sorts of interventions to draw evidence from them for the parole reports. However, we have now been able to ramp up the provision again. Not all IPP prisoners will require the same interventions, of course, but we try to make sure that each prisoner has a suitable pathway, as it is called, to a future safe and sustainable release. That is the focus of the programme. There is a range of interventions, including places on progression regimes, other accredited programmes and places in open prisons. Where a programme is not available for an offender, the prison offender manager would seek to have the prisoner transferred to a prison where the programme is available, subject to a risk assessment and available places. In the meantime, other work would be identified so that the prisoner could undertake that work.
We believe that the action plan is working. High numbers of IPP prisoners are being released each year and the proportion of positive Parole Board decisions remains high. I do not think anybody mentioned this, but let me put it on the record that the Justice Select Committee in the other place has recently launched an inquiry into IPP sentences. Its stated aim is to examine
“the continued existence of IPP sentences and to identify possible legislative and policy solutions.”
The Select Committee will scrutinise what the Government are doing. I have no doubt that it will provide recommendations, which the Government look forward to hearing. I therefore underline that we are doing work in this area. We do not believe that a separate government-led review is necessary at this time.
I turn to Amendment 208D from my noble friend Lord Moylan. Currently, an IPP offender may apply to the Parole Board to have their licence terminated once 10 years from their first release from custody has elapsed. To do that, the offender must give their permission to the Secretary of State to apply to the Parole Board for licence termination on their behalf. The first part of this amendment would therefore remove the legal requirement for the offender to give their permission. Instead, offenders would be automatically rereferred for consideration each year, were they unsuccessful. The second part would change the time period from 10 to five years.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
None of the amendments would mean that there would not necessarily be a consideration by the Parole Board, including Amendment 208G, which is the two-year automatic end unless the Government made an application to the Parole Board, so I am not quite sure what the basis of rejection of that one is.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am not basing it only on what I have called automatic termination. The scheme set out in Amendment 208G would represent a very different approach to management on licence and, for the reasons I have set out, that is not a form of management which we think provides adequate protection to the public. I may come back to that.
Amendment 208H creates a power for the Secretary of State to release an IPP offender who has been recalled to prison, so long as the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is not necessary for public protection for the offender to remain in prison. The position at the moment is that the Parole Board has a responsibility to assess whether offenders are safe to be released into the community, even after an IPP offender is recalled to prison. They can take a decision to rerelease from only 28 days after the offender is recalled. We believe that the Parole Board’s expertise in determining whether offenders serving indeterminate sentences are safe to be released is, as I said, an essential tool of public protection.
If I may, I come back to where I started, with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Again, I am grateful for his kind words. I agree that there are certainly problems with the current system; we are looking at it. We believe that our IPP action plan has achieved significant results and we keep it under constant review. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in what I have learned to be his habit of putting his finger on the point at issue, asked, “Well, what is going to be done?” I hope that I have made it clear that I have listened to the debate very carefully, and that I have no doubt of the mood and the strength of feeling of the Committee. I am also sufficiently acquainted with the ways of this House to anticipate what might or might not be moved on Report as and when we come to it. I can say this afternoon that I will continue to work on this issue—a number of noble Lords know that I have been working on it already—and to listen to the debate, but for the moment, I ask noble Lords who tabled this amendment to withdraw it.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, there can be no disagreement that this has been a thoughtful and deeply impressive debate—the kind of occasion that does massive good to the reputation of this House. I hope, therefore, that the Minister’s words at the beginning and end of his response will give us some hope for the future. On a lighter note, I have to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, gave me so much advice when I was Home Secretary that I have difficulty remembering which bits of it I took and which I did not.
On this occasion, I have said already that we clearly have got it wrong, and we now have the opportunity to put it right. The House of Commons Justice Committee has not yet started its process; even with the length of debate on the Bill and the number of days that will be added, it will not have reported in time for us to be able to use this vehicle, and I see no other vehicle coming down the road. We have a chance and, given the Minister’s opening and closing remarks, we may have the opportunity to get this right. It would be admirable and most sensible if the Government were able to bring forward their own proposals before Report, through amendments, guidance and any further regulation by subsidiary legislation they are prepared to use, but if we do not get some movement in time for Report, I believe there is unanimity across all parts of this House that we will have to take action. When we do, I hope that we will have the kind of unanimity we have had this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
“Maternity services in prisons
(1) The Secretary of State must provide appropriate midwifery care within the female prison estate.(2) “Appropriate midwifery care” means—(a) midwifery care that is appropriate to a custodial setting;(b) maternity services that are suitably resourced to provide—(i) an appropriately qualified midwifery lead in each prison to oversee all aspects of perinatal care;(ii) a maternity pathway for prisoners that includes a process for women who decline to engage with services;(iii) access for prisoners to psychological and psychiatric services;(iv) training for staff in trauma-informed care;(v) training for staff in neonatal and child resuscitation procedures; and(vi) appropriate emergency equipment for children and neonates.(3) The Secretary of State may provide guidance on how to respond to births in prison.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment builds on recommendations from the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman investigation into the death of Baby A at HMP Bronzefield to ensure there are appropriate maternity services in the female prison estate.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 209 seeks to reinforce the existing provision of maternity services for pregnant women and their babies in prison. Noble Lords who follow these matters will know that many women’s prisons have mother and baby units, but they are not equipped to facilitate childbirth, and the birth should always take place in hospital. However, around one in 10 does not: either the baby is delivered on the way to hospital or still inside the prison.
I have experience to bring to bear on childbirth in prison which I imagine no other Member of your Lordships’ House possesses. I have been, at least nominally, in charge of a prison when an inmate started labour. I was in my early 20s at the time, a new and highly inexperienced assistant governor at Holloway Prison on evening duty, so nominally in charge of the jail. The news that an inmate had started labour was received with glee by the officers, who delighted in telling me the good news and watching the expression of panic on my face. Fortunately for me, and the woman giving birth, these officers were highly experienced in handling these circumstances. An ambulance was summoned, and the mother-to-be was promptly sent off with an escorting officer to hospital. The outcome was a happy one.
More than 40 years later, pregnant women are still sent to prison, locked up with no agency to determine their fate, and the outcome is sometimes very different for the mother and the child. Now is not the time to delay your Lordships with an argument for not sending pregnant women to prison, much as I would like to, but it is important that provisions are watertight and that women and their innocent babies are kept as safe and well as possible because we know that things can go very wrong.
I turn to the scandal of Baby A who was born at HMP Bronzefield on 27 September 2019 and who died alone with her mother, not to be discovered until the following morning. The pathologist was unable to determine whether this baby died before or after birth. HMP Bronzefield has a mother and baby unit, but for some reason Ms A was deemed unsuitable for the unit, so she and her unborn baby were left to the mercy of the general prison staff, medical and general, who regarded her as difficult. I am sure that she undoubtedly was difficult. Going back to my time at Holloway, I remember being put in charge of what was then termed the Borstal unit. That was full of difficult young women who presented immense behavioural challenges to the staff and with whom they were very unpopular. It was not until I went into the backgrounds, upbringing and abuse that those young women had suffered that I began to understand what had contributed to that behaviour.
Forty years later, Ms A was one such vulnerable young woman. She was only 18 years old, but her young life was already beset with abuse and trouble. I know what a pain a young prisoner can be. I was in charge of a whole wing of them, and I get why Ms A was not Ms Popularity with the staff, but it was known that she was extremely vulnerable, mistrustful and terrified of having her baby taken away from her. The ultimate irony in the case of Ms A is that she had not been convicted of a criminal offence. She was on remand, and three days after she had suffered the trauma of giving birth alone in her cell and losing her baby, this vulnerable, traumatised young woman was released on bail.
I do not want to pile further agony on the staff at HMP Bronzefield specifically, but it is crystal clear that the service given to troubled pregnant women in prison is not fit for purpose, hence this amendment, which sets out the very least a pregnant woman should receive, whatever her circumstances. The amendment is based on the recommendations of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman in its report and subsequent inquiry: an appropriately qualified midwifery lead in every woman’s prison; a maternity pathway to include prisoners who decline to engage with the maternity services available; making sure that prisoners have access to psychological and psychiatric services; training for staff to understand and deal with young women—and men, for that matter—who have experienced trauma which is contributing to their behaviour; appropriate training to deal with emergencies for neonates and children; and the physical tools to resuscitate them.
I acknowledge and welcome the work that is being done in the extensive review of care for pregnant women, which was published in September in the pregnancy, mother and baby units and maternal separation in women’s prisons policy framework. There are some helpful recommendations, including early contact and signposting to services, more extensive central reporting on women in MBUs including reasons for non-admission decisions and additional welfare checks. However, I still look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about these recommendations in my amendment and how people such as Ms A and her lost baby will be better helped in future. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, on her extremely moving opening speech. I agree wholeheartedly that pregnant women should not be in prison. We have abysmal conditions in many jails and they are not the place for a pregnant woman. A pregnant woman might be difficult. I have been pregnant twice and I can guarantee that I had some difficult days—some people might argue that I am still having them. When women suffer in this way—and trans men who are having babies—there are lifelong repercussions, I hope for the Government as well as for the women and their babies.
The Howard League for Penal Reform has highlighted the fact that pregnant women in prison are routinely denied access to suitable maternity care and that babies have died as a result. Many women and transmen in prison have very complex needs physically and sometimes mentally. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, explained, they often have a history of abuse, neglect, addiction and poverty. The Government are not helping. They are not recognising those problems and do not understand their role; while prison is a punishment, rehabilitation has to take place afterwards.
Women in prison should receive at a minimum the same standard of maternity services as women outside. Of course, they often have additional challenges and are in need of specialist midwifery care, which should be supplied. When we punish these women in prison, we also punish their babies, and that cannot be right. Getting this right will change the lives of prisoners and families, and have an impact for generations. Like the previous amendment, this is something the Government have to pick up.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and I warmly commend the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Jones. Reading the report of the shocking death of Baby A is salutary indeed. It took me back to the debate we had earlier in Committee, looking at the special needs of women in prison and the effect of custody on those women and their children.
I refer back to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, when he referred to the briefing from the charity Women in Prison. This related how more than 53,000 children each year were affected by their primary carers being sent to prison and that 95% of children whose mothers are in prison were forced to leave home. One sentence encapsulated it for him:
“‘We’ve been sentenced’, says a mother, ‘but they’ve been sentenced with us.’”.—[Official Report, 1/11/21; col. 1036.]
The point was also at the heart of the contribution made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. She said that parental imprisonment was, for the children concerned, a well-recognised predictor of mental ill-health, poor educational achievement and employment prospects, and future criminality. It sets a context for discussing the particular circumstances of Baby A and pregnant women prisoners.
Of course, there are many lessons to be learned in respect of both HMP Bronzefield and the prison system as a whole. The report of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman made a number of very important recommendations. In particular, there was a recommendation of principle that, as the noble Baroness referred to, all pregnancies in prison should be treated as high-risk by virtue of the fact that a woman is locked behind a door for a significant amount of time and there is likely to be a high percentage of avoidant mothers who have experienced trauma and are fearful of engaging with maternity care.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, listed some of the key recommendations. I just want to focus on what I would call “system recommendations”. A specific recommendation was made to the director of health and justice for NHS England to consider the findings and recommendations of the report and ensure that the learning is applied across the women’s estate. It went on to say that this should include recognition that a clinic-based community model of midwifery care was not appropriate for custodial settings, and that all pregnancies in prison were high-risk. What response has been received from NHS England and what co-operation is being given by NHS England to the Prison Service to take forward that recommendation?
I, like the noble Baronesses, welcome the new policy framework for prisons on pregnancy, mother and baby units and maternal separation as a significant step forward, but I am sure we need to do more. I was struck by the comments of Dr Edward Morris, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who said:
“The next step is to ensure that these policy commitments are translated into practice on the ground across all women’s prisons, and that all staff in women’s prisons receive the right training to provide women with the information and support they need. Alongside strong links to the local midwifery team, we feel strongly that all maternity services located near to a women’s prison should have a designated obstetrician with responsibility for ensuring high quality care for women in prison.”
I very much agree with that. I, too, would welcome some reassurance from the Minister that his department is taking these recommendations seriously. I particularly urge on him the need for the closest co-operation between his department and NHS England. At the end of the day, the lessons learned from this tragic case must be applied to the prison system as a whole.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I support this amendment, and very much hope that the Government will either accept it or explain what they are doing in response to the report of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman on the case of Miss A and her baby. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has explained the facts; it is worth looking at them in a little more detail.
Miss A, as she is called in the report, was remanded in custody on 14 August; she was pregnant. It does not say in the report whether the court knew that she was pregnant, but that is not what this amendment deals with. On 19 August, she was seen by a safeguarding midwife, who said that her estimated delivery date was between 24 September and 14 October. On 26 September, she was put on extended observation, which means she would be seen by a nurse in the morning, at lunchtime, in the evening and twice overnight. On that very day, 26 September, she went into labour. At 8.07 pm, 8.32 pm and 8.45 pm, she called for help and, in particular, called for a nurse. All three calls for help were ignored. At 9.27 pm and 4.19 am that night, she was inspected—I assume through a cell hatch—for a regular roll call, and nothing untoward was spotted. At 8.21 am the next morning, other prisoners reported that there was blood in her cell, and at 9.03 am an officer identified that she had given birth overnight and that the baby had died.
It is an absolutely terrible story, as the ombudsman describes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, the ombudsman made specific recommendations, which are reflected in proposed new subsections (1) and (2) of her Amendment 209. It says that the Secretary of State must provide “appropriate midwifery care” within the female prison estate, and then defines “appropriate midwifery care” as meaning
“midwifery care that is appropriate to a custodial setting … maternity services that are suitably resourced to provide … an appropriately qualified midwifery lead in each prison to oversee all aspects of perinatal care … a maternity pathway for prisoners that includes a process for women who decline to engage with services”—
as Miss A may have done—
“access for prisoners to psychological and psychiatric services … training for staff in trauma-informed care … training for staff in neonatal and child resuscitation procedures; and … appropriate emergency equipment for children and neonates.”
A lot of those go beyond what would have made a difference in this particular case, but if those recommendations of the ombudsman had been given effect to, the tragedy almost certainly would not have occurred. This gives the Government the opportunity to respond in this House to those recommendations, all of which seem sensible and will not impose a substantial financial burden on the prison estate, because there are not that many women’s prisons. If the Government are not willing to accept these proposals, what are they going to do about the problem? Can they give a reason why a duty such as this on the Secretary of State should not be expressed in the legislation?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for tabling this amendment. As the explanatory statement makes clear, the amendment builds on the recommendations of the recent independent investigatory report by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman into the death of Baby A—as we are calling the baby—at HMP Bronzefield.
I shall start by repeating what my honourable friend Victoria Atkins MP said when giving oral evidence to the Justice Select Committee’s inquiry into women in prison on 3 November. I quote her because I want to associate myself with this, word for word. We are
“very grateful to the ombudsman for her report. The facts as they unfolded in that report were truly shocking. And the fear that that young woman must have felt and the loss she is dealing with even today, we do not, we cannot contemplate anything of that nature ever again within the prison estate.”
My deepest condolences remain with those affected.
The death of Baby A was a tragic and harrowing event and has rightly been the subject of several investigations and inquiries, including that by the PPO, to try to ensure that all the necessary lessons have been learned to avoid a repetition in future. The Committee may be interested to know that there is a Question on this incident on, I think, Wednesday, which will be another opportunity for the House to look at this terrible event, and I believe I am going to be responding to it.
While I point out that we are not talking about sentencing here, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was right to say so, it is right to say that when it comes to sentencing, pregnancy is certainly a mitigating factor that is specifically taken into account in the sentencing guidelines. I should also say that it is exceptionally rare now for a woman to give birth in prison. The most recent figures, from July 2020 to March 2021, show that 28 births—90% of the total number of births—took place in hospital and none took place in prison. I understand that in the case of the missing 10%, the baby came out a bit quicker than anticipated and the birth might have taken place in the ambulance, but none took place in prison.
In response to the terrible disaster of what happened to Baby A, the previous Lord Chancellor, the right honourable Robert Buckland MP, commissioned the independent external investigation by the PPO. We have since accepted and acted upon all its recommendations for the Ministry of Justice and the Prison Service. We immediately put in place practical steps across the women’s estate, including providing all women with free phone access to local NHS pregnancy advice services and additional welfare observations for pregnant women in their third trimester. At that time we were already undertaking a fundamental review of national policy on pregnancy, mother and baby units and maternal separation in women’s prisons.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, recognised and said she welcomed, that work led to a new policy framework, published on 20 September, which develops those immediate actions into national requirements for all women’s prisons, delivering on a wide range of reforms. The new framework has an extended policy remit covering requirements on perinatal care and maternal separation, in addition to mother and baby units. I hope that what I have said so far—although I will say something more—reassures the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that we are serious about our response to this matter. We are determined to take all necessary action to avoid a similar tragic event in the future.
I shall turn to the detail of the amendment and explain why, in the light of the current legislative framework, we are not persuaded that what is proposed is necessary. Currently, NHS England is responsible for commissioning almost all forms of healthcare for prisoners within both the public and private estate in England under Section 3B of the National Health Service Act 2006 as amended by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That statutory obligation has to be read together with Rule 20(1) of the Prison Rules 1999, which states:
“The governor must work in partnership with local health care providers to secure the provision to prisoners of access to the same quality and range of services as the general public receives from the National Health Service.”
The requirement to commission healthcare services and to secure and ensure prisoners’ access to them therefore already applies to the provision of maternity services in the women’s prison estate, so we do not consider that there is any need to add a further separate obligation in statute as proposed by the amendment. What is important is that we ensure that it actually happens. I certainly do not mean to be flippant, but repeating something in statute is not the way to ensure that it happens. We are focused on ensuring that it happens. We already have the statutory obligation.
In fairness to the PPO, I should note that it did not recommend any change to the statutory framework. Rather, it said at paragraph 14:
“Overall, the healthcare offered to Ms A in Bronzefield was not equivalent to that she could have expected in the community.”
It is that provision that we are focused on—ensuring that expectant mothers in prison get the same care as they would have received in the community. The Government’s position is that we would rather focus on that than duplicate statutory provision.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The amendment would not be duplicating anything because it contains specific provisions that are not referred to in the other statutory obligation, so it would be clear what was required.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
What is required is that women in prison have access to the same maternity services as they could expect in the community. My suggestion is that once that is set out, that is a sufficient legislative obligation and the Government need to ensure that it actually happens.
I hope that nothing I have said detracts from what I said right at the start, which is that we are appalled by what happened to Baby A. It must never happen again, and we are going to do all we can to ensure that it does not. However, for the reasons I have set out, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I would like to ask him about the relationship between his department and NHS England. What express work is now being undertaken to ensure that the NHS discharges the statutory responsibility that he has just referred to?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I know that when it comes to the prison estate, there is a very close relationship between my department, the Prison Service and NHS England. Rather than read something off a screen, may I write to the noble Lord and set out a paragraph or two to assist him on that? I am happy to discuss that further with him—or it might be appropriate for the Minister in the department with particular responsibility for prisons to do so. Anyway, I will write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the learned contributions that have followed my words today, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I have taken heart, to a degree, from what the Minister has said. I accept what he says about the difference between statute and practice. We cannot just enact laws and expect everyone to suddenly do as they are told—it does not work like that—so I think the intention is extremely important.
I shall take this away and consult the bodies that have advised me—particularly Women in Prison, to which I am very grateful. For the time being, I respectfully request to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
“Determination of sentence and predicted day of release
After section 60 of the Sentencing Code insert—“60A Determination of sentence and predicted day of releaseWhere a court is deciding the length of a custodial sentence to impose on an offender for an offence, having taking into consideration all other factors, the court must not set a length of sentence that is likely to result in the offender being released on a public holiday, Friday, Saturday or a Sunday except in exceptional circumstances.””
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 211 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Both these amendments seek to deal with the same mischief: the release of prisoners on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday. I do not think either is perfectly drafted—for instance, mine would not prevent release on the day before a bank holiday.
I am lucky enough to have been able to spend quite a bit of time at Brixton prison, looking at how a well-run prison works. When I was looking at the release process, I saw that the last prisoner released had been released to no fixed abode—NFA—which I was told was not unusual. This generally means that the probation officer tells the prisoner where he will sleep that night. I was not surprised to see this because I was already aware of the NFA problem, and these amendments do not seek to deal with it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Attlee has just said, I have tabled Amendment 211 in this group, and I have been very grateful for the cross-party support that I have had from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Bakewell. I am further indebted, as I suspect other noble Lords who take an interest in this important subject are, to the work undertaken on it by Nacro. My noble friend has persuasively talked about this issue in moving Amendment 210. I will not repeat his analysis, but I make it clear that I support it, and it seems to me to be very sensible. But I want to add a bit of gloss of my own and step back from the detail, at least initially. Wherever you stand on the political spectrum, we can surely all agree that the rate of reoffending by prisoners on release is a reproach to us all. Further, in a well-ordered society, we should be making every effort to reduce it. This is one of the things behind the amendments that he and I have tabled.
Why is this? First, there are some hard economic numbers: the costs of our Prison Service and the ancillary services to back it up are stupendous. But there are other, more hidden but very severe social costs that are difficult to measure but nevertheless have a huge impact on our society over the long term: on the prisoner’s family, partner and children, who grow up in very disadvantaged circumstances, with greatly reduced life chances. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out, there are other hidden costs. The people who have suffered from crime are traumatised by it. Elderly people whose houses have been broken into find it hard to leave their homes and go out. There is a very severe pressure on the fabric of our society, and it leads to neighbourhoods in which suspicions and concerns run rife.
While of course I understand and regret the economic and social costs, the basic issue for me is the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester: it is about common humanity and behaving decently to our fellow citizens, to offer them the best chance of getting back on their feet. At no time is common humanity more needed than at that most vulnerable time when the prisoner is first released.
With that, I turn to my amendment. It does not take a Nobel prize winner to work out that Friday is not the ideal day for release from prison. A long weekend stretches ahead—longer still if followed by a bank holiday—during which the support systems of the state and the voluntary sector are either entirely or largely shut down, as my noble friend pointed out.
In preparing for this debate, I spoke to one of the groups that has briefed us and said, “Can you get someone to talk about this?” I thought that we would get to this amendment last Wednesday, so this is from a prisoner, Michael—that is not his real name—who was released a week ago last Friday: “I was released from prison last Friday, homeless, and everyone knew for months that I would have nowhere to go when I was released. But there I was, late afternoon on the Friday that I was released, still without anywhere to go. The housing people at the council had gone home for the weekend, and I had already been told that there was no chance for a council property. So I was waiting and waiting for news of some emergency accommodation, even just for a couple of days over the weekend. No wonder people reoffend”. Michael’s resettlement worker said, “The holding cell on a Friday is rammed, as such a high proportion of people in prison are released on a Friday. The pressure on the prisons and the resettlement service is incredible. It can lead to people being released late in the day, and, on the Friday, it becomes a race against the clock before services close for the weekend. The barriers to effective resettlement are just too high”.
My amendment, like my noble friend Lord Attlee’s, seeks to spread the days on which prisoners are released and remove the default option of the release day being predominantly a Friday. As he said, his amendment proposes that the courts should decide the specific release date. My Amendment 211 suggests that the governor of the relevant prison should be given the discretion of selecting the five-day window for the release date for a particular prisoner.
I say to my noble friend that the courts are too distant, and Amendment 210 runs the risk of a slightly clunky and administratively burdensome procedure. By contrast, the governor is the person on the spot, with day-to-day responsibility. He or she is therefore able best to take the decision that reflects the particular circumstances of each case and each individual prisoner. I recognise that, in parallel with this new flexibility, there will obviously be a need to make sure that the governors do not slide back to the old default option—the Friday—and some records need to be kept.
That having been said, what unites my noble friend and me is far greater than what divides us. As he said, he and I are concerned about introducing a policy change at very little cost, and possibly no cost, as a way—perhaps only a modest one—of reducing the likelihood of prisoners reoffending. I very much look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I support Amendment 211, to which I have added my name. The case has been made very powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I am also supportive of the aims of Amendment 210, although that goes further by leaving less room for discretion—that may be a good thing, given the Scottish experience, which I will mention later—and I suspect would find even less favour with the Government.
I am struck by the strength of the case for change, from both the short-term perspective of the prisoner being released and the longer-term perspective of the likely impact on reoffending that we have heard about. Just last week, the Justice Secretary emphasised the importance of employment in reducing reoffending, and these amendments would help to support the initiatives to which he referred.
I ask the Minister to put himself in the shoes of a prisoner about to be released. Even the most organised of us would quail at the number of essential things they have to sort out: accommodation, health services, benefits and employment support. As an aside—although I know that the Minister will not be able to answer this question, I would be grateful if he could write to me—why does the law not permit prisoners to initiate their claim for universal credit before the actual release? Having a first UC payment available on the day of release would at least remove one obstacle, helping to create a much more effective resettlement process and, potentially, cut the rate of reoffending.
Returning to the matter at hand, I can only begin to imagine the mixture of relief and anxiety that prisoners must feel on release. To face this on a Friday, when many key services will be closing for the weekend, must be experienced as a set of totally unnecessary hurdles to be negotiated. Is it surprising that, according to Nacro, whose briefing I am grateful for, the inability to surmount those hurdles can lead to reoffending and/or turning to the more accessible comforts of drugs or drink. In the words of one prison-leaver, “If you’re released on a Friday and there are issues then they are not likely to be resolved until the following Monday, leaving the weekend to panic/stew/worry which could easily lead to reoffending.” I would panic/stew/worry if I were in that situation, I really would.
It seemed to me that this was a no-brainer, and thus it was with some surprise and disappointment that I read the negative response from the Minister in Committee in the Commons to the same amendment as Amendment 211. It felt as though he was clutching at straws in his rejection of the case made, and contradictory straws at that. On the one hand, he suggested that the change proposed would create pressure on the other days of the week, ignoring the fact that this amendment is purely discretionary and that, apparently, a third of releases currently take place on Fridays. Surely, if it were acted upon, the amendment would help to even out releases over the course of the week.
On the other hand, much was made of the fact that, in Scotland, prison governors have rarely used this discretionary power, which they have. Can the Minister tell us whether we have any information as to why that is the case? It would be helpful to know so that appropriate steps can be taken. Whatever the reason, however, it is surely not a good cause for refusing to follow suit in England and Wales. Even if it helps only a few prisoners on release, surely helping even a small number is better than helping none at all. It would be good if the impact of the change could be monitored so that, if it is shown to have a beneficial effect, it might encourage governors to use the power more.
In the Commons, the Minister acknowledged that there are challenges in making sure that offenders leaving prison are given access to the services they need so that they can get their lives back on track, but he then said that the Government
“would prefer to focus our efforts on making sure that those services are available on Friday.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/21; col. 706.]
He then spoke rather vaguely about investment in reducing crime and tackling the drivers of reoffending as well as pilot programmes in five probation areas. But what exactly are the Government doing to ensure that services are available on a Friday, and functioning in a way that ensures that an ex-prisoner’s needs are sorted out before the weekend? Why do Ministers think they know better than probation officers and others on the front line who have supported Nacro on this?
I do not understand why the Government are so averse to this very modest change. I had hoped that this was an amendment they might accept in some form and that, while the wording may not be quite right, the essence of the amendments put together would be acceptable. I still hope that the Minister might be more open-minded to it than was his counterpart in the Commons.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, both these amendments are really sensible. I very much hope that the proposers can work together before Report so that we have something quite powerful that we can all back and take forward. I realise that it is not easy for Ministers in your Lordships’ House. They hear all the expertise and sensible arguments, yet they have to go back to their Ministry and try to convey these arguments at the same time as being totally crushed and told, “Go back and just defend the status quo.” Still, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, could be quite tough with the Ministry about this and I very much hope that he will be.
When you hear about what happens to prisoners—a third being released on a Friday when, of course, housing benefits, healthcare, banking and all essential services are basically closed—you cannot believe that anybody would do it. It just does not make sense for those people who are being released. They have paid their debt to society; now we have to support them to make sure that they do not go back inside where they cost society a huge amount of money and contribute very little.
The other issue, of course, is that many people in prisons are miles from home and cannot easily travel home on a Friday; they may not have the money, the trains may not be running over the weekend, and so on. It seems that the Government and prisons are punishing ex-prisoners more and more. Can the Minister tell us why Friday is so popular a day to be mean to released prisoners? Why not give them the best start to reintegration?
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 210 and 211, and congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on their introductions.
I am at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on this issue. When he was Prisons Minister, Rory Stewart once attended a conference on the issue, organised by Nacro, which as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, has led on this for a long time. Some brave prison governors risk censure by using release on temporary licence to avoid release on Fridays. I have never understood why the Department for Work and Pensions does not make staff from jobcentres go into prisons to work out a prisoner’s entitlement to benefits, including universal credit, so that they do not leave prison with a discharge grant, but with the first payment of whatever benefit they are entitled to. In that way, they can pick up the next benefit the next week rather than having to wait six weeks following release before they can apply.
In many ways, the Government are setting people up to fail by, first, releasing prisoners on Fridays and, secondly, insisting on a six-week delay; I defy anyone to exist all that time even on an increased discharge grant.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the fabulous quintet of noble Lords led by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and so on, will be delighted by that endorsement from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, as there has never been a clearer or braver voice for penal reform in my adult lifetime.
I briefly add my own three cheers for these two amendments and for everything that goes with them. They have highlighted the piteous state of provision for prisoners from the moment of their release, quite often into destitution, and a total deficit of support. I hope that that will be taken on board, as well as the precise amendment, by the Minister in his reply. Notwithstanding comments made during the last group that law is not everything and practice is important, sometimes law is very important in itself, particularly release dates because they have to be enshrined in law. So, while there is no doubt that other provision, referred to by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and others, needs to be made, this matter requires urgent legislative attention. I think I agree with the noble Earl that, on reflection, something more like Amendment 211 is probably better.
To deal with the concern of my noble friend Lady Lister about Scotland would not take much, would it? Off the top of my head—forgive me, parliamentary counsel will do better—the “may” in Amendment 211 becomes “must” and the words
“at the discretion of the governor of the prison”
are moved to the gap between “on a day” and
“within the previous five working days”.
In other words, the discretionary part is which day within the previous five days. However, there is no discretion; there is a mandatory requirement that the prisoner must not be discharged on a Friday or a weekend. Something of that kind would be delivered very easily—and it really must be delivered. I hope that there will be none of the antics that we heard described in the other place to justify the totally illogical, impractical and unjustifiable status quo.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who is unfortunately unwell and unable to be in her place. She wanted to speak to Amendment 211 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Bird, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, to which she added her name. She would have spoken about her personal experience, so I shall just read the words that she had hoped to say had she been here.
The routine releasing of prisoners on a Friday, especially before a bank holiday, can cause both services and the prisoners themselves significant problems. Finding accommodation on a Friday afternoon can be extremely difficult. Those who have managed to get clean of substance abuse while in prison find themselves desperate and start using, begin criminal activity again or, in some cases, both. For 10 years, my noble friend was a councillor on South Somerset District Council where there were marvellous officers who worked tirelessly to try to ensure that no one was left with nowhere to stay. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made a powerful case for the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, similarly made the case for not releasing prisoners on Fridays or bank holidays. This is a matter that my noble friend feels very strongly about, so I will share two cases sent to her by the officers of South Somerset.
First, prisoner A was released on a Friday from Guys Marsh prison near Shaftesbury. He was given a rail warrant and got on a train to Yeovil. He contacted his family, realised he did not have accommodation to return to and went to see his offender manager at the probation office, who contacted the housing team. By this time, it was 3 pm and they had very little options available for him at that time of day. It was too late for them to find suitable accommodation and although they managed to get him into a hostel in Yeovil, that was not the best place for him, He had left prison clean of drugs and had to stay in a hostel with very easy access to illegal substances. Unfortunately, he used again, the accommodation broke down, he reoffended and was recalled to prison.
Case two was prisoner B, who was released from prison in Bristol on a Friday and got a train back to Yeovil. He then got a bus to Chard, some 17 miles away, to collect his possessions from his old tenancy. He then returned to Yeovil, by which time the offices had closed. He spent the weekend rough sleeping before he could contact the district council again. South Somerset District Council is fortunate to have secured funding to employ a prison release worker who tries to contact prisoners before they are released so they can plan ahead and help them. However, when people are on short sentences, the prisons rarely have time to work with the prisoners, so they get released without the council being informed. My noble friend Lord German has tabled amendments on those serving short sentences.
Other prisoners think they are okay and have homes to return to. These often do not materialise and by the time they realise they are homeless, it is 5 pm on a Friday. Sadly, one of the people in these case studies died over the weekend of 16 and 17 October aged only 45. He was quite a prolific offender and spent a lot of his time in prison. He had been in care from the age of two and did not have the best start in life. The council tried to help him on a number of occasions and sometimes succeeded, but not always. These are just some examples of what happens when prisoners are released on Fridays. This could be avoided by flexibility being used both in the courts and in the prisons. I hope the Minister will agree that this is a very sensible, non-controversial amendment which could prevent reoffending for the want of a roof over the heads of prisoners who have finished their sentences. I fully support Amendment 211 and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will add a few words to give some examples of how this actually affects real people. The third sector, the charities in our society, have been very good at helping and supporting people. Given that we now know that a third of prisoners are released on a Friday, one would think that the charity on hand to meet them at the gate and help them through a very difficult period on a Friday would be helped by the prison authorities explaining when the prisoner was going to be released. After all, if you are sitting in a car, possibly round the corner from the prison, waiting for the gate to open and the prisoner to come out, you need to know that you are not going to be waiting there from 8 am or 10 am until 5 pm or 6 pm. Yet, in fact, that is the story I have heard from one charity that helps people in this matter.
The second example was very concerning. A food bank based in Hereford told me that these prisoners—the third who are released without anywhere to live—were given tents and sleeping bags, directed to a farmer’s field and given the address of the food bank. That is the sort of emergency you then place these people in. These are people who have done their sentence but who face no fixed abode, nowhere to live and certainly no money.
The third thing that worries me is how people get their benefit if you now require a bank account. As I understand it—perhaps the Minister will correct me—setting up a bank account while you are in prison is not a possibility; in other words, even if you were to get your benefit paid at the time you left, you would have to have a bank account to pay it into and to provide the necessary ID as well, all of which of course becomes less popular and less possible on a Friday.
These amendments do not seem to be rocket science. They are actually very practical and since that group of one-third of prisoners who are let out on a Friday are the group most likely to reoffend if they cannot find anywhere, there is a societal impact. We all can benefit by giving these people the right helping hand in their very first window of opportunity in real community life.
The Lord Bishop of Ely
My Lords, I was not intending to speak to these amendments but, having been involved in prisoner resettlement in the past, I feel it is important to say that Friday release has a particular impact on younger women prisoners if their only option is a bail hostel. Women, as we know, are much more likely to find their family life disrupted than men during the often short sentences that they suffer. The noble Lord mentioned somebody being in a car round the corner. That very patient person who was managing that young woman as a sex worker before she went into prison will spend the whole day waiting to snatch her away and take her back to the life she was in before. When the alternative options are so dreadful for such young women, it is not surprising that there are the statistics on them falling back into the kind of oppression they knew before. Our whole approach to resettlement would be advanced hugely by these amendments being accepted by the Government.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
An incredibly powerful case has been made. We support it and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, my noble friend Lady Lister and, in her absence, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for tabling these amendments. I completely adopt what my noble friend Lady Lister said about the total inadequacy of the reasons given in the Commons for not supporting this. The first was that it would mean there would be bunching of releases on other days, but if a third are on Friday already that seems a completely hopeless point. Secondly and separately, it was said that it is not used very much in Scotland; if it is not used very much, then the Government would not have much to worry about. Why not do it?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the various speeches which have been given on these amendments, which, as we have heard, seek in different ways to avoid the release of prisoners on a Friday. Obviously, I understand the distinction between the two, although it is fair to say that they are both aimed at substantially the same point.
The current position is this. Section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 provides that prisoners whose release dates fall on a weekend or bank holiday should be released on the working day which immediately precedes that weekend or bank holiday. In most cases, that is a Friday, which is why, to make the obvious point, we have “bunching” on Fridays. If one would expect release dates generally to fall over the week, given the law of large numbers, you have Saturday and Sunday pushed back to Friday, plus the occasional bank holiday. We are very aware of and alive to the challenges that this can create in accessing support and services in the community. We are taking steps to mitigate those difficulties; I will turn to those in a moment.
First, however, the amendments seek to reduce releases on a Friday or non-working weekday by either preventing the court setting a sentence length that is likely to lead to release on those days, or by providing greater flexibility for prison governors to avoid Friday releases by giving the discretion to release earlier in the week. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said about the responses given in the other place: that the Minister there was clutching at straws. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has set me the challenge to be better than “completely hopeless”. That is a bar I hope to surmount.
I assure the Committee that I am open-minded and have listened very carefully to the debate. While I am sympathetic to the need to tackle this issue, I do not agree that it is necessary to legislate in the way proposed by the amendments, and I will explain why. To do so would either undermine existing sentencing principles by preventing the court passing a sentence which is likely to result in release on a Friday, or it would allow prisoners to be released even earlier from their sentence. Legislation provides that prisoners are released on the working day closest to their statutory release date and we do not believe it is necessary to go further than that.
I will deal with sentencing first. It is not realistic or achievable to require a sentencing court to try to work out on which day of the week an offender would fall to be released and adjust the sentence accordingly to avoid that being a Friday, weekend or bank holiday. I would have thought that that is self-evident. It is obvious because a prisoner’s release date is something of a complex calculation. It is carried out by prison staff and depends on a number of different factors that a sentencing court would not necessarily be able to take into account. These could include: any other concurrent or consecutive sentences the offender might already be serving; the correct amount of remand time to apply on all relevant sentences being served; and any added days imposed for bad behaviour while serving the sentence.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for giving way; that is very kind. Is he aware of how daft that sounds? We have just explained that the punishing of ex-prisoners is not acceptable. The bunching should not occur; find a way around it.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am trying to deal with the amendments in what I hope is a logical way. At the moment, I am dealing with the amendment which provides that the sentencing court should have regard to the day of release. I am trying to explain—cogently, I hope, and with great respect—why that is not a sensible or workable proposition.
I have dealt with longer sentences; let me now deal with shorter sentences. It might be said that with a shorter sentence the court could identify the release date. I accept that it would be easier for the court to identify the day of the week on which the release would fall if the sentence is very short—let us say two, three or four weeks—and if no other sentences are involved, but the problem there is that if you bring that release date even earlier, percentage wise, that is a significant additional reduction from the sentence. I therefore suggest that these amendments are not the answer—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The Minister may be about to come to the point I was going to make. The provisions in Amendment 211 are discretionary. If it is possible in Scotland, why is it not possible here?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The Minister said that he was dealing with the amendments logically. He dealt with only Amendment 210 and did not deal with Amendment 211.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am coming to the point about discretion in Scotland. I will respond to that in a moment, if I may. First, I wanted to identify how we think we can best deal with the problems which bunching can give rise to. I absolutely agree that reducing further crime by those who have been released is critical. We have to cut reoffending and we know that a lack of suitable accommodation or sustainable employment, as well as substance misuse, can lead offenders to return to crime. Therefore, we need to ensure that people leaving prison on all days of the week, Fridays included, have access to services.
I will briefly identify four important things in this regard. In January this year, we announced a £50 million investment to reduce crime and tackle key drivers of reoffending. In July, we launched temporary accommodation for prison leavers at risk of homelessness in five probation regions, because we know that having access to transitional accommodation is very important. We have invested a further £20 million in the Prison Leavers Project, which tests new ways to reduce reoffending by addressing the challenges people face when they leave prison.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I am of course impressed by the list of initiatives being taken by the Government and the roll call of money being spent, but it has not answered the question. We are not asking to spend money; all we are asking for is an administrative change. It may be an administrative change whereby the flexibility has to reflect the length of the sentence. We surely cannot be in a position where we cannot give prison governors a day or two of flexibility to enable them to set up a system of the sort that has been described all around the House. It must be possible.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am not suggesting it is not possible; I am asking whether it is the best way to deal with the problem. I hear “of course it is”, but I suggest that it is not. Take the example of Scotland, where they have a discretionary power. That is a model of discretion regarding early release, under the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Act 2015. Scottish Ministers have the discretion to bring forward the release dates of people in custody by no more than two days for the purposes of benefiting a prisoner’s reintegration into the community.
A freedom of information application was made on 30 March this year to the Scottish Prison Service which showed that only 20 prisoners have been granted discretionary early release under that Act in the five years since its implementation. We are not aware of any problems with implementation. I will ask officials in my department to consult with our colleagues in the Scottish Government to explore that issue further. If I am provided with any useful relevant information as a result, I will write to the noble Baroness to provide further information on that discretionary policy. We think that the best way to deal with this matter is to put money and services in place to ensure that prisoners, whatever day they are released on, have access to the services they need.
I heard the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about universal credit. She very fairly gave me the opportunity to reply in writing, because that matter is substantially outside my department. I also heard what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said about that issue; I will therefore respond in writing. At the same time, I will try to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, on bank account opening, in so far as it is relevant to the universal credit point.
We are certainly not setting people up to fail; we sincerely want them to succeed and not reoffend.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The Minister has made a slightly better fist of it than the Government did in the Commons, but in a sense he is clutching at the same straws—his presentation is just a bit more articulate than they were in the Commons. Does he not accept that it is better, even if it is just a few people, to help a few rather than none? Is he going to be able to say how he is going to keep services open over the weekend, because that is the issue? We have heard terrible examples of people being put in fields and turning to drugs and so on because the services are simply not there. This wonderful list of all these things the Government are putting money into is great, but I have not heard anything that would explain how the Government will ensure that services are there on a Friday evening, Saturday, Sunday and bank holidays.
I am afraid the Minister has not convinced me and, given the shaking of the head behind him, I do not think he has convinced the mover of the amendment, so I really ask him to look again at this. Although, unlike the first group of amendments, we may not have taken two hours on this group, there is absolute unanimity throughout the House that we can do something practical and it will not cost money. I am sorry, I am making a speech, which I should not be.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I do not want to repeat what I have said. My focus is on ensuring that people have access to services on whatever day they are released, whether it is a Tuesday, a Friday or any other day. It is certainly not the case that, if we just moved people’s release day from a Friday to a Tuesday or a Monday, all our problems would go away. We must have those services in place, and that is what I want to focus on. I have said that I will look in more detail at the Scottish discretionary system, if I can call it that, and I will write to the noble Baroness. I do not want to repeat what I have already said, but I hope that I have addressed the substance of her point. I suspect that the noble Lords who spoke to the amendment have indirectly told me the answer before I sit down, but I none the less invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I confess that I am little disappointed by my noble friend’s reply. I hope that he feels able to have a meeting with me to discuss this in a bit more detail.
I am neutral on the solution. I tabled my Amendment 210 before my noble friend’s amendment was tabled, which is why mine came up first. The Minister identified a fatal flaw in my amendment, which is that a prisoner could acquire extra days to be served, so it is impossible for judges to determine the day of release for that reason alone.
My noble friend referred to Scotland. The fact that Scotland does not use its power correctly is not a reason why we should not take that power. I am aware of the universal credit problems. That is a complex issue for experts such as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, not me. The Minister suggested why prisoners often have to be released on a Friday. Surely it is because, when the courts consider a case, they tend to sentence later in the week.
I was keeping my fingers crossed for this amendment but I have been a bit disappointed. However, my noble friend cannot deny that the problem exists. I suspect—indeed, I am sure—that he and I will return to this issue with a perfectly drafted amendment at a later stage, and with even more vigour. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Short custodial sentences
(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In section 230 (threshold for imposing discretionary custodial sentence), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) If the court finds that the offence is so serious that neither a fine alone or a community sentence can be justified for the offence, it must state its reasons for being satisfied that the offence is so serious (having regard to the considerations in subsection (2B)), and, in particular, why a community order with appropriate requirements could not be justified. (2B) In this determination, the court must take account of the following principles—(a) passing the custody threshold does not mean that a custodial sentence should be deemed inevitable; (b) custody should not be imposed where a community order could provide sufficient restriction on an offender’s liberty (by way of punishment) while addressing the rehabilitation of the offender to prevent future crime; (c) sentences should not necessarily escalate from one community order range to the next at each sentencing occasion;(d) the decision as to the appropriate range of community order should be based upon the seriousness of the new offence(s);(e) section 65 (a relevant previous conviction to be treated as an aggravating factor) should not be interpreted so as to meet the custody threshold in respect of the sentence for one or more offences that would not themselves justify custody; and(f) where the offender being sentenced is a primary carer for a child, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.”(3) After section 230, insert—“230A Impact of custodial sentence on child or unborn child(1) This section applies where a court is considering imposing a custodial sentence on—(a) a primary carer for a child, or(b) a pregnant woman.(2) The sentencing court must—(a) consider the impact of a custodial sentence on the child or unborn child, and(b) presume (subject to victim impact and any other sentencing considerations) that a non-custodial sentence is in the best interests of the child or unborn child.(3) 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.””
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 212 is to encourage sentencers to used community-based sentences rather than short prison sentences. It proposes strengthening the custody threshold as a principled starting point for reducing the current use of custody for lower-level sentences.
I favour this amendment over the potentially bolder Amendment 213 in the name of my noble friends, which seeks a presumption against a ban on short prison sentences. The danger of Amendment 213 is that if it restricts access to short prison sentences, in the current climate it could result in up-tariffing, which would not be a desirable result for the length of prison sentences.
As the law is currently drafted, imprisonment is reserved for serious offences. It is already established in statutory terms that an imprisonable sentence should be given only if there is no alternative. However, despite that, in practice people routinely continue to be imprisoned for low-level lawbreaking, fuelling an expensive merry-go-round of multiple short prison sentences.
The amendment proposed builds on principles already accepted in the sentencing guidelines. It enshrines these into legislation to better clarify the current statutory custodial threshold. Specifically, it intends to better ensure that custodial sentences are appropriately reserved for serious offences by better clarifying the assessments that are required to be made. The impact of imprisonment on dependent children should be considered in the sentencing of primary carers. This would limit the relevance of previous convictions in determining custodial sentences.
Persistence is a key driver of the current use of short-term custody and needs to be tackled head on. This amendment emphasises that short periods in custody should not be seen as an inevitable response to a person with a history of relatively minor offending.
The intention of this amendment is to shape the approach of judges and magistrates when considering a custodial sentence in a substantial proportion of cases which currently result in short prison sentences. However, it is important to emphasise that nothing in the proposed provisions would prevent a court from imposing custodial sentences of any length, including short custodial sentences.
In conclusion, I sit as a magistrate in central London. I put short custodial sentences in place, the vast majority of which are for people who have previously tried community orders and have either reoffended or have breached them on multiple occasions. It is very rare for a magistrate to give a short custodial sentence to somebody who has not previously been on a community order. Nevertheless, I think there is a genuine issue here—primarily the strength of the community orders which are available to courts. When the Minister responds to this debate, perhaps he will say something about the strengths and current revamping of the probation service. When sentencing judges or magistrates make short custodial sentences, the confidence that they have in community orders is an important consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 213. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby was somewhat critical of it. I agree with what he is seeking to achieve in Amendment 212. Amendment 213 goes a little further and is a little more precise. If I may say so, I think it is a better amendment.
To clarify, this is not a blanket ban on short sentences; it is a presumption against short sentences. Previous Governments have supported this idea. The evidence is that short sentences do not lessen offending. They are mainly concerned with non-violent offences. They do not provide meaningful rehabilitation. They can have a disruptive effect on family life and relationships.
The statistics are quite awesome. According to data from the Ministry of Justice, between January 2020 and March 2021, 20,000 people went to prison to serve a sentence of six months or less—44% of the prison population. This was even more so for women during the same period. Prior to the pandemic, the figures were even starker.
As I have said, the majority of people serving sentences of six months or less are in prison for non-violent offences, such a theft and drug offences. These offences are often linked to underlying issues such as poverty, addiction, homelessness and poor mental health. We know that these people really should not be in prison at all. Prison does not help them. We also know that short sentences have proven to be less effective than community sentences in reducing offending. Community sentences include interventions such as drug, alcohol and mental health treatment. They do more to address the root causes of offending.
Short sentences disrupt family life and ties; they damage housing, employment and treatment programmes. They do not provide any meaningful rehabilitation. These sentences contribute to volatility shown in prison.
Short prison sentences have a harmful effect on women in particular, hampering relationships with their families and children. Over half of women in prison report being victims of domestic violence, which often contributes to the offence that led to the prison sentence. I have had some help from a great organisation called Revolving Doors, and I have a quotation from one of its members:
“Although I was in prison for a short time I felt traumatised by the whole experience. In fact, sending me to prison was just a waste of time and money. I was released with no explanation and no support. I found myself back in the violent relationship which exacerbated my addiction which led to further arrests and trauma.”
Another argument for a presumption against short sentences is the cost. Of course, that should not be the main thing; the main thing should be protecting society, penalising people who should be penalised and helping to reduce reoffending. However, cost does come into it. The annual cost per prison place in 2020 was £44,640, compared with £4,305 for a community order. It is quite a dramatic difference.
The public, according to surveys, understand why there should be a presumption against short prison sentences. Probably, there are people who say, “Send them in and keep them in longer—six months is too short”, but the public are quite sensible and understand what is going on. I can only refer to previous Ministers, David Gauke and Rory Stewart, who both said it was necessary to introduce the presumption against short sentences. I think we can manage to do that.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, as I said, goes in the right direction, but it is not quite strong enough. This is such a simple measure—so simple that it is hardly worth spending time debating it. I am sure the Minister will accept it.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked: these amendments are so simple, why waste time debating them? Well, of course, the law already proceeds on the basis that these amendments propose. Section 230 of the Sentencing Code already says that the court must not pass a custodial sentence unless it is of the opinion that the offence was so serious that a fine or community sentence is not sufficient for the offence. Any court that passed a custodial sentence without stating the reasons for doing so would find that the sentence was overturned in the Court of Appeal. Any sentence in court that fails to consider and address the impact of a custodial sentence on a child or unborn child would not be upheld on appeal. So I entirely support these amendments, but I think we should be realistic about the current state of law.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I do not intend to fall into a bit of disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with whom I worked happily in the Constitution Committee, but the present state of the law has not really solved the problem, has it? Very large numbers of very short sentences are given, and the consequence is that prison places are used, costs ensue, and the least effective way of dealing with individuals seems to be the one that is chosen. If there is some way in which we can strengthen the presumption the sentencing guidelines already carry, that would be good. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is a complicated alternative way of doing it, but it does appear that something needs to be done.
The argument often used for short sentences is that courts have a problem in dealing with persistent repeat offenders and persistent repeat breaches of conditions of community sentences. There is a popular myth that if offenders do not respond to other measures, a taste of prison will soon put them right. There is absolutely no evidence to support this principle. Indeed, all the evidence points the other way.
I used to chair the Justice Committee in the House of Commons, and that has had a continuing interest in this problem. Its report in 2018 recommended that the Government introduce a presumption against short prison sentences. The Government welcomed this and said they were exploring options. In a follow-up report, the Justice Committee noted the Government’s stated intentions to move away from short custodial sentences.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I speak on behalf of my right reverend colleague the Bishop of Gloucester, who is unable to be in her place. She declares an interest as Bishop to Her Majesty’s Prisons in England and Wales. These are her words.
“I am delighted to add my name in support of Amendment 213, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I also have great sympathy for Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Both aim to remedy some of the justice system’s current overemphasis on prison sentences without sufficient regard for whether prison is an effective remedy for the offender or a guarantee to the safety and benefit of the community. By and large, short sentences have proven ineffective on both counts.
Sentences of six months or less are easily long enough to be disruptive but not nearly long enough to be effective in any rehabilitative programme. Short sentences are bad news for families, as we have discussed previously in Committee, in terms of the impact of imprisonment on primary carers and their families. Short sentences damage employment prospects, mental health and more. They are therefore disproportionately punitive, not least when the majority are for non-violent offences. They are also ineffective. Close to half of all those leaving custody go on to reoffend within a year of their release. That increases to almost two-thirds of those sentenced to less than 12 months in custody. The social and economic cost of this level of reoffending has been estimated at £18 billion per annum by the Ministry of Justice’s own analysis, while the costs to the communities and victims who suffer the effects of crime are impossible to estimate.
We know that community sentences are far more effective at reducing reoffending than short prison sentences and cost far less than a prison place. How have we reached a place in the UK in which imprisonment is so overused and seen as a solution to all criminal justice problems when the evidence and data simply do not support this? The UK has some of the highest imprisonment rates in western Europe. England and Wales have a prison population rate of 133 per 100,000 inhabitants—that is 27 per 100,000 above the median for EU member states. We are even worse against the bigger European states. For example, Germany has an imprisonment rate of just 69 per 100,000. That is roughly half our rate. Perhaps not coincidentally, Germany has operated a presumption against short sentences since 1969. Overall, our prison population has increased by over 80% in 30 years, which seems to suggest a trend across a series of Governments of trying the same thing in the hope of achieving different results.
It has been estimated by the Prison Reform Trust that two-thirds of prisoners are in prison for a non-violent offence. These offences are often theft or drug-related and linked to poverty, addiction and trauma, as we have heard, yet we seem to think it better to lock someone up rather than focus time and money on addressing the root causes. For women the rate is higher still: an astonishing 80%. Almost half are on short sentences of six months or less—the majority of all custodial sentences given to women.
As I mentioned earlier in Committee, I was fortunate enough to host an event here in Parliament, and I was delighted to welcome the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I hope he will not mind if I remind him of some of the testimony we heard together. Niki Gould of the Nelson Trust, in which I declare an interest as president, told us that, ‘We fundamentally know that prison exacerbates women’s issues and leads to intergenerational cycles of trauma, abuse and reoffending.’ We heard that diverting 500 women through programmes such as the Nelson Trust not only is more effective at turning their lives around but comes at the equivalent cost of sending just five women to prison, and we heard, with some incredulity, from experts that 500 new prison places for more women serving more short sentences could be a better solution than long-term investment in women’s centres.
This is one of those happy occasions when the moral case happens to align with making excellent economic sense. An effective justice system that is relational, responsible and restorative would cost less in the long term. Finding a way to move beyond short sentences would better support families and children made vulnerable by family breakdown. If implemented as part of a broader package of support for problem-solving courts, women’s centres, and good and effective community sentences, it would lead to better results in terms of reoffending and rehabilitation, and, therefore, safer communities. It would come at a fraction of the price of maintaining the current revolving door of short sentences.
As we heard, in 2019 it seemed like we might have been approaching a breakthrough when the then Lord Chancellor went on the record in favour of a presumption against short sentences. If Ministers do not accept these amendments, I hope we will hear what they see as the future of short sentences and how they can be reduced.”
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for moving his amendment, and to the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Beith, for speaking to theirs. Those noble Lords have far more experience in these matters than me, but I have something to say that might assist the Committee.
In September 2017, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, initiated a debate on prison numbers. That stimulated me to take a very close look at our penal system. It is fair to say that the increase in the prison population is caused by sentence inflation and might have little to do with short sentences.
I believe that the effectiveness of a prison sentence is inversely proportional to the appropriate length of the sentence. Thus, very long sentences to protect the public are effective in terms of incapacitation. On the other hand, very short sentences are extremely poor at rehabilitation and reducing reoffending.
The reason short sentences are so ineffective is surely that the current prison system and its regime do so little to address offenders’ weaknesses. The chief inspector’s reports have been telling us this for years. By definition, these are minor offenders and very often prolific ones. They leave prison after a short sentence with the same weaknesses in terms of education, training and conduct they arrived with. Therefore, there should be no surprise that we have a reoffending rate of about 65% within 12 months of release. The Committee should recognise that these figures are flattered by those who were never going to reoffend for one reason or another.
I am sure that the Committee will understand that most prolific minor offenders stop offending by the age of 26 or possibly 30. Moreover, this is despite a terrible start in life, the fact that rarely has anybody ever loved them, and the lack of a positive male role model. Therefore, these offenders cannot be hopeless, something can be done with them; some improvement in education, training and conduct must be achievable. The difficulty is that these improvements will not be secured through the current prison system.
Amendment 241, which we will debate later, seeks to create a system to address the problem of the ineffectiveness of short sentences. I do not have a view on which is the superior amendment of the two that we are debating—both are commendable—but I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I slightly worry about the inflation risk with Amendment 213, and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, acknowledges that. However, I feel very strongly that if the state does decide to take a minor offender into custody, it must be certain that it is going to improve matters and do no harm.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
I rise to speak briefly to this group of amendments, which I strongly support. I declare my interest again in the register as a trustee and vice-chair of the Prison Reform Trust. We have already debated Amendments 215 to 218, principally regarding primary carers, which I believe are closely related to today’s amendments on short sentences, so I will not delay the Committee by repeating the arguments.
However, by way of further background, it should be noted that the prison population, as we have heard, has risen by 74% in the last 30 years and is currently projected to rise by a further 20,000 by 2026, with millions being spent on providing additional prison places. Yet there appears to be no link between the prison population and levels of crime, according to the National Audit Office.
More than 40,000 people were sent to prison to serve a sentence in 2020, the majority of whom had committed a non-violent offence, and almost half were sentenced to serve six months or less. Crucially, as many organisations have pointed out, including Revolving Doors and Women in Prison, short prison sentences are proven to be less effective than community sentences at reducing reoffending.
Of course, short-term prison sentences have a particularly harmful effect on women and primary carers, as we have debated. It is important to note that in a Parliamentary Written Answer on 30 June 2021, more than 500 women were in prison on a sentence of less than two years. We have already heard from my noble friend Lord Dubs the economic case against short sentences. In addition, the National Audit Office estimated that the cost of looking after short-sentence prisoners, not including education and healthcare, was £286 million a year.
It is also interesting to note, as we have heard tonight, public attitudes to prison sentences, particularly short sentences. I know that the Government take an interest in this. In a survey conducted in 2018 by Crest Advisory, fewer than one in 10 people said that having more people in prison was the most effective way to deal with crime. Early intervention, better parenting, discipline in schools and better rehabilitation were all cited as more effective responses.
Similarly, Revolving Doors undertook a survey which found that 80% of the public think that the theft of daily essentials such as food, sanitary products and nappies does not warrant a prison sentence, and that 74% of the public think that people with drug and alcohol addictions should receive treatment programmes not prison sentences.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer Green support for Amendments 212 and 213, with a preference for Amendment 213, which this debate has made clear is the stronger of the two. I return to the Committee after two weeks away from your Lordships’ House at the COP 26 climate talks. There we heard again and again about the need for evidence-based policy-making on the climate. It is very clear from the powerful introductions from the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Dubs, and all of the subsequent debate, that the evidence here is clearly that short prison sentences do not work.
I very much agree with the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that those words are there in the Sentencing Code, but clearly we need to strengthen this prescription. The figures from 2019 show that more than 44,000 prison sentences of less than six months were handed out. That was nearly half of all people sent to prison. Some 68% reoffended within a year of release, and for theft offenders, the rate was 82%. Two-thirds of the women in prison are serving a sentence of less than six months. Like other noble Lords, I go to the excellent group, Revolving Doors, and the experience of one person, Robert, subjected to a whole succession of short sentences. He said:
“Any support with drugs and alcohol I had in community stopped when I went to prison. I didn’t access any support in prison and certainly there was no planning when I was released.”
Very briefly, I turn to the reference to children in Amendment 212. The report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human Rights and the Government’s Response to COVID-19: Children Whose Mothers are in Prison, indicated that the Government do not have clear figures on the number of women in prison who are separated from dependent children. It recommended that the Government undertake a census and ask all women coming into prison whether they have dependent children and what ages they are, and that those figures be collated and reported regularly. Can the Minister tell me, either now or in the future, whether that recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights has been acted upon?
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I support both these amendments, but I want to add a brief comment on the mechanism which they both have in common: the giving of reasons. I know from my own experience how valuable it is to marshal your thoughts when you are having to give reasons, and sometimes when you write them down you wonder whether your thoughts in the first place were correct, and you may think again as a result. So the mechanism that is being suggested is a good one and, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Pannick, I think Amendment 213 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, does add something to the code.
Of course, the code encourages care in passing custodial sentences and it sets it out very well, but it is this additional element which is of value. One particular word in the amendment adds force to it, and that is “must”. Everybody will have to do this. The noble Lord will know better than I do how often magistrates in particular pass custodial sentences without giving reasons. The point is that this discipline, which both amendments seek to inject into the system, adds value.
That having been said, I hope that these reasons will not just become a rota, because there is some experience in the Supreme Court where we had to give reasons for refusing leave to appeal; we had many of these cases to deal with, and we adopted a mechanism which I think the Minister will know quite well—it was the same reason given every time. That does not really meet what I think the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is getting at, and I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that when the word “must” is put there, together with the other matters in his report, it will actually add value and people will really think before they give their reasons, and not simply adopt a formula.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I would like to add a little to the evidence which has already been provided to the Minister, but he must of course know the evidence which has already been made available to him. Just in case it has not, I repeat what the recent sentencing White Paper says: short sentences
“often fail to rehabilitate the offender or stop reoffending.”
It goes on:
“A Ministry of Justice 2019 study”—
an analytical exercise, full of figures—
“found that sentencing offenders to short term custody with supervision on release was associated with higher proven reoffending than if they had instead received community orders and/or suspended sentence orders.”
In other words, the Government’s own evidence points to supporting these amendments—not necessarily in the same words, but certainly the thrust of them. We should remember that, pre-pandemic, nearly half of those people who were sentenced to custody in England and Wales were subject to short sentences of less than, or equal to, six months.
There are many reasons why we must support the change—more effectively reducing reoffending, dealing with issues such as drug use and producing better outcomes for women. Short prison sentences do not provide sufficient time for addressing those issues, such as dealing with substance addiction, or benefiting from any education and training facilities on offer. There may not even be sufficient time for the prison authorities to devise a programme to address the prisoner’s needs on release day. The best we can say about short sentences is summed up by one of the former Conservative Prisons Ministers, of which there have been many in recent years, who said that short prison sentences are
“long enough to damage you but not long enough to heal you.”
Almost two-thirds of prisoners sentenced to these terms of less than 12 months will reoffend within a year. The amazing statistic is that nearly half of adults are convicted of another offence within one year of release, but anyone leaving custody who has served two days or more is now required to serve a minimum of 12 months under supervision in the community. As a result of not fulfilling their supervision orders in some minor way, 8,055 people serving a sentence of 12 months or less, and sometimes of only a few days, were recalled to prison in the year ending December 2020.
What has happened to the Conservative plan to secure a reduction in the use of short sentences? I think I know the answer, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm to the House what has happened to this idea. The Bill can address this issue. To finish with the words of a former Conservative Secretary of State:
“For the offenders completing these short sentences whose lives are destabilised, and for society which incurs a heavy financial and social cost, prison simply isn’t working.”
Offenders are less likely to reoffend if they are given a community order. These are much more effective in tackling the root causes behind criminality.
Given the evidence of both Conservative Secretaries of State and the evidence produced in the Government’s own studies, can the Minister explain whether there has been a U-turn or a Z-turn, or whether the course is laid out as described in the evidence that they have received?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this debate has raised two important issues: the justification for short custodial sentences and how we curtail their imposition in practice.
The debate saw an interesting exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Beith, and I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the law requires courts to avoid unnecessary custodial sentences where alternative sentences are appropriate. However, my noble friend Lord Beith is right that far too many short sentences are still imposed. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, gave us some of the figures. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made the point that the amendment does add something to the existing law. One thing it adds is that it is focused entirely on short sentences, whereas the Sentencing Code provisions are not.
This House has heard endlessly of the damage that short custodial sentences do. There simply is no evidence to justify their regular imposition. If the Minister has any such evidence, perhaps he can tell us what it is. We regularly stress the extent to which the rate of reoffending following short sentences greatly exceeds reoffending rates for community sentences, a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, using the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester; it was a point also made by my noble friend Lord German a moment ago.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it is important to remember what is in the amendments and what is not. We are not really debating whether short sentences are or are not a good thing; government policy on that has been stated frequently and I will restate it shortly. I am not proposing to make any sort of turn, whether a U-turn or a Z-turn. Instead, I will keep on the straight and narrow, if I can use that phrase in this context.
It is important to remember what the amendments seek to do. They would prevent the court passing a short custodial sentence unless it is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate. They would also require the court, if imposing a short custodial sentence, to explain why alternative sentences were not considered appropriate. Let me be clear: I understand absolutely the sentiment behind the amendments and appreciate, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made very clear, that this is not saying that there are no circumstances in which a short custodial sentence could be appropriate—I fully take that on board.
I agree that short custodial sentences can, in many cases, be less effective at tackling reoffending than community sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, was very clear about the importance that magistrates attach to community sentencing and how it is important that they have confidence in the community sentence regime. The words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester that were read to us also questioned whether short custodial sentences were, to use her phrase, an effective remedy. I think I have dealt with that point. I listened with real care to the testimony I heard at the event she organised and which I was very happy to attend.
The Government cannot support these proposals because they reflect existing law which is sufficiently robust. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, when it comes to statute, I do not believe that saying something again makes it stronger. If something is already in statute and is not being done, it is critical to investigate why it is not being done, and not simply say the same thing again. I therefore gratefully adopt some of what has already been said to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Section 230 of the Sentencing Act 2020—let us just see how it works—places important restrictions on the courts imposing discretionary custodial sentences. It starts with a negative:
“The court must not pass a custodial sentence”—
the starting point is that the court cannot pass a custodial sentence; that is the default—and then continues:
“unless it is of the opinion that … the offence, or … the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.”
Section 77 of the Act goes further and makes clear that even where the threshold for passing a custodial sentence has been met, the court may still pass a community sentence after taking into account any mitigation. Even then, where a court has formed the view that only a custodial sentence can be justified, even in light of any mitigation, it may still suspend that sentence so that it does not become an immediate custodial sentence, taking into account factors such as realistic prospect of rehabilitation, strong personal mitigation, which would obviously include the effect on dependants, as we discussed in earlier groups, and significant harmful impact on others of immediate custody. We suggest that, taken together, this provides a very robust framework which would ensure that short custodial sentences are passed only where there is really no other alternative for the court.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he take my point that none of those provisions focuses on short custodial sentences in particular, as opposed to custodial sentences in the generality?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I accept that they do not refer specifically to short custodial sentences, but when the court is considering a short custodial sentence, the particular factors the court would have to go through before imposing it—and particularly before imposing an immediate short custodial sentence—would be all the starker. It is important that we have a consistent regime. For the reasons I have set out, I do not think it necessary or helpful to have a separate regime for shorter custodial sentences. The position on that, I suggest, is already absolutely clear, as is the requirement for a court to explain its reasons for passing sentence. It is important to recognise that the court has to explain its reasons for passing any sentence, not just a custodial sentence; otherwise, the Court of Appeal will have something to say about it. That is set out in Section 52 of the Sentencing Act.
I hear the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that when it comes to courts explaining the reasons for their sentences, it is very important that they are bespoke and not off the peg—if I can put it that way. That is very important, not least for the offender to know why that sentence has been passed. I will not say any more about the reasons given by the Supreme Court for refusing permission to appeal, but the noble and learned Lord was certainly right that I was all too familiar with receiving those reasons in my cases.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, goes further because it sets out a list of “principles” the court must take into account. I suggest to the noble Lord, who is very familiar with this area, that those principles are by and large set out very clearly already in the guidelines from the Sentencing Council. I suggest that the principles enshrined in legislation would not take us any further.
As the noble Lord knows, there are five statutory purposes when it comes to sentencing, set out in Section 57 of the Act:
“the punishment of offenders … reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence) … reform and rehabilitation … the protection of the public, and … reparation by offenders”.
A sentence can serve one or more of those purposes. The Act also states that, even when the threshold for custody has been passed, that does not mean that a custodial sentence is inevitable—particularly for offenders on the cusp of custody.
Imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be a disproportionate impact on dependants. We touched on that today. We looked at that in a lot more detail in an earlier group, so I hope the Committee will forgive me for not dealing with that in any more detail. I have set out the position in some detail already. It is fair to say that, when this amendment was tabled in the other place, Alex Cunningham MP fairly recognised that the principles are already accepted in the sentencing guidelines, which all courts are required to follow; they are not optional. I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary.
Proposed new subsection (3) of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, concerns the impact of custody on the children of primary carers or the unborn child of a pregnant woman. I think that is almost identical to an amendment we discussed earlier, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Again, I have responded to that in some detail already, so I am not proposing to say any more about that.
I will pick up two other points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, talked about Scotland. The position in Scotland is different. It has a very different sentencing regime from that of England and Wales. The Sentencing Code here, which I have set out, contains the requirements and protections which I have sought to explain. For those reasons, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary; nor, with respect, do we believe we get much assistance in this regard from looking at the Scottish law because there is a very different system for sentencing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked me about the JCHR recommendation. In the time I have had, I have an answer here for her. It is fair to say that it is slightly off-topic. Perhaps she would be happy if I were to write to her on this point, rather than take further time. I will set out the answer in writing; I hope that is acceptable.
For those reasons, we suggest that this is already covered in legislation and in the sentencing guidelines. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for summing up his response to the two amendments in this group. I feel I have been around this track a number of times over the years and we hear the same arguments again and again. The central point is surely that made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith: the current state of affairs is not satisfactory. We have the merry-go-round of short sentences so that sentencers, including myself, feel that we have to make short sentences because we have repeat breaches of community orders and some sentencers do not have confidence in them. So the merry-go-round carries on, with all the disruptive and damaging consequences which we have heard about from many noble Lords in this debate.
I am not saying that my amendment is significantly better than that of my noble friend Lord Dubs. I am saying, however, that there needs to be a holistic response of shorter sentences and better community sentences which people have confidence in, and which the offenders stick to and benefit from.
I will just come to the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about giving reasons. Magistrates’ courts are not a court of record. However, we give reasons and write them down—particularly if we think that we are going to be appealed. So, yes, we do give reasons. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Covid-19
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I will start by saying a few words about the incident that took place at Liverpool Women’s Hospital yesterday. This is an ongoing investigation into what has now been declared a terrorist incident by police so it would not be appropriate for me to comment in any detail, but I express my thanks to all the NHS staff and emergency services who responded to the incident. They showed the utmost professionalism in the most difficult of circumstances and my thoughts—and, I know, the thoughts of the whole House—are with them and anyone who has been affected.
With permission, I shall make a statement on the Covid-19 pandemic and the life-saving work of our vaccination programme. A year ago today, we were in the midst of our second national lockdown, a time when we endured major restrictions on our life and liberty and when we observed a period of remembrance where we could not come together and pay our respects in person in the way that we would all have wanted to. Our country has come very far since then. We have put over 109 million vaccine doses in people’s arms through our world-leading vaccine programme, which means that we can approach this winter with the best possible chance of living with the virus. The data clearly demonstrates that vaccines work. This month’s figures from the ONS show that, between January and September, the risk of death involving Covid-19 was 32 times greater in unvaccinated people than in those who are fully vaccinated.
However, although we have built up that huge protection, this is not a time for complacency. Earlier this month the WHO’s Europe director said that Europe was
“back at the epicentre of the pandemic”.
Just this weekend, the Netherlands and Austria have put in place partial lockdowns after surges in cases.
We also still face the risk of new variants just as we have seen with the emergence of AY.4.2, the so-called delta-plus variant. The latest data shows that it now accounts for around 15% of cases in the UK. Although delta-plus may be more infectious than the original delta variant, our investigations indicate that our vaccines remain effective against it. Still, we know that there will be more variants in future, and we do not want to go backwards after all the progress we have made. So we must stay focused on the threat in front of us and seize every opportunity to bolster our vital defences as the winter moves in.
That includes our vaccination programme, which is our primary form of defence. Last week, I announced to the House that health and social care providers in England must make sure that all workers other than those who are medically exempt, are fully vaccinated against Covid-19 so that vulnerable patients have the greatest possible protection against infection. Today, I shall update the House on more measures that we are taking to keep ourselves on the front foot.
First, we are expanding our booster programme, which is essential so that we can keep upgrading our protection in this country. Our vaccination programme has given us a strong protective wall, but we need to use every opportunity to shore up our defences. Evidence published this month shows how protection against symptomatic disease, hospitalisation and death from Covid-19 gradually wanes as time passes, and this is more likely if you are older or clinically at risk. Even a small drop in immunity can mean a big impact on the NHS; if protection drops from 95% to 90% against hospitalisation in those who are double-vaccinated, that would mean a doubling of hospital admissions in that group of people, so topping up our immunity through booster doses is essential to our security for the long term.
Today, the UKHSA has published the first data on booster vaccine effectiveness in the UK. It shows that people who take up the offer of a booster vaccine increase their protection against symptomatic Covid-19 infection to over 90%, and protection against more severe disease is expected to be even higher. So we are intensifying the booster programme ahead of the winter. Over 12 million people have now had their top-up jab, and over 2 million were given it last week. We have also made changes to the national booking service so that people can prebook their top-up doses a month before they become eligible. Last Monday, we saw almost 800,000 bookings in a single day in England, which is a new record.
Secondly, we are taking another step forward. The JCVI has recommended offering all adults aged 40 to 49 a booster dose six months after their second dose, using either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. I have accepted that advice, and 40 to 49 year-olds will be able to get their top-up jab from next Monday if they are eligible. The JCVI has also said that, in due course, it will be considering whether boosters are needed for all 18 to 39 year-olds, along with whether additional booster doses are required for the most vulnerable over the long term. I look forward to receiving that advice in due course.
Just as we extend protection through booster doses, we are also ramping up our efforts to protect younger people. Our programme for 12 to 15 year-olds is progressing at pace. Yesterday, we hit the milestone of 1 million 12 to 15 year-olds being vaccinated in England. We are also offering a vaccine to 16 and 17 year-olds. I would like to update the House on some further steps that we are taking.
In August, we decided, in line with JCVI advice, that all 16 and 17 year-olds could be offered a first dose of a Pfizer vaccine. That was apart from a small number of those in at-risk groups who were offered two doses. Now, the JCVI has advised that all 16 and 17 year-olds should also be offered a second dose, and that it is even more confident about the safety and benefit of doses in 16 and 17 year-olds. As Dr June Raine, the chief executive of the MHRA, said this morning: “As the data have accrued, we’ve become more and more reassured that the safety picture in young people and teenagers is just the same as what we’ve seen in the older population.”
The JCVI advises that, unless the patient is in an at-risk group, the second dose should take place 12 weeks after the initial dose, rather than eight weeks. I have accepted that advice. The NHS will be putting it into action. Once again, these jabs will start going into arms from next Monday. This will extend the protection of a vaccine to even more people and strengthen our national defences even further.
Our vaccination programme has paved our path out of this pandemic and given us hope of a winter that is brighter than the last. Today, we are going even further, extending our booster programme and offering great protection to younger people, so that we can fortify the defences that we have built together and help our nation to stay one step ahead of the virus. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for actually reading the Statement today and for updating the House on the latest JCVI recommendations. I have to question the last statement that the Minister made. When you have nearly 40,000 infections, as we have today, I wonder if we are one step ahead of the infection or not.
We still see people who are keen to come forward to receive their booster dose but who are still experiencing difficulties in getting it. Does the Minister have an age breakdown by region? I repeat a question that I asked last week. What are the Government doing to fix the ongoing problems with the stalling of the vaccination programme? It is obviously exactly right to accept the JCVI recommendations about extending the programme, but my questions are about how effective we are being in delivering that. Not only is there some confusion about the booster vaccinations, we have also seen some stalling in giving the second dose. There are areas of the country where the second dose vaccine rates are as low as 52%—which is what they are in Westminster.
While we welcome the JCVI decisions to extend Covid booster vaccinations to those aged between 40 and 49, and second doses to 16 and 17 year-olds, there is still a large challenge. As I say, infection rates remain high. Today’s figures show 39,705 cases. Can the Minister give the demography of those being hospitalised and whether this is changing? Can he inform the House, either tonight or by letter, the demography of patients admitted to hospital with Covid—their age, vaccination status and the gravity of their illness? Do we yet know the incidence of genome sequences of the new cases and what has been learned about this?
The Government’s commitment was for all children to be offered a jab by half-term, yet only a third of children have been vaccinated. That means we are quite a long way behind. When does the Minister believe we might catch up? When will all the children who should be vaccinated at least have had their first jab, if not their second?
Last week, the Secretary of State said that he could not rule out the policy of over-65s being banned from all public places if they have not had their third jab, as they have been in France. He said, “We’re not looking at it yet but I can’t rule it out.” Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are considering locking down pensioners who cannot show proof of a booster on an iPhone?
The Minister would expect me to raise the issue of the terrible pressure on our NHS. Today we heard from ambulance chiefs about 160,000 patients coming to harm every year because ambulances are backed up outside hospitals. Thousands of patients will suffer terrible harm. All 10 ambulance trusts are on high alert. We know that NHS staff are stretched and tired, and that there are not enough of them. We know that one in five beds is occupied by an older person who should be discharged and who needs care, but because of the crisis in social care, both domiciliary and in care homes, there is nowhere for many of them to go and no one to look after them.
I am sure the Minister will tell the House about the extra expenditure and the tax rise, but the truth is that the Secretary of State failed to secure a new funding settlement for long-term recruitment and training in the Budget, so how will we recruit the extra staff the NHS needs? The noble Lord’s boss failed to secure the investment needed to fix social care in the Budget. Public health failed to get serious attention in the Budget. We are at the beginning of the winter period and it looks bleak, so what is the plan to get the NHS through this winter without compromising patient care?
I have another few matters to raise. Why does the NHS app still not recognise booster jabs? Apparently, the Prime Minister said at a press conference earlier that this would happen, but he did not say when. Does the Minister have any further information about that?
Indeed, on border controls, Ministers insist that vaccinations are the UK’s main line of defence, but the Conservative Party chair, Oliver Dowden, said this morning that the situation was being kept under review, with alarm over a spike in cases on the continent. As we have seen, Austria has imposed a draconian new lockdown on unvaccinated people after a dramatic increase in infections, and Germany, France and Italy are seeing a significant uptick in outbreaks. Do the Government have a contingency plan for travel restrictions given the fears of a rising fourth wave in Europe?
Finally, and shockingly, we learned today that Covid rates in Parliament were four times the London average in October. Does the Minister believe that this relates to the time when many Conservative Members, particularly in the Commons, were shunning wearing masks and presumably allowing their staff to do the same? I understand that a team from his own department turned up at a Standing Committee without masks a few weeks ago and had to be supplied with them by the clerk of that committee. This smacks of arrogant leadership, led by the Prime Minister last week on his hospital visit. Unfortunately, it is not only unattractive arrogance but dangerous, because it will cost lives.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. At this afternoon’s No. 10 press conference, Professor Chris Whitty made it very clear that doctors and scientists are increasingly concerned about the average of 37,500 cases over the last week and the high number of Covid cases in hospitals. Professor Whitty said that it would be a tough winter and added that, in addition to the nearly 9,000 Covid patients in hospital, all other areas of the NHS are under growing and intense pressure. He recommended that, in addition to getting their vaccinations, everyone should use face masks and ventilation to help reduce the number of cases.
This morning, Oliver Dowden, who was just referred to, said “It is in our hands” whether further restrictions in plan B are put in place this winter, but clearly the Government’s current communications on just encouraging using face masks and ventilation indoors and on transport are simply not cutting through. It certainly was not on my Tube journey in today, where distressingly few people were wearing a mask. Even if the Government do not want to implement the whole of their plan B, why will they not at least mandate face masks and improving ventilation on public transport and indoors when so many people across the spectrum are crying out for this to happen?
Leaving it to individual choice and personal responsibility is far too weak and inconsistent a message. It is crystal clear that the Prime Minister does not want to implement plan B, but is the reality not that he is far more likely to have to do so—or, indeed, move straight to plan C, a total lockdown—if mask-wearing is not made mandatory immediately? Does the Minister agree with me, and the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that all parliamentarians and most particularly Ministers have a duty to set a clear example of mask wearing inside and on public transport?
Professor Whitty highlighted the stark figure that 98% of pregnant women admitted to hospital had not been vaccinated, and that same ratio applied to those in intensive care. What specific steps are the Government and the NHS taking to talk directly to pregnant women to encourage them to have their vaccinations?
It was worrying this afternoon when the Prime Minister said that he “hoped” that booster and third jabs could be logged on the online system “soon”. We have been asking questions about this system for weeks now. Can the Minister look into Pinnacle, one of the systems that logs people’s Covid status, to find out why practitioners are not yet able to record a third jab for the clinically extremely vulnerable, as well as a separate listing for booster jabs for everyone else over 40? As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, evidence of booster jabs will be required for travel this Christmas, but because third vaccinations and booster doses are still not appearing separately on the NHS Covid app, there is a great deal of anxiety and frustration among people who will need not only to have had the jabs but to be able to provide the evidence. Can the Minister say—I underline the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton—when all third doses and boosters will be on the online system?
Finally, although I welcome the announcement that it is safe for 16 and 17 year-olds to receive a second dose, can the Minister explain where 16 and 17 year-olds will be able to get that second dose? Too often, young people wishing to have their initial jab were put off because they had to travel to a centre some way away, often by bus, train or car, often involving parents providing the transport. Will the Minister undertake to look into ensuring that there are centres in town centres and other easily accessible places so that young people can more easily access their second dose?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses for those sets of questions; I will answer them as best I can. I will work backwards, starting with where people can get their vaccines: the same places where the rest of the population can get their vaccines. Only last week, I booked my booster and was reassured to find that, rather than having to go even to my local doctor—which I was quite happy to do—there were two or three pharmacies, or chemist shops, near me that were giving the booster. One of my sons has booked his vaccine and that will be at the same pharmacy. So, clearly, we are rolling out the vaccines to more accessible places than initially; I do know someone considered clinically vulnerable who had to go quite far before, but we are now bringing the vaccines as close to people as possible.
I will try to answer some of the other questions. We are focused on building a wall of defence across the country. More than 261,500 hospitalisations have been prevented in those aged 45 and older, up to September 2021. Estimates suggest that 127,000 deaths and 24 million infections have been prevented as a result of the Covid-19 vaccination programme. This is why we are keen to stress that vaccination remains the best defence against this virus.
We are also working hard to make sure that as many people as possible have their jab as soon as they can. While we are very encouraged by the booster uptake and the record numbers, only today I have been in meetings where we have been talking about how to reach those hard-to-reach communities. I know that we have spoken about this before in this House. I have, very kindly, been offered advice from noble Lords across the House and I have been working with some noble Lords in relation to their experience as community organisers or working with certain communities where the demographics have shown a lower uptake. We are rolling out the programme, and there will be a publicity programme rolling out as well. As we get more data, the JCVI and others are even more reassured by the safety of the vaccines and want to stress that as much as possible.
As I said, we are rolling out the booster programme. Nearly 10.6 million people have now received their third dose, and we are looking to vaccinate children as quickly as possible. We are working closely with schools, colleges et cetera to make sure that we get as close to people as possible.
I had hoped to be able to give a date for the booster appearing on the app. A number of noble Lords raised this with me both formally and informally, and I got straight on to NHSX to try to get an answer. I had hoped to be able to announce a date today, but I am still not able to do that. I am told, however, that good news will be available soon, and I hope it will be announced as quickly as possible. I think there are a few more checks to go through; those who have been in government before will understand how this works.
On the issue of NHS capacity, as of 12 November the number of beds occupied by Covid-19 patients had decreased by about 4% across England in the last week. Regionally, there was a drop of 4% in the east of England; a 2% increase in London; a 5% drop in the Midlands; an 8% drop in the north-east and Yorkshire; a 5% drop in the north-west; no real change in the south-east; and a drop of 8% in the south-west. Hospital admissions have decreased by 10% across England last in the week. There was a drop of 16% in the east of England; an increase of 1% in London; a drop of 11% in the Midlands; a drop of 15% in the north-east and Yorkshire; a drop of 11% in the north-west; a reduction of 8% in the south-east; and a drop of 10% in the south-west. Rates of admission to hospital with Covid-19 therefore appear to be decreasing. Hospital admissions in England were at 821 people per day as of 10 November. There were 6,777 patients in hospital in England as of 12 November, including 838 patients in mechanical ventilation beds.
In line with the approach that we have taken, we are constantly relying on data from the JCVI and its judgment, and this is constantly being reviewed in terms of rollout to different age groups. We are very fortunate to have secured a steady supply and delivery of Covid-19 vaccines. Many will also be aware of the other method by which the dose can be taken.
On making sure that we are focusing on elective care recovery, we have given £2 billion to help tackle the backlog that built up during the pandemic and have committed £8 billion over the next eight years. We hope that that funding will deliver the equivalent of 9 million more checks, scans and procedures to tackle the backlog, and we hope to have 30% more elective activity by 2024-25.
Turning to care homes, one of the campaigns being launched is the “made with care” campaign, which is advertising the fulfilling careers that can be had as social carers. It is very much focused on people who want to make a difference to other people’s lives. There is £550 million, including £162.5 million on the “made with care” campaign, and noble Lords will see that campaign rolling out.
Fortunately, 90% of staff in in older-adult care homes have received both doses, and 94% of such staff have had at least one dose. The data we are getting shows that, where care home owners are able to sit down with the workers who may have some doubts, there is an increase in uptake. Also, on a temporary basis until 24 December, people who have a medical reason why they are unable to have a Covid-19 vaccine can self-certify that they are exempt on medical grounds until that can be proven one way or another.
I am trying to make sure that I am answering all of your Lordships’ questions. If there are some that I have missed, let me assure noble Lords that I have not done so deliberately, and I will write to them to fill that information gap.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me if I emphasise an issue that has already been raised by both Front-Bench speakers: when this booster jab, which I am very glad the Minister has had, as have I, is going to be recorded. As I hope the House knows, it will prevent people, many people in this House, travelling to various countries—I mention France and Israel as only two of them—unless we can prove that we have had it. Although I am very pleased to know from the Minister that he has had the booster jab, and of course I believe him, I would like to know in what way he can prove it to me by showing it to me on his phone.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I apologise if I have misled the House: I have booked my booster jab but I have not had it yet. I was able to book it in advance but I cannot have it until—perhaps I should not make this public, but they have given it to me one day before the six months is up. This will be all over the front pages tomorrow, it will be a huge scandal and noble Lords will be calling for my head. I understand that.
On the serious point, I share the frustration of all noble Lords who have brought this issue up. I was hoping to be able to announce a date today, but it was scratched at the last minute. I think there was some technical reason, but we hope to have good news soon. I know that will be as frustrating to many noble Lords as it is to me. Believe me, I would rather have good news than to be seen to be avoiding answering the question.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I shall follow up on the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in relation to pregnant women in particular. There were maternal deaths early on. It would be most helpful if we could have the data on the number of such women, the pattern of vaccination and the pattern of maternal deaths from Covid and severe infection. Women are still worried and hesitant because there was a failure to vaccinate early on, because the data on safety was not there. Having data on the drop in the number of deaths will help to persuade women of childbearing age to pursue being vaccinated, whether they are already pregnant or not.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very important point and I apologise for not spotting it and answering it earlier. Many noble Lords will be aware of the very sad story of a young lady who died because she felt that the vaccine was not safe; her mother is encouraging other pregnant women to have the vaccine. For that reason, we want clearly to communicate that the vaccine is safe and will not affect fertility, so getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself. Pregnant women are more likely to get seriously ill from Covid-19, and we know that vaccines are safe for them and make a huge difference. In fact, no pregnant woman who has had two jabs has needed hospitalisation with Covid-19. We need to make that clearer, and I will take this back to the department and the Government to make sure that we communicate more clearly. We all share the same will to share that message more widely.
Lord Pannick (CB)
On the NHS app, it is not simply the inconvenience to those travelling but the waste of time of NHS practitioners who are being asked to provide letters to people who are travelling. It is vital that the Minister uses his best endeavours to make sure this problem is resolved very speedily. My understanding is that those of us who travel with children under the age of 16 who have had one jab have no means through the NHS app of proving that they have had the vaccine. Is that right? If so, can the Minister do something about it?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord’s first point repeats what other noble Lords have said, but for a good reason. I hope that our mentioning this more than once this evening stresses to the NHS and NHSX that it must be sorted out as soon as possible. As I said, I had hoped to have a date to announce this evening, and I am as frustrated as everyone else. We all want to travel and, importantly, there are countries that require proof of the booster.
In terms of children travelling, a solution has been developed to allow fully vaccinated children aged 12 and over to demonstrate their vaccination status. Up to now, some countries have required no proof from children aged 12 and over, but I am being told that a solution is being developed. I will try to push for that date as well, but I definitely want to get a date for when the booster will appear on the NHS app. All I can do is apologise that we have not done this yet.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, as we are clearly going to have to live with this vaccine for several years to come, could we have quite soon a programme for annual jabs worked out? It is clear that that is going to be necessary, and we ought to advance-plan. On the subject of masks: where one is in close proximity with others, they really should be obligatory. I came up on the train this morning, and at least half the people in the carriage were not wearing them. I am on my own on these Benches tonight, but I always wear one when others are around me, and I think that it is very important indeed that we take this elementary step so that it is compulsory on public transport, in shops and other places where people are in close proximity.
Lord Kamall (Con)
On future vaccinations, my noble friend raises an important point, and many will have seen in the media and elsewhere all the discussion about living with this vaccine. At the moment, we have boosters at six months; as the technology and the understanding get better, it seems likely that we will move to annual vaccinations, as we do flu jabs. I cannot say that for definite, but the trend is going that way, given the development of the virus, the variants and the waning immunity over time. The effectiveness of each vaccine at the moment is six months, but one can see the longer term. However, please do not take that as a given—if that is incorrect, I will update the House.
On public transport: I went to a funeral today, and as I was travelling back on the underground, it said, quite clearly, that you must wear a mask, so that is being encouraged. It is part of plan B if we have to move to plan B, but all that data is being analysed and constantly updated with different factors. There is no one trigger for moving to plan B. In previous appearances at the Dispatch Box, I have read out the list of all the factors that are considered. At the moment, the main message is: the vaccine works. We want to encourage people to get the vaccine and especially try to reach those communities that have not even had their first or second vaccine yet.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the GMC and the Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Can I ask the Minister about the impact on the NHS generally and the pressure it is under? He will be aware that the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges issued a statement a few weeks ago on its concern about the abuse of NHS staff. What are the Government doing to ensure that NHS staff are able to go about their work without the horrific abuse that many have had to endure?
Secondly, I refer the Minister to the report of the Royal College of Physicians, a census that shows that 48% of advertised consultant posts across the UK were unfilled last year? Does this not show that Covid has exposed the frailties in the NHS? Unless the Government grip this workforce issue quickly, the pressures on the service are going to get worse and worse. What are the Government doing?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord raises a really important point on staff, doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers in our health system. The Government have a zero-tolerance approach to abuse and harassment; we are investing in better security at GP surgeries and are committed to working with the NHS to make sure our primary care workers feel properly supported. We are also constantly having conversations with trusts and the NHS generally about making sure that staff feel safe to work and how we can make sure that that happens. Anyone who has visited a hospital recently will have seen the signs about zero tolerance.
We are constantly talking to NHS England about workforce pressures. We are looking at specific campaigns—for example, we have announced social care recruitment—and other campaigns to attract more workers to the NHS.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, on the Minister’s comment about masks on public transport, my understanding is that that is only in London and is not the case in the rest of England. I draw to your Lordships’ attention my experience in Edinburgh Waverley station yesterday evening. Scotland of course does have a mask mandate, and it was very clearly announced at extremely regular intervals. Additionally, it came with a message that said, “That means that you are not allowed to eat anything in the station”, which I have never heard in England.
The Statement says that
“we must stay focused on the threat that is in front of us and seize every opportunity to bolster our vital defences”.
As most of the Front-Bench questions pointed out, this Statement entirely focuses on vaccines. We have been very aware of the issue of aerosol transmission for a very long time now. The last figures that I have been able to find—from a week ago—show that fewer than the promised 300,000 carbon dioxide monitors for schools have actually been delivered. They were promised by the end of the autumn term. Of course, all those CO monitors do is identify the problem—the lack of air circulation. They do not actually deal with it. Will that target be met, and will schools get their carbon dioxide monitors? More than that, are the Government providing adequate support for schools and indeed other organisations that identify a problem with ventilation?
I notice that the UK Health Security Agency is funding a trial of air purifiers of different sorts in 30 Bradford primary schools. This is two years after the pandemic started, and we have known for a long time about aerosol transmission and the problem of unventilated rooms. Not all school rooms or rooms in general—including in your Lordships’ House—can be ventilated. Are the Government really paying the attention that they should be to dealing with aerosol transmission, ventilation and air purification?
Lord Kamall (Con)
A lot of investment has gone into making sure that there is ventilation in schools. I will talk to my counterpart in the Department for Education to see what more can be done, but I know that the department is very aware of this issue and is looking more into it.
On the noble Baroness’s first question, we want to be clear and not confuse the message: vaccinations work and are our best line of defence. We do not want people to get a false hope that there are other ways to protect themselves. Not all people who do not take the vaccine are anti-vaxxers: some of them think that just wearing a mask may well protect them.
We want to focus on this message: get vaccinated; if you have been, get your booster; and if you have had your first vaccine, get your second one. There is nothing to fear from getting vaccinated. We are not only sending that message out but actively looking at different campaigns to reach those difficult-to-reach individuals in many communities.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, on the importance of vaccination, what are the Government doing to combat the anti-vax message? My second point is on the terrible situation in hospitals, where paramedics are forced to stay and wait with patients. There must be something that we can do to alleviate that situation until there is a long-term solution. Have we identified best practice? The Government ought to be thinking outside the box about what we can do to stop paramedics being trapped in hospital, denying them the ability to deal with other urgent cases.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sorry, but my memory has gone. What was the noble Lord’s first question?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The issue of anti-vaxxers is very difficult in a society where we believe in freedom of speech. Clearly, if they are impeding people from attending school, going to certain places or getting vaccinated, that is obstruction. However, if they are saying that they do not believe that the vaccines are safe or whatever, it is really difficult and we have to get that balance right. We are clear that we want people to be vaccinated but, at the same time, we believe in freedom of speech. Quite often, if you really believe in freedom of speech, you have to allow people to say things that you disagree with, I am afraid. However, where they are actively blocking people from getting vaccinated, I think we have work to do.
As for thinking outside the box, we are looking at a number of different areas. For example, the other day I heard a case of someone who had forgotten his asthma inhaler. His partner told him, “Stay here, I’ll get you another one from the all-night chemist”. The all-night pharmacist said, “I can’t administer that”. She then went to A&E with her partner’s details. A&E said, “No, he has to come in here”. In the end, when she went back to the hotel, the hotel said, “We’ll have to call the ambulance”. All that could have been avoided had there been a way for the person who had forgotten his inhaler simply to get another one, rather than having to call in paramedics. Therefore, there are a number of different ways that we can think outside the box to make sure that we do not put undue pressure on the NHS at this time.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 15th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40-IX Ninth marshalled list for Committee - (15 Nov 2021)
Lord Blencathra
“Sex-specific incarceration for violent and sexual offenders
After section 20 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 insert—“20A Sex-specific incarceration(1) Where a person with a gender recognition certificate is serving a conviction for a violent or sexual offence, that person shall be treated with respect to housing on the prison estate by reference to the sex registered at their birth.(2) Where a person with a gender recognition certificate is remanded in custody for a suspected violent or sexual offence, that person shall be treated with respect to housing on the prison estate by reference to the sex registered at their birth.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amends the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to ensure that prisoners with a gender recognition certificate who are suspected or convicted of violent or sexual offences are treated as their sex registered at birth with respect to housing on the prison estate.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am moving this amendment in my name and those of my noble friends to defend the rights of female prisoners. This is not something I ever imagined I would have to do. In my 38 years in Parliament, I have always supported the rights of women, but I was never a champion because a large number of parliamentarians were far better qualified than me and I thought that women’s rights were generally headed in the right direction—not as quickly as they should be, but in the right direction nevertheless.
Now, I find that the rights of women are under the greatest threat I have seen in my lifetime. It is not just about their rights to safe places such as bathrooms, changing rooms, NHS single-sex wards and in prison; their whole existence as biological women is under existential threat as some people—nearly all men—seek to erase the word “women” from the lexicon or commandeer it for the use of men who identify as women. Let me be crystal clear: I completely support the right of men, as guaranteed in the Equality Act, to change their gender and identify as women. They must not be discriminated against. However, let us be equally clear that men who identify as the female gender are not biological women because, as has been said before, only women have a cervix and a womb, and only women bear children. It is not transphobic to point out that elementary biological fact, which has been at the root of human existence for countless millennia.
I believe that the threat against women is increasing daily. Young lesbian women are being condemned as transphobic if they refuse to have sex with men who claim to be women. What a perversion of common sense and reality that is. However, it is worse than that. The police say that there has been a doubling of crime by female paedophiles. That is a big fat exaggeration. Sexual abuse by women has increased, but it is still infinitesimally small in comparison to that by men. Lynne Owens of the National Crime Agency says that the problem of male paedophilia may be seven times higher than first thought. There has been a huge increase in male paedophiles, some of whom then describe themselves as women; of course, a thoroughly woke police force swallows that nonsense and records it as if the rape and sodomy of children was done by real women. Some of our police forces are trashing the reputation of women by accusing them of crimes committed by men. I believe that the message should go out to the police service that when a male is arrested or commits a crime, he should be recorded as male and never as female, no matter how he designates himself.
I turn to prisons, the substance of my amendment. I am afraid that the situation there is just as bad. Although I suspect that I am in a minority in this House—as I am on many things—I am not one of those who believes that women should not be sent to prison. When the crime justifies it, women should go to prison and be punished. However, that punishment should not include the threat of rape and violence from big, brutish rapists who have decided to identify as women and get sent to a women’s unit. The female prison estate is currently run as a mixed-sex institution because the MoJ’s policies permit prisoners of the male sex, where they identify as transgender and fulfil certain criteria, to be allocated to the female estate and held in women’s prisons alongside vulnerable female offenders. Eligible males include those convicted of the most serious, violent and sexual offences and those with intact male genitalia.
Among others in prison at the moment, there is a vile man—I would describe him as vile—who raped two children, got his gender recognition certificate while in prison and is now swaggering around a female prison wing. I cannot name him or his prison. I believe that women’s prisons should be separate, single-sex facilities for the safety, dignity and privacy of women in prison. Since the Corston report in 2007, it has been acknowledged throughout the criminal justice system that women in prison exhibit patterns of vulnerability that distinguish them from both women in the wider community and male offenders. Female offenders report disproportionately high rates of previous experience of violent and sexual abuse; they also experience high rates of mental health problems. Indeed, in the previous debate, I heard the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, say that three-quarters of women in prison had suffered male violence before being sent to prison. A recent study of prisons in Scotland found a high prevalence—almost 80%—of significant head injury; these injuries were most often caused by repeated incidents of domestic abuse occurring over several years.
For many female prisoners, time in prison is often the first opportunity to tackle the complex issues around their offending, improve their health and access the services they need. Where women in prison have been the victims of sexual and violent assault, prison is often the first time they can be confident that they will be away from their male abusers. Where women in prison have been the victims of sexual and violent abuse at the hands of men, the presence of any offender of the male sex may have an inherently traumatising effect, regardless of the nature of offence committed. It is for good reason that approaches to tackling female offending have consistently emphasised the need for trauma-responsive services.
The Ministry of Justice policy that permits prisoners of the male sex to be housed in the female estate is called The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender. The policy states that all male prisoners who identify as transgender and who are in possession of a gender recognition certificate must be allocated to the female estate. The conviction, offending history, risk profile or anatomy are of no consideration.
Theoretically, a decision may be made to transfer to the male estate after risk assessment. We know of no situation where this has happened. Even the most high-risk male prisoners have remained in the female estate, including those convicted of violent and sexual offences against women and those with intact male genitalia. In respect of male prisoners who identify as transgender and who have no gender recognition certificate, initial allocation is to the male estate. The prisoner may then make an application to be transferred to a women’s prison.
In March 2021, a judicial review was brought against the Secretary of State for Justice, challenging the lawfulness of the MoJ’s policies that permit prisoners of the male sex to be housed in the female estate. Judgment was handed down in July and found that these policies are not unlawful. It would be quite extraordinary if the MoJ was found to be operating an illegal policy. However, the judgment was clear that the court had been called on to rule as to the lawfulness of the policy and not its desirability.
Lord Justice Holroyde acknowledged the negative impact of these policies on women in prison. He said
“I readily accept that a substantial proportion of women prisoners have been the victims of sexual assaults and/or domestic violence. I also readily accept the proposition … that some, and perhaps many, women prisoners may suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with a transgender women who has male genitalia, and that their fear and anxiety may be increased if that transgender woman has been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women.”
He also said:
“I fully understand the concerns advanced on behalf of the Claimant. Many people may think it incongruous and inappropriate that a prisoner of masculine physique and with male genitalia should be accommodated in a female prison in any circumstances.”
I agree with Lord Justice Holroyde that it is both incongruous and thoroughly inappropriate. If it is lawful to house prisoners of the male sex who have been convicted of the most serious violent and sexual offences alongside women who have been the victims of violent and sexual assault, that law must change. It is wrong.
Under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, people who fulfil certain criteria are able to obtain legal recognition of their acquired gender. Legal recognition will follow from the issue of a gender recognition certificate by a gender recognition panel. A new birth certificate is also issued, with the sex marker changed to reflect the acquired gender and the name changed to the newly adopted name. There is no requirement for surgery or medical treatment to obtain a GRC.
GRCs have been obtained in prison by males convicted of violent and sexual offences who have then transferred to the female prison estate. I do not consider that the original intention of the Gender Recognition Act was to enable violent or sexual offenders of the male sex to be housed with women in prison, much less those who retain fully functioning male genitalia. I also make this point: these male prisoners want to identify as women. That is perfectly okay. Apparently, they do not want their male bodies, but every single one of them have retained their male genitalia as they swagger around female prison units. I suggest that those men, particularly those in prison, are simply faking being a woman to get access to real biological women in a female estate.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the problem that Amendment 214 is trying to resolve is already addressed in the very strict codes of practice and guidance to the prison sector. Given that there is a full system of assessment of transgender prisoners, the prison environment in which they are currently placed and that in which they would like to be placed, it is worth running through the detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, quoted from last year’s judicial review, but paragraph 75, where the explanation for the ruling starts, states:
“It is clear that the number of transgender women in women’s prisons is small, and the number who hold GRCs (and are therefore entitled to be treated as women in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004) is very small.”
I say that in the light of the tone of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which made it appear that there was a large invasion of trans women in women’s prisons.
The number of transgender prisoners is very small. However, the guidance on the management of prisoners is lengthy and clear, because transgender prisoners have human rights, as all prisoners do, and because they themselves are at serious risk in prison. The most recent statistics are from last year, and in its coverage of the data, the BBC noted:
“The total number of transgender victims far exceeds the number who were suspected of carrying out sex attacks, with only one such case in 2019.”
Between 2016 and 2019, of 97 sexual attacks in the women’s prison estate, seven trans women had been involved in sex assaults, either as the alleged perpetrator or assistant, with 90 of the sexual assaults being carried out by cis women. A further set of figures from the Ministry of Justice states that 11 trans women had been sexually assaulted in the men’s prison estate in 2019 alone. All this tells us that trans women are far more likely to be victims of assault in prisons than perpetrators and that many more women are assaulted by cis women in prison than by trans women.
However, even if the number of trans prisoners assaulting others is very low, it is right that there are safeguards in place, so what does the guidance say? It says that after a prisoner declares and can provide evidence that they are living in the gender that the offender identifies with, there will be an initial local transgender case board which will, as appropriate, make arrangements for transfers to other parts of the prison estate.
The Parole Board published Guidance on Prisoners who are Transgender in March of this year, which sets out the law very clearly for the prison and probation services regarding prisoners who are transgender. The operational guidance states that
“all transgender individuals, irrespective of whether they are located in the estate which matches the gender with which they identify, must be allowed to express the gender with which they identify. However, decisions to locate individuals who are transgender in prisons that do not match their legal gender can be made only on the recommendation of a Complex Case Board. This board will take into account risk factors to the individual and risk to others”.
To make it clear, for any trans prisoners who might also be deemed a risk to other prisoners, a complex case board has to be called for transgender offenders, which will look at the complexity and specifically assess the risk of harm, prior to making decisions about prison location. The views of the offender must be presented to the board, but a number of healthcare and psychology leads would be there to ensure that any move to a women’s prison would be safe.
Options that a complex case board can consider include moving a prisoner to a women’s prison but keeping them in segregation or, if even that is felt to be too risky, moving them into a segregated part of a men’s prison that is staffed as if it were a women’s unit. There are also now a small number of transgender prison units. It seems that this document sets out well all the steps that need to be taken to protect the trans prisoner—who, as I have already said, is at much higher risk of assault than non-trans prisoners—while also protecting the other prisoners from someone who might be deemed a risk.
There was the case of Karen White, who sexually assaulted two women while on remand at New Hall prison in Wakefield in 2017. It is worth remembering that the Prison Service had to apologise in that case because it had not followed the procedures outlined above, failing all prisoners at New Hall. White should never have been put in a women’s prison and, had there been a complex case board, it would have assessed her as being a risk and not put her in a women’s prison.
The current Ministry of Justice and HMPPS 39-page policy on “The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender” says at paragraph 1.6:
“The proper assessment of risk is paramount in the management of all individuals in our care. The management of individuals who are transgender, particularly in custodial and residential settings, must seek to protect both the welfare and rights of the individual and the welfare and rights of others around them, including staff. Decisions must be informed by all available evidence and intelligence in order to achieve an outcome that balances risks and promotes the safety of all in our care and management.”
The process is there to protect all prisoners and to respect the rights and safety of all prisoners. This amendment is redundant. The actual facts of what is happening with trans women in prisons does not match the opening speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, this evening. I do so not just because I have attached my name to it, but because I emphatically agree with what it seeks to achieve. Anyone who knows me is aware that I am an advocate for a strong law-and-order approach to crime; for those who break the law, the punishment must fit the crime—which often includes imprisonment. This amendment, however, is trying to protect the dignity of female prisoners.
The female prison estate is currently run as a mixed-sex institution. This is because the Ministry of Justice’s policies permit prisoners of the male sex who identify as transgender and fulfil certain criteria, resulting in them being held alongside vulnerable female prisoners. Some of these prisoners have been convicted of the most serious violent and sexual offences and are biologically male.
It surely follows that women’s prisons should be separate-sex facilities to preserve, as far as reasonably possible, the safety, dignity and privacy of women in prison. Since the Corston report in 2007 it has been acknowledged throughout the criminal justice system that women in prison exhibit patterns of vulnerability that distinguish them both from women in the wider community and from male offenders. It is also worth noting that female offenders report disproportionately high rates of previous experience of violent and sexual abuse, and experience high rates of mental health problems.
Where women in prison have been victims of violent and sexual assault, prison is often the very first time they can be confident that they will be away from their abusers, who are usually men. I strongly contend that, where women in prison have been victims of sexual and violent abuse at the hands of males, the presence of any offender of the male sex may have an inherently traumatising effect, regardless of the nature of the offence committed.
It is the Ministry of Justice policy—namely, The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender —that permits prisoners of the male sex to be housed in the female estate. The policy states that all male prisoners who identify as transgender and who are in possession of a gender recognition certificate must be allocated to the female estate. This is irrespective of any conviction, offending history, risk profile or anatomy, including those who are high-risk prisoners and those convicted of violent and sexual offences against women.
I too was going to refer to the judicial review that was brought in March 2021, but the mover of the amendment has adequately covered that, so I will refrain. However, I shall again emphasise one line: while the policies were found not to be unlawful, it should be said again that the judgment acknowledged the negative impact of the policies on women in prison.
Furthermore, there is no requirement under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, if people fulfil certain criteria, for them to have surgery or medical treatment to obtain a GRC. It is a fact, as has already been referred to, that GRCs have been obtained in prison by males convicted of violent and sexual offences who have been transferred to the female prison estate. The latest data available on the number of male-sex prisoners who identify as transgender dates back to 2019, but back then it was 11 in number. I understand that new data will be available to be released, or at least is expected to be released, this month. Forcing women to share accommodation with prisoners of the male sex, particularly where those prisoners have been convicted of violent or sexual offences, arguably engages Article 3 on the right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
I urge your Lordships’ House to support this reasoned and sensible amendment, which is clearly intended to respect female prisoners, including their rights and dignity. Not to do so could be interpreted as not caring how female prisoners end up. Indeed, the conditions that they are subjected to could be construed as part of their prison sentence—which of course they are not, and never should be.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 214 seeks to eliminate the risks and dangers to women in prison by the muddled use in legislation of the terms “sex” and “gender”. They are not interchangeable. They have come to mean very different things. Matters have reached such a pitch that I am tempted to paraphrase the 18th-century man of letters Dr Samuel Johnson and say that “Allowing a person with a full set of male genitals the legal right to serve a sentence in a women’s prison is not done well, but you are surprised to find it done at all”. It is, not to put a too fine a point on it, barking mad.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s speech ranged very broadly indeed. We are in fact debating a complex penal issue where we have a policy that addresses the matter very sensibly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, explained.
I will add just one point to this debate. It is not difficult to see the danger to people who were registered as male at birth but who are now registered under the Act as female if they were required to be placed in a male prison, as this amendment would require, irrespective of the particular circumstances of their case, as long as they are a sexual or violent offender. It should not need to be emphasised, but I will emphasise it because it is the fact, that many of these people have had hormone treatment, and some of them have had reconstructive surgery that has given them primary and sometimes secondary sexual characteristics of a physical nature. What do the proposers of the amendment think will happen to such people if the Home Office is obliged to place them in a male prison?
Of course we would all agree that, if there is an offender in custody for a suspected violent or sexual offence who is in possession of a gender recognition certificate and poses a risk to others in custody, then specific steps should be taken to isolate and deal with them. But that does not justify or require ignoring a gender recognition certificate in the way the amendment proposes.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it has to be said that when I talk to members of the general public and tell them that it is MoJ policy to allow prisoners of a male sex to be housed according to their self-declared gender identity in a women’s prison, irrespective of whether they have taken any legal or medical steps to acquire their gender, that they do not need to have gone through any physical transformation and still retain male genitalia, which we have heard lots about already in this debate, and that they do not even need to have obtained a gender recognition certificate—they need just to declare that they are women and demand that they are moved to the women’s estate, and it is seriously considered—they are aghast. It falls under the category of, “Has the world gone mad?”
That common-sense response might not feel appropriate when discussing legislation, but in this instance it may help us to look at this issue in practical, real-life terms, not just in abstractions. That is why I welcome the amendment very strongly. Although it does not resolve all my concerns, I welcome its modest, narrow aim of removing the most egregious aspect of this situation: allowing male prisoners who identify as trans but have convictions of violence or sexual offences against women to live with women prisoners. There really is no point in the Government issuing strategies and grand words about violence against girls and women if the same Government have no qualms about letting rapists share the same confined living quarters as vulnerable women in prison who, let us be frank, cannot leave or escape because they are locked up by the state. This amendment’s focus is on convicted sex offenders and it is urgent that the Government take notice.
It is important to note that when gender-critical commentators and academics raise qualms about the general policy of housing transgender prisoners in the women’s estate, they are often dubbed transphobic and accused of holding a prejudiced view of all trans women as sexual predators, but this is a malign caricature. At this point I give a shout-out of solidarity to Professor Jo Phoenix, an esteemed and conscientious criminologist who has been harassed and traduced for raising such legitimate concerns.
Wherever one stands on the general issue, this amendment is specific and cannot be accused of implying that all natal men, however they identify, are a sexual threat to women, because that would not be true. We are talking only about convicted sex offenders and those guilty of violence. I still hope this probing amendment might encourage the Government to look more closely at a range of issues in this area. I particularly want the Government to consider whether the Ministry of Justice’s involvement over a period of time with the controversial lobbying group Stonewall, which has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, as with so many public bodies, may—just may—have led to the skewing of policies in a particular direction.
For example, I know how keen this Government are on data and statistics, but as Kate Coleman, the founder of Keep Prisons Single Sex, has noted—this just seems incredible to me—the MoJ admits that it does not know how many prisoners identify as trans because, with a gender recognition certificate, they are counted by their new legal gender. I am not sure how the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, can be so sure of the statistics she quotes, because the tools designed to assess any threat posed by male prisoners who identify as trans women cannot be picked up accurately. If someone with a GRC attacks a female prisoner, it will be recorded as an assault by a woman on another woman.
I also want to query who is listened to in this discussion on what is obviously a clash of rights. In the course of the recent High Court ruling we have heard about, Lord Justice Holroyde outlined the need to balance
“the subjective concerns of women prisoners”
with
“the rights of transgender women in the prison system.”
This made it sound as though the women, the biological women, were all being overly subjective, and the transgender women had rights. Describing one side as subjective and the other with rights misses a crucial point, because that transgender woman has an identity that is not an objective fact but a subjective desire and then a declaration. Why are women prisoners’ subjective but rational concerns afforded less weight here?
When the High Court acknowledged that women prisoners may well be worried and “scared” about sharing prison accommodation with male-bodied prisoners, the court said that that fear was not enough to outweigh the desire of some male prisoners to be housed with women. I wonder: when did the prison estate, or indeed the law, allow its policies to be dictated by prisoners’ desires? I have worked with prisoners over a number of years, particularly with Debating Matters Beyond Bars. Many of the prisoners I have worked with have declared that they desire decent prison education. They desire retraining and better conditions. The prison authorities certainly did not accommodate their desires, so why are these desires accommodated when it comes to the trans issue?
Finally, I am keen that the Government look carefully, and use this probing amendment to do so, at how staff in prisons understand the issue of sex and gender in the context of training. The MoJ policy entitled The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender advises staff to complete an “eLearning module” on transgender identity. One of the training courses is named intersecting identities. I have looked at these, and it all rather terrifies me. It is one-sided, jargon-ridden and ideological. I hope this amendment might point the Government to raise and review the whole issue. For now, at least, a very modest amendment should be taken seriously if they really mean they care about protecting women from violent men.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I just want to intervene briefly. I support this amendment. To me, it is morally wrong for a physical man to be in a woman’s prison. It is as simple as that. If he has identified himself as a woman, and deserves to be in prison, there should be special facilities that do not bring people of that sort into close proximity with women or—if they are in danger—with men.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the late intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was helpful in suggesting to the Minister that what I think we would all acknowledge is a complex, sensitive and controversial issue would benefit from a sensible roundtable discussion in which the Prison Service was open to some scrutiny. Part of the issue around gender, sex and identity in government as a whole is that policy has been developed mainly by officials who have come under the influence of certain groups, which Ministers have basically accepted and it has not been subjected to proper scrutiny.
My major appeal to the Minister tonight is to allow for that and to open up a dialogue in which those of us who are gender-critical are not accused of being transphobic or under the pay of alt-right American organisations, something which, I am afraid, has all too often clouded the debate. I have an Oral Question tomorrow about Professor Kathleen Stock—a classic case of someone who has expressed quite legitimate views being subjected to horrendous abuse and basically left simply to put up with it herself; it was very late on that the university came her defence. There are so many examples of this, mainly affecting women. There is a lot of misogyny in this debate, and women are left defenceless by pathetic public bodies which are frightened to upset certain groups such as Stonewall. We know this—in how many government departments has policy been developed by officials, with Ministers having virtually no say?
My appeal to the Minister tonight is to take this seriously and to say there is a legitimate debate—not one in which we call each other names, but where we actually start to discuss these issues. It has never been allowed; there has been no real public debate or scrutiny in Parliament. These issues are so sensitive, and with every Bill that goes through, this debate will take place. We know that the Government are split on this, but they have got to get themselves together and start to have a proper dialogue. That is the appeal I make to the Minister.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid it is not just the Government who are split on this. With two notable exceptions, rarely have so many noble Barons spoken with such passion and at such length for the dignity of women—and there is nothing wrong with late-flowering feminism. I say that quite sincerely to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who I had the privilege of advising as a young lawyer in the Home Office some years ago now. There is nothing wrong with late-flowering feminism and, indeed, nothing wrong with speaking up for the dignity of all people. I say that as a self-identifying feminist and human rights campaigner.
The debate has ranged widely, which may be fine even at this late hour, but it has ranged beyond the specific issue. Noble Lords have brought up various issues to do with the lexicon and whether people feel that their dignity is lost, or that somehow their femaleness, or their womanhood, is challenged by newcomers, migrants to their sex, et cetera. To get back to the actual issue, life is complicated, prisons are vulnerable spaces and everybody in prison is inherently potentially threatening but also potentially vulnerable. I want to get back to the actual substance of this amendment and what it is trying to address. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that, if he and I were trapped in a lift with a third person—this is just a hypothetical, not an invitation, I promise—and the third person was a cis woman, born a woman, still a woman, always a woman, but none the less a white supremacist with previous convictions as long as your arm for violence against non-white women, I would feel much more threatened by the presence of that offender than by the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. He is looking quizzical, but my point is that the Secretary of State has responsibilities to people in custody, in particular, and to people in vulnerable spaces that cannot be dealt with using the blunt instrument of an amendment like this.
I am not making nit-picking points. I am trying to address points that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, tried to make early on. Forgive me—it is no criticism, but some noble Lords responded subsequently with speeches which were understandably carefully prepared in advance, without the opportunity to hear her rather sensitive and thoughtful setting out of the way in which the Government to date are trying to address their administrative and serious human rights responsibilities to deal with all vulnerable people in prison.
I suggest to the noble Lord that in the hypothetical lift I would be at far greater risk from the white supremacist with previous convictions. This is not a total hypothetical, because this has happened in male prisons where non-white offenders have been murdered by fellow cis males—that being the term for people born and always a man—because of a lack of diligence about the offending and attitudinal profile of a person.
If we really care about people being safe in custody, which we must, this will not be resolved by a blunt instrument. This is not a drafting point or a nit-picking point. In my view, we have too many people—and I suggest too many women—in prison anyway, and we need to pay more attention to who is with whom and how we are taking care of them.
Something like this amendment, which says that your birth sex is always your sex for the purposes of imprisonment and incarceration, would mean that someone born a woman who then went through hormone therapy, possibly more interventionist therapies and even surgery would always be in a women’s prison. That would not necessarily always be the right outcome.
What I am trying to suggest is that, yes, I care about being a woman and, yes, I care about being a feminist, but I am a human first and foremost. I do not hate men. I do not fear all men. I am not a self-loathing cis woman. I believe that in this Committee, perhaps more than anywhere, we should be capable of taking some of the heat out of these sensitive issues, as I think we tried to do in an earlier—I called it historic—debate. Debates about the lexicon and wider dignity, important and heated though they are, will not make women safer and they will not make prisoners safer.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
We are talking about men who feel they are women but who have male genitalia being in a women’s prison. We are not talking about men who had operations. We are talking about men who, after being in a prison for several months, might have needs and could attack women. Some of those men are paedophiles and are violent.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I hear the noble Baroness, and I do not call her a late-flowering human rights spokesperson or feminist. I know that when she spoke on another Bill about parental alienation, she very clearly identified and recognised that people of both sexes were capable of this behaviour. Perhaps if she had had the opportunity to listen to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, before she prepared hers—I make no criticism of that, because we all do it—she would recognise that the Government are already moving quite a long way to deal with these difficult administrative duties of care.
I believe that people of good will and good faith, as I consider this Committee to be, can deal with this without using some of the language that—forgive me— some noble Lords have used repeatedly. Repeatedly calling people one sex even though it is very important to them to be another does not help. This place—this Committee and your Lordships’ House—should not be a place of culture war. This should be a place where we make difficult things a little bit easier because of rational thought and the respect that we pay each other and therefore everyone else.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I want to respond to that because I think another point that follows from what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said is that the other argument that comes up all the time is that if you raise these issues you want a culture war, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was implying.
On terminology, if we are all going to get offended, I do not particularly find descriptions of people as “cis” very helpful either, so when it comes to language issues, the point is that there are tensions that exist outside this place. We know that and it is disingenuous to pretend that there are not.
The noble Baroness rightly pointed out that this is a question of administrative duties of care. This amendment has been very carefully worded in a very narrow way about a very specific issue. What is the objection to that? This is precisely a responsible administrative duty of care, regardless of any hyperbole that people do not like other people using even when they use it.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. If I offended her in any way by my remarks—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
—I apologise. Clearly one of the reasons this is so sensitive is that, beyond this Committee and this Chamber, there is not yet even a settled courtesy about some of these matters. If I have offended any Member of the Committee, I apologise.
I was born a woman, and I still identify as a woman, but I have always tried to disagree well with people, including those on the Benches opposite, who I disagree with across the piece. I have never seen all men as a threat, and I have certainly never seen people of other races, sexualities or sex as a threat, and I am not calling anybody names in this debate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important debate. I think I am perfectly entitled to intervene; I do not see why I cannot. I agree with a lot of what my noble friend said about the tone of the debate. My problem is the accusation of transphobia.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
No, my noble friend did not make it, but it is made by many people. Those who are perhaps arguing from my noble friend’s point of view never defend people such as Kathleen Stock when they suffer such abuse. I welcome this debate, which is why I intervened, because, frankly, it is very helpful to try to set a place here. I agree with my noble friend that the Lords is, above all else, a place where we can start to have some reasoned discussion, but there are huge tensions and sensitivities on both sides. I must come back to the Minister: the fact is—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
That is very true. My noble friend is right. I will take that and ask her to respond to me.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful for that. Forgive me, again, if I have called anybody names. That has not been my intention. This is difficult terrain. The path of human rights does not run smooth and there are all sorts of difficult issues to be dealt with. There are some people beyond this Committee and your Lordships’ House who seek to set people against each other. The focus of this legislation, and your Lordships’ focus in this Committee, should be to ensure the safety of vulnerable people in prison, whatever sex they were born and whatever sex they now identify as. I was trying to suggest that that is not just about biology. It is also to do with criminality, profile, attitude and so on. I believe we have too many people in prison and that we therefore have too many women in prison.
I would defend academic freedom and debate, by the way. Forgive me if I have not been seen to do so. I believe that my record on free speech matters is decent enough. I urge noble Lords to send a signal to the wider world that, in this place at least, we can disagree well and focus on protecting all vulnerable people in prison.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. As most noble Lords will know, we are the body charged with protecting the protected characteristic of sex as well as that of gender reassignment and the fundamentally important human right of freedom of expression. All those things have been discussed today relatively calmly, on the whole. On debating well, I start from first principles and say that we should never try to close down debate—and yes, we should debate well.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Morrow and Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, for proposing this amendment, which basically seeks to ensure that female prisoners are protected from harm. This is a complex area, where the rights of trans women prisoners to have their legal sex recognised has to be balanced with those of female prisoners, who may be fearful of attack, if they know that a dangerous sex offender with male anatomy is housed with them, for example. The important point is that, when you are incarcerated and do not have the liberty to leave a place of danger, the state’s duty to look after you is profound. You do not have the choices that other people have.
The noble Lords and noble Baroness have proposed that prisoners with a gender recognition certificate who are suspected or convicted of a “violent or sexual offence” are treated
“by reference to the sex registered at their birth.”
I understand the intent behind this amendment, which is essentially to secure the safety of natal women. However, it raises some issues that require further thought—for example, the risk of violence towards trans women prisoners housed in a male prison as well as to trans men in a female prison. I urge noble Lords not to frame this serious and complex issue either in a numbers game—are there very few or not so few?—or in what may or may not be our personal outlook, if we find ourselves in that position. The law is frequently a straitjacket, and it is not sufficiently malleable to accommodate the complexity of identities around us.
At the heart of this issue is the need to protect female prisoners and ensure that they have access to single-sex spaces, including bathrooms, sleeping accommodation and other areas that they need. Violent and sexual offenders are a threat to their fellow inmates, regardless of their sex or gender identity. Cases of assault sadly already happen in single-sex prisons. However, in the case of trans prisoners who may be violent or who may have committed crimes involving sexual assault, it is right that we now need to give additional thought to how they are housed. As it stands, the law stands calls for these decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis. While this will be right in many situations, it may also raise the question of how female prisoners can have confidence in their ability to safely access spaces such as toilets within the prison, precisely because they cannot know the outcome of a case-by-case assessment, as opposed to the generality of a law that exists for them. Further thought needs to be given to the facilities provided to trans people and whether provision can be expanded for trans people that ensures that all sides of that debate can be safe and secure within the prison estate.
A further problem with the amendment is that, oddly, it is too narrow and does not capture the issue of trans men or trans women who do not have a gender recognition certificate but, nevertheless, self-identify in the gender and can therefore apply and be granted a place in the relevant prison estate. I do not think the noble Lords who put down the amendment intended for it to be quite so narrow—certainly their speeches do not reflect the narrowness of the written words. These are not straightforward issues, and it is right that we properly consider the balance of rights of different prisoners. I do not believe that the amendment gets that balance right, but it does ask serious and important questions that need to be addressed in law.
If the Minister is minded to pursue these arguments through Report, I ask that he give extremely serious consideration to the importance of getting the balance of rights correct and ensuring that all prisoners have the duty of the state to safeguard them upheld as we go forward.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but I would like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, has just said. There are two groups of people who need support. I agree with her that the well-intentioned amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, does not actually meet the problem. These two groups are the women who are women at birth and remain women, and those who were men at birth and become women. Both groups, even in prison, need respect for who they are and what has happened to them. I do not think that the prison system is well adapted at the moment to deal with trans women, and the Minister needs to think with some care whether rather more should be done to help that group of women.
However, the help for that group of women should not be at the expense—I venture into dangerous ground —of those who remain women. This is an extremely tricky area, and we know from areas outside the prison system just how tricky is it. I do not envy the Minister or the Ministry of Justice the situation in which they find themselves because this did not exist—as far as we knew—even 10 or 20 years ago but, my goodness me, it exists now. There are two groups, both of whom need not only respect, but understanding and care, even within a prison.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have been engaged in the debate on trans issues for many years and I have the scars to prove it. I have even been criticised for simply engaging in the debate, by some trans people for even listening to radical feminists, and by feminists because I am not a woman. I have met with, listened to, and talked with many people on all sides of these issues, including radical feminists, gender-critical people, trans people and intersex people. I continue to listen, and I continue to try to understand the views expressed by all sides.
I can feel my blood pressure rising when I hear the comments of many noble Lords around the Chamber. Then I think for a while, and I think to myself that it was not that long ago that I perhaps held similar views until I actually started talking to the people whose lives we are talking about—people who honestly and genuinely believe that they are in the wrong body, if you like, and those who genuinely believe that they are women even though they have male bodies, for example. That is when you begin to understand that these things, which appear completely counterintuitive, make sense for those people. I do not condemn people for what they have said because it was not that long ago that I might have thought along similar lines.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Can I just clarify one thing? Many trans people do not agree with some of the orthodoxies that have become associated with trans activism. The inference was that some people possibly have a particular view because they have not met any trans people. That is not true. Whole swathes of trans people do not go along with a particular political opinion, for example in relation to prisons, as in this instance. I am concerned that it is not seen that those people who argue a gender-critical view are doing it because they are ignorant and have not got out enough.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I hear and understand what the noble Baroness says. However, on this amendment, I am clear. We oppose Amendment 214 from the Front Bench. We do not support the noble Lord’s amendment, but we understand completely the concerns that he and other noble Lords have. However, we feel that the risks that the noble Lord seeks to minimise are already minimal, and that other risks that need to be managed are not covered by this amendment.
The amendment seeks to amend the Gender Recognition Act to reduce the risk that transgender prisoners present to others. This is neither necessary nor desirable for the following reasons. First, there are very few transgender prisoners. In a data collection exercise between March and May 2018, only 44 of 124 public and private prisons said that they had any transgender prisoners at all. The fact that there are so few transgender people in prison is also an indication of the level of offending by transgender people, the seriousness of that offending and the extent of the threat that they pose.
Secondly, the risk of mental health problems, self-harm and suicide is far greater among the transgender community than it is among those who are not transgender. Clearly, in a prison setting, the risk of mental health problems, self-harm and suicide is likely to be higher for all inmates; for transgender prisoners, it is likely to be very high indeed. In November 2015, an inmate who said that she would kill herself if she was sent to a male jail was found dead. Vicky Thompson, aged 21, died a week ago at the all-male HMP Leeds. Friends said that Thompson, who was born male but had identified as a woman since she was a teenager, had asked to be sent to a female jail in Wakefield. This is the sort of impact that having an unbalanced amendment, such as the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, can have on transgender people.
Thirdly, if the Prison Service thinks that the risk presented by a transgender prisoner is such that they should be housed in a prison contrary to their legal gender, it can allocate them to a part of the estate that does not match their legally recognised gender. The decision must be taken after consultation with experts and at a high level, but it is possible.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the High Court judgment in July 2021, where lawyers for a female inmate in the female prison estate brought a judicial review against the MoJ. The MoJ argued that the policy pursues a legitimate aim, including
“facilitating the rights of transgender people to live in and as their acquired gender (and) protecting transgender people’s mental and physical health.”
It is interesting that I am actually quoting from the same case as other noble Lords have quoted from. Lord Justice Holroyde said:
“It is not possible to argue that the defendant should have excluded from women’s prisons all transgender women”—
as this amendment proposes. He continued:
“To do so would be to ignore, impermissibly, the rights of transgender women to live in their chosen gender.”
The case was not actually about excluding all transgender women; it was about challenging how policies applied to those who had been convicted of serious or violent offences against women—as the noble Lord’s amendment does.
The Lord Justice went on to say that trans women’s offending history was a factor that the existing policies were required to consider. He said:
“the need to assess and manage all risks is repeatedly emphasised”
throughout existing MoJ policies. He continued:
“In an exceptional case, a high risk transgender woman, even with a GRC, can be transferred to the male estate because of the higher level of security which is there available.”
Therefore, there is a mechanism to do exactly what the amendment is seeking to do, but on a risk-assessed basis.
The court also heard that expert panels are also involved in the process when allocating transgender prisoners and are “expressly required” to consider the trans woman’s offending history, her anatomy and her sexual behaviours and relationships. The Lord Justice said:
“They can in my view be expected to be astute to detect any case of a male prisoner who, for sinister reasons, is merely pretending to wish to live in the female gender.”
He concluded:
“the policies require a careful, case-by-case assessment of the risks and of the ways in which the risks should be managed. Properly applied, that assessment has the result that non-transgender prisoners only have contact with transgender prisoners when it is safe for them to do so.”
This is the same case that noble Lords have been quoting from.
Yes, the Lord Justice said:
“I readily accept that a substantial proportion of women prisoners have been the victims of sexual assaults and/or domestic violence.”
He added that some women prisoners,
“may suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with a transgender woman who has male genitalia, and that their fear and anxiety may be increased if that transgender woman has been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women.”
This amendment says nothing about whether the person has had sex-reassignment surgery, and there are trans women with gender recognition certificates who have not undergone gender reassignment surgery. The amendment, therefore, is not fit for purpose.
There are two sorts of risk that need to be managed here. There are the risks to the transgender prisoner, either from themselves, in terms of mental health, self-harm and suicide, or the risk from other prisoners, such as the risk of a transphobic attack or an attack based on their acquired gender if they present as a woman in a prison housing men, for example. There may be risks that the transgender person poses, perhaps because of a previous history of violence or sexual offences, but those falling into this category are few and far between and can be dealt with under the law as it stands. Any attempt to stereotype all transgender women as a threat to women flies in the face of the facts and needs to be robustly challenged.
The implication that transgender women are a threat to children reminds me of the sort of abuse that was directed towards me as a gay man a few decades ago.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The noble Lord is looking at me and implying that I suggested that transgender men were a threat to children. I said no such thing at all. I quoted the case of a male rapist who had raped two children. I was not suggesting that this was endemic in the transgender community, or that they are a threat to children at all. That is not what I said, not what I implied, not what I intended.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am grateful for the clarification that the noble Lord has given, and I will allow noble Lords to read the official record and draw their own conclusions from what he said.
The noble Lord’s amendment manages only one of these risks—arguably the much lower risk. Each case should be, and is currently, managed on a case-by-case basis, and that should continue. We oppose the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
We, too, oppose the amendment. I think we all accept that transgender women are entitled to live in their chosen gender. The law protects transgender women and transgender men from discrimination because they are transgender men or transgender women. The position that is outlined in this amendment leads all transgender women to be consigned to the male prison estate—a point made very forcibly by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The moment one says that, one sees the total unthought-out nature of the amendment.
The way forward was, I believe, charted by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner and Lady Brinton. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, indicated in a powerful speech that one is dealing, in effect, with rights that may conflict: on the one hand, the right of a transgender woman to be properly protected, including in her choice to be a transgender woman, and on the other, the possibility that certain prisoners, including transgender women, can be a threat to other prisoners in the women’s estate. The way that that is dealt with at the moment was well outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in her excellent and detailed speech. The prison authorities deal with it on a case-by-case basis using a series of detailed processes. Should we continue with that, or should we condemn every gender recognition-certificated transgender woman who is charged—maybe not convicted —of a violent or sexual offence to being in the male estate?
For my own part, it is pretty obvious that one should continue with the current arrangements. I am sure that they could be improved—I am not in a position to detail any improvements that could be given to them—but that case-by-case basis must be a better approach than that adopted by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I would go further and say that I do not suggest to the noble Lord and those who have also supported the amendment that they come back with something else. This is much better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so we on this side of the House oppose the amendment. We do not think it is appropriate; we do not think it even tries to balance rights, and we would not support it coming back on Report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, perhaps I can begin with two confessions. First, I frequently listen to and discuss issues with people with whom I firmly disagree including, on occasion, Members of your Lordships’ House. Secondly, I do not propose to change that approach.
This amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, relates to the management of prisoners who have changed their legal gender by obtaining a GRC—a gender recognition certificate. The effect of the amendment would be that a prisoner with a GRC who is convicted of or on remand for a violent or sexual offence would be, and would have to be, held in a prison matching their sex at birth.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that I and the MoJ take this issue very seriously but, and with no disrespect to any noble Lord whose speech has ranged more widely, we are in Committee on this Bill. I shall confine my remarks to the subject matter of the amendment rather than the broader questions, whether on Stonewall or related topics, interesting and thought-provoking though they were. The Committee will be aware that the MoJ left the Stonewall diversity scheme in June this year, but I reiterate the department’s commitment to diversity in all its diverse forms. Our policy is not driven by ideology; it is driven by compliance with the law of the land and to consider protection for all—I repeat all—the prisoners in our care.
Reference has been made to the 39-page policy. Let me just read what the section under “Outcomes” says:
“The high-level outcomes of the new Policy Framework are intended to strike an appropriate balance, ensuring”
first that:
“All transgender individuals are managed safely with their rights properly respected and in accordance with the law”
and, secondly:
“Decisions are informed by all available evidence and intelligence in order to achieve an outcome that balances risks and promotes the safety of all individuals in custodial settings and approved premises. This includes an assessment of risks presented to and by transgender individuals.”
The Committee will have noted the two references to balance in that section, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out, two groups—perhaps at least two, I would say—need respect and understanding in prison. I suggest to the Committee that that policy is correct in law and, I believe, in principle too. With all due deference to my noble friend Lord Cormack, I suggest that it is morally correct as well.
This is about legality, safety and dignity, so in answer to the point put to the Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, no: the world has not gone mad and it is a gross mischaracterisation of government policy to suggest that I or the Government have “no qualms” about letting rapists share living quarters with women. I assume that point was put because the noble Baroness does not understand what the policy is, so let me explain the actual policy to her and to the Committee.
The policy is that transgender prisoners are allocated to a prison matching their legal gender but can be held in a prison opposite to their legal gender where they would otherwise present an unmanageable level of risk to other prisoners. The current policy therefore allows for prisoners with GRCs to be held in a prison matching their sex at birth, where that is appropriate. I can therefore confirm, because I have had this checked, that contrary to the position set out by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, there are trans women with GRCs who are now housed in the male estate following the risk assessment process.
The critical point, as pointed out first, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and then adopted by others, is that that policy differs from that suggested by the amendment because the current policy is not a blanket approach. The amendment is a one-size-fits-all approach, or a blunt instrument, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, put it. We manage prisoners with GRCs on a case-by-case basis. That is absolutely right, because we want to make sure that there are no assaults in any prison by any prisoner on any other prisoner or, of course, on a member of staff.
The amendment would end the balanced approach. It would mean that a prisoner with a GRC would never be held in the part of the prison estate that matched their acquired gender, even though in some cases this would pose a manageable level of risk and would, on balance, be the safest and most appropriate course of action. It would lead to a prisoner with a GRC having to be kept in a prison that matched their sex at birth, even when that posed an unmanageable level of risk, which would be an utterly bizarre conclusion. It would mean, for example, that a prisoner who had transitioned from female to male and had obtained a GRC would be kept in a women’s prison, even if that posed an unmanageable level of risk to the women they were in prison with. We are very conscious, as my noble friend Lady Meyer pointed out, that women in prison are especially vulnerable. This amendment, I am sure unintentionally, might expose them to greater danger.
It is simply not possible to argue that holding transgender prisoners with GRCs in a prison matching their sex at birth is always necessary and proportionate in every instance. By far the better policy is the policy we adopt, which is to look at matters on a case-by-case basis. I also point out that the amendment applies only to prisoners with GRCs, which most transgender prisoners do not have.
Before I sit down, I will pick up two further points—first, the point from my noble friend Lady Meyer on Amendment 292G. I see that my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford has come into the Chamber. I think that she or another member of the Home Office team will have the delight of dealing with that amendment on a future occasion and I do not want to steal her thunder on that this evening.
My noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said “talk to us”. I started by saying that I am always happy to talk to everyone, and I mean that. However, on this issue, when the most important information to provide is how the policy is operated, I suggest with respect to noble Lords that perhaps the best way forward might be to replicate something we did on the Domestic Abuse Bill and have what I think I called a teach-in from officials, who will be able to provide noble Lords with information and explain how it works. I have been able to check and they would be very happy to do that. We will arrange that in the normal way.
With that explanation of government policy and the offer of the teach-in, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it is customary for every Peer who has moved an amendment to say that it has been a worthwhile debate. I genuinely think it has been a worthwhile debate because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, this subject has not been properly debated in this House or in Parliament before. It is a policy invented by officials that past Ministers have signed off on. It is certainly worthy of debate.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that the reason so many men spoke is that so many noble Baronesses who normally sit behind her are afraid to speak on this issue. They have spoken to me privately, as have some on the Lib Dem Benches and the Cross Benches, and said, “Please raise this issue; we dare not speak out.” That is not right. It should be possible for noble Baronesses on all sides to raise this issue of women’s rights.
In some ways there has been a certain degree of consensus on three issues. There is agreement that, first, the rights of transgender prisoners must be protected; secondly, that the rights of women prisoners must be protected; and thirdly, that my amendment is a blunt instrument that fails in certain aspects and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, that I ought not to bring it back on Report. I think that, with proper discussion, I will need to bring back a radically revised amendment on Report. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, for suggesting that we need to get the balance of rights correct.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that the numbers are small, but I dismiss the view that because the numbers are small this does not matter so much. The number of transgender women in prison may be small, but the fear they create in the women’s estate is quite considerable. This is about not just the number of attacks that have happened but the fear women have of being attacked. Their rights need to be defended too. I would welcome dialogue with the Minister, my noble friends and noble Lords opposite on getting that balance right.
Since the numbers are small, why can we not have special units for men who identify as women so that they are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, rightly pointed out, forced into the male estate where they would be victims of violence in some cases, or into the women’s estate where women fear, rightly or wrongly, that they will be attacked? Since we already have some specialist units, can we not have units for men who identify as women so that they can have their own accommodation with their own like kind, people who also want to identify as women?
I urge the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to read what I said very carefully. I did not accuse transgender women of being a threat to women or children. I quoted the case of one man who was a rapist and raped children and who, after he went to prison, decided that he wanted a GRC and to identify as a woman. That is a totally different case from what the noble Lord inadvertently suggested I said.
On this occasion, I intend to withdraw this amendment, but I would like to pick this up with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, my noble friend Lord Cormack and possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, if she is permitted to do so, and discuss an amendment which would try to get the balance of rights right, so that we protect women and transgender women and so that each can feel safe in their own prison space. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brinton
“Home detention curfews
(1) The Home Detention Curfew policy framework is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 4.3.1 at the appropriate place insert—“Offenders who have previously breached a protective order”.(3) In paragraph 4.3.5 at the appropriate place insert—“Anyone with a history of offences relating to stalking, harassment, coercive control or domestic abuse”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exclude offenders who have previously breached a protective order and those with a history of offences relating to stalking, harassment, coercive control or domestic abuse, from the Home Detention Curfew policy framework.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have laid Amendment 214A and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for also signing it.
The home detention curfew is a valuable and worthwhile scheme, allowing offenders to be released from prison to a suitable address and allowing for a smoother transition back into society. There are, however, a number of violent and sexual offences which rightly cannot be considered under this scheme, due to the risk the offender poses to the victim. This amendment seeks to expand the list of ineligible offences to include those which relate to ongoing harm or risk to a particular individual and which are not already excluded from the scheme. These offences include stalking, harassment, coercive control and domestic abuse.
The Minister knows from the many amendments that were tabled during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill and other Bills before it that in cases where perpetrators are fixated and obsessed, by the time they are convicted, many will have either a restraining order or another protective order in place. This amendment says that the home detention curfew should also not be considered in cases where such a restraining order or other protective order has already been breached.
The Government have described a key objective of this Bill as follows:
“We are changing release arrangements for serious violent and sex offenders, as well as for those whose risk to the public increases during their time in custody, so that they serve longer in prison.
These changes have the protection of the public at their core and ensure a firm but fair justice system.”
The victims of stalking, harassment, coercive control and domestic abuse, where the perpetrator has had a protective order made against them, often report that their perpetrator continues to try to control them, whether directly or indirectly, including from prison, sometimes without prison officials being aware.
One example is not untypical of the kind of perpetrator we believe should not be eligible for HDCs. The woman, who wishes to be anonymous, has been a victim of domestic abuse by her ex-husband and has been granted multiple restraining orders for her own protection since divorcing him. He was convicted in 2017 for breaching an order and in 2019 for two breaches of another order, and then faced trial for eight breaches of a third order as well as numerous counts of stalking against her, her partner and her family. This shows a clear history of breaching protective orders—over 10 times—and the victim is currently on her fourth restraining order.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to add my name to Amendment 214A, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, because we care about protecting vulnerable victims of crime from harm and repeat victimisation.
Home detention curfew, or HDC, is a valuable scheme allowing certain offenders to be released early from their custodial sentence if they have a suitable address to go to. We all recognise the value that this brings in providing a managed way of releasing offenders back into the community. However, there are, rightly, a number of exclusions to eligibility for the scheme based upon the offender’s history of compliance as well as the offences for which they have been convicted. For example, sex offenders required to register, those sentenced for breach of curfew and those serving sentences for cruelty to children or racially aggravated offences are ineligible for HDC. These are just some of the criteria that currently can preclude someone. I believe, as do some colleagues around the Chamber with whom I speak, that the safety of the victim and the risk presented to them by the offender are of the utmost importance when considering suitability for release under HDC.
Amendment 214A seeks to add two new criteria to the framework governing home detention curfews: first, that offenders who have previously breached protective orders such as restraining orders are deemed ineligible; secondly, that those with a history of offences related to stalking, harassment, coercive control and domestic abuse are also deemed ineligible. Victims of these crimes are at high risk of repeat victimisation and are in desperate need of respite from their abuse to help them recover. Under HDC, that respite can be as little as 28 days, allowing no time to address the behaviours that characterise these offences.
Fifty-five per cent of stalking perpetrators go on to reoffend because of the fixated and obsessive nature that defines stalking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has just said. Therefore, granting HDC in stalking cases is highly inappropriate and of grave concern, as these offenders regularly breach orders and bail conditions. Home detention curfew for these offenders poses a significant risk, catching victims as they let down their guard. To see an offender released so quickly can be highly distressing, retraumatising and risky; and it impacts trust and confidence in our justice system.
HDC can allow offenders to leave prison so quickly that the victim is entirely unaware. I am aware of multiple cases where a victim has been harassed by an offender following release on HDC, including the victim of a brutal assault, whose father told me what happened: “My daughter was convinced she saw the perpetrator within yards of her new flat. She had to walk around him on the pavement. I assured her that this couldn’t be possible, even with only serving half his sentence. Nevertheless, I checked with the prosecuting officer. He knew nothing of any early release, nor had the police been consulted. In fact, we discovered to our horror that my daughter’s assailant had been released barely three months into his sentence.”
This woman saw the man who assaulted her just yards from her new address—an address she moved to for safety, which was secret for a reason. Her father told me of the enormous distress and anxiety this caused as she relived her assault and felt constantly in fear. In this instance, she had signed up for the victim contact scheme, but a HDC decision had been made before she had been allocated a victim liaison officer contact. As such, the decision was made without any opportunity to input licence conditions and set an exclusion zone for her offender, or for her to contribute in any way by raising highly relevant issues. The relevant issues included the fact that the offender had been given a 10-year restraining order—an unusual intervention signalling the judge’s belief that he posed an ongoing risk. Relevant issues such as that he had previously contacted the victim on bail, showing that he had a history of not complying with orders, should have raised red flags and, under this amendment, would have precluded him from HDC.
The use of home detention curfews in these contexts presents an ongoing problem. If the nature of the offence relates to ongoing harm or risk to a particular individual, as detailed in this amendment, HDC should not be considered a suitable intervention. Those are the words of a father who is so worried for his daughter.
I know it is drawing late, but I would like to thank the London Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, and her office for bringing these concerning cases to my attention. We need to protect our vulnerable victims of crime.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, my name is on this amendment as well. I have the same briefing as the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Newlove, so I do not have anything additional to say, other than that obsessional behaviour is a problem that one sees throughout the court system. While of course I support home detention curfews, it needs to be recognised that obsessional, fixated behaviour is a source of very serious risk—mainly to women, but not exclusively to women. I have seen, relatively recently, obsessional people in breach of a restraining order, a non-molestation order, bail conditions and licence conditions all at the same time. So I support the amendment in my name.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, twice over. First, I thank her for tabling this amendment, which has enabled us to have this short but interesting debate. Secondly, I have to say mea culpa, because I failed to thank her for her contribution in the last group. I should have done so and I apologise for that. I hope that she will be able to hear what I am saying now, via the screen.
The home detention curfew—HDC—scheme has operated since 1999. It provides a managed transition from custody to the community for lower-risk offenders who serve sentences of less than four years. They may be released a maximum of four and a half months earlier than the date on which they must be released in any event, but on average they are released on HDC within three months of their automatic release date.
Offenders who are released under the HDC scheme are released under strict licence conditions. An electronically monitored curfew of at least nine hours a day is mandatory. Location monitoring may be added in cases where practitioners advise that it is required. Importantly, research suggests that offenders released early on HDC are no more likely to commit further offences than if they were released at their automatic release date. Compliance with the curfew conditions is closely monitored and breaches are dealt with robustly, which can lead to a swift recall to prison where necessary.
As my noble friend Lady Newlove pointed out, certain offenders are excluded in law from HDC. They include registered sex offenders, terrorists and those imprisoned for specified violent offences. But, as I have said, most offenders serving sentences of less than four years are eligible for the scheme. I underline the word “eligible”. The fact that a particular offender is, in principle, eligible, does not mean that that offender is suitable for release under the scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has just said, offenders can, for example, exhibit obsessional behaviour. No offender can be approved for release on HDC without a robust risk-management plan in place. Where necessary, the governor can set additional licence conditions that can include exclusion zones or location monitoring. If the result of the assessment is that the offender cannot be safely managed at the proposed curfew address, HDC will simply not be granted.
We recognise that the release of offenders with a history of stalking, harassment, coercive control or domestic abuse can cause additional distress. We do not believe that adding those offences to the list of offences excluded by law and putting a blanket ban in place would be proportionate, or an effective means of safeguarding victims while maximising the benefits of the scheme. But we are currently reviewing the HDC policy framework to ensure that all the appropriate safeguards are in place to protect victims and the public and that unsuitable offenders are not released on HDC. With these reassurances and for these reasons, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this brief debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, spoke powerfully of the practical impact on victims of these fixated offenders after HDC has happened. I echo her thanks to Claire Waxman and her staff at the London Victims’ Commissioner’s office for their briefing and their assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, helpfully reiterated the fixated behaviour of these offenders and how it is in their nature to breach orders. All the examples that the three of us have given show that they are likely to do so—and to do so repeatedly.
Baroness Newlove
“Aggravation of offences on grounds of hostility related to sex or gender
(1) Section 66 of the Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1)(e) insert—“(f) hostility related to sex or gender”.(3) After subsection (4)(a)(v) insert—“(vi) the sex or gender (or presumed sex or gender) of the victim, or”.(4) After subsection (4)(b)(v) insert—“(vi) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sex or gender.””
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, the murders of Sarah Everard, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman earlier this year shocked the entire country, and rightly so. Yet we know that these cases are not an exception. In the seven months after Sarah Everard’s death, another 81 women were killed, and countless more were subjected to sexual violence, abuse and harassment.
We repeatedly hear from the police that women do not come forward to report crimes—yet the evidence shows that they are right to be concerned that the violence and abuse they face often do not result in criminal sanction. A UN Women UK survey in January 2021 showed that 80% of women of all ages said that they had experienced sexual harassment in public spaces. Some 96% of respondents did not report this, with 45% saying that it would not change anything. In March this year, HOPE not hate published figures showing that 85,000 women are raped each year, but only 1.4% of rape cases in England and Wales that had been recorded by the police ended with the suspect being charged. This is the lowest figure ever recorded. We know from the Office for National Statistics that more than 2 million crimes against women have gone unreported since 2018.
Today I am proposing Amendment 219 so we can learn from police best practice in tackling this epidemic of violence and restore confidence that the police get the seriousness and scale of the problem. In 2016, Nottinghamshire Police, under the leadership of Sue Fish, became the first police force in the country where women and girls could report a case of abuse and harassment and have it treated as what it is: a hate crime. Over 11 police forces follow this approach, including north Yorkshire, Avon and Somerset and Northamptonshire.
I want to take on some of the myths. First, Amendment 219 does not create any new offences. It is about recognising the causes of existing offences and how serious this is for society. Secondly, this is not about catcalling; street harassment is already illegal. We rightly do not accept casual racism in our streets. Why should we accept those who try to intimidate or exercise power over women by screaming abuse at them? Talking about this as being about wolf whistling minimises the experiences women have. In Nottingham, women came forward to report stalking, groping, indecent assault and kidnapping, knowing police would take these matters seriously and see how women have been targeted. Independent research showed that this improved victims’ confidence to come forward and changed the culture in the police towards understanding the causes of violence against women. Reporting crimes increased by a quarter, giving police the crucial information they needed to identify repeat offenders. We know that many offenders graduate from apparently minor offences, such as harassment, to more serious ones. This policy helps the detection and prevention of these crimes by repeat offenders.
Thirdly, this is not just about data; it is about how we treat violence against women and girls. We rightly recognise that crimes motivated by racism or homophobia are especially serious and that those who commit them should face harsher sentences. When we do not extend equal treatment to those who target women simply for who they are, it is little wonder that many women do not feel the police take seriously the violence and abuse they face. The Government agreed earlier this year to ensure that all police forces do this, and we await implementation. Yet, as the hate crime co-ordinator in north Yorkshire told us, without the courts following this up through their sentencing, the impact of this policy is limited.
Amendment 219 would ensure that our courts reflect this hostility in determining the sentence someone receives. It uses the same logic as other forms of hate crime, such as religion, race or sexual orientation. It would insert “sex or gender” into Section 66 of the Sentencing Act. I know some colleagues will ask about this wording. First, it ensures that crimes motivated by hatred towards either men or women for being men or women would be recognised as such, but make no mistake, the evidence shows that women are overwhelmingly the victims. In Nottinghamshire and Avon and Somerset, 90% of victims reporting were women. In Devon, it was 80%.
Secondly, this means our focus is on the perpetrator and not the victim. Currently the CPS says a hate crime is:
“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice”.
Perception matters in hate crime. Whether someone is born a woman or becomes one, if they are targeted for being a woman, then being able to record that motivation will help tackle the cause and find those responsible for the harm. To try to exclude some women from this or set out different criteria for this particular type of hate crime is to give perpetrators a free pass. It risks valuable information about offending patterns being missed and potentially gives perpetrators a chance to further demean a victim by claiming they cannot experience misogyny because they are trans.
We already recognise that someone can be a victim of more than one type of hate crime, expect if the part of their identity being targeted is their being a woman. This is about respecting the victim and how they feel that they have been targeted, rather than demanding that they fit a specific tick-box. Muslim women may be victims of hate crime because they are Muslim and because they are women. Some 42% of black and ethnic minority women aged between 14 and 21 report experiencing unwanted sexual attraction and attention at least once a month. Many women and girls with intellectual disabilities also experience abuse for the dual reasons of their disability and their sex or gender.
The Government previously defined gender as part of the Gender Recognition Act reform consultation. Again, the CPS notes:
“There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word”.
With any hate crime, the police and the CPS gather evidence and present it to the courts for them to decide whether it meets that everyday understanding. This amendment would require them to present evidence about the perpetrator because what matters here is holding the perpetrator to account, not debating the status of the victim. I do not want to be too presumptuous but, when my noble friend the Minister responds, she may say that she will wait until the Law Commission review of hate crime is completed. That is why this is more of a probing amendment. The review has been ongoing since 2018 and, in its draft recommendations, supported this proposal. Should it publish its final report, we could be informed by its work on Report. However, if it does not, this amendment would mean that we would not lose the opportunity the Bill offers to help tackle violence against women.
Indeed, a Law Commission review is no guarantee of action being taken. Since 2010, more than half its reviews have never made it on to the statute book, with many never even receiving a response from the Government. This includes the 2014 review of hate crime legislation, which is still awaiting a ministerial response. Even if the commission’s current review is published shortly, as promised, we may have to wait a year for the Government’s response, which could require further consultation. We would then have to wait for another legislative opportunity to be given parliamentary time for a new Bill to go through its various stages.
Women have been waiting my whole lifetime for action to be taken on these matters. There have already been 3 million more crimes committed against women since the Law Commission was asked to review the law in this area. Every year, we delay closing this gap in our hate crime laws. I understand why more women question whether the Government are serious about keeping them safe. The evidence shows that this policy is not a silver bullet for the problems with policing and the courts, but it is progress and best practice. The time for waiting is over; now is the time for doing. The women and girls of this country deserve nothing less. I beg to move.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to join my noble friend Lady Newlove and the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Russell, in proposing this simple but effective amendment, which would ensure individual protection against hostile aggravations and offences based on sex or gender.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, a former Lord Chief Justice, explained that adding sex or gender to the list is consistent with the statutory provisions in the Equality Act. If we are to have a statutory list, sex and gender should be expressly included. He voiced his surprise that the legislation omitted this category of potential victims. It is clear that this amendment would plug a gap in the law and ensure that all people subject to harassment or violent assault are better protected. As Robin Moira White, a barrister at Old Square Chambers, suggested, if this amendment is not accepted, all those subject to these abuses will continue to remain at risk. Quite plainly, this amendment is a catch-all clause; it is designed to protect everyone.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment to which I have added my name, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, whose statement was typically eloquent. I will not say that I rise “briefly”, since earlier today almost every noble Lord who said that went on to speak at length.
This amendment is essentially a continuation of a discussion that the Minister will remember extremely well from springtime, when we were talking about the Domestic Abuse Bill and misogyny in particular. That was probably the first time in this House that we had ever really had discussions about misogyny. Eight months is a very long time when it comes to domestic abuse. Now every noble Lord is aware of misogyny and of how pervasive it is. To some extent, those eight months have helped the case for an amendment such as this.
On 17 March, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, mentioned, the Minister announced that the Home Office will require all police forces in England and Wales to record crimes, primarily against women, that they regard as misogynistic in intent. We were told that this would happen by autumn. I have checked on a search engine when autumn officially ends and, much to my surprise, it ends on 21 December, which seems rather late. Therefore, the Government have a little more time to deliver, but if the Minister cannot tell us this evening, can she please come back and tell us when the guidance that will be given to police forces to collect this data—systematically and consistently, which is the most important thing—will be available?
This morning I asked a very senior police officer, a lady who is on the National Police Chiefs’ Council, if she knew when it was coming. She did not but basically said, “Please get a move on, we are all dying for this to arrive.” Her own police force, one of the largest in the country, has systematically rolled out domestic abuse training for the vast majority of its officers, which has been extremely well received. They are absolutely primed to receive this guidance when it arrives, so please can we get a move on and please can we have a commitment, either at the Dispatch Box later or in writing, on exactly when we can expect this? If this very senior police did not know, I certainly hope that the Minister does.
This amendment has the virtue, above all, of brevity and great simplicity. It will probably not surprise noble Lords that the person behind the brevity and clarity, of which he is very much in favour, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He is unable to be with us this evening. I think he hoped that brevity would mean just that when noble Lords said that they would be brief. Unfortunately, he was disappointed and so cannot be here, but we can assume that the thrust and nature of this amendment has a great deal to do with his guidance and his input. To use his phrase when we were talking about this, “Let’s just go for the jugular”. That is what this is about.
As other noble Lords have mentioned, the Equality Act 2010 defined nine different protected characteristics. This amendment specifically would equalise sex and gender with the other key innate characteristics: sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, race, disability and religion or belief. As noble Lords have said, it is designed to protect anybody and everybody; it is totally inclusive. It is not defining people by what gender they have, they chose to have, they think they have or were born with; it is designed to protect everybody.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The noble Lord mentioned gender reassignment, but the amendment does not say “gender reassignment”, it says “gender”.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
If the noble Lord looks at the amendment, it says
“or presumed sex or gender”.
That is as presumed by the perpetrator.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, my point is that in arguing for the amendment the noble Lord mentioned the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, not gender.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I think I was quoting from the Equality Act, but if I was not—the noble Lord here says I was right, so if one looks at the Equality Act and the protected characteristics, that is one of them. If I am wrong, I apologise in advance.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, is no longer in her place. Gender is not a protected characteristic under the equality legislation. Gender reassignment is.
Lord Paddick (LD)
That is exactly what the noble Lord said. He said that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and gender is not, which is what this amendment addresses.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the noble Lord. If anyone else wants further clarification, I am sure other noble Lords who have read the Equality Act will come in and back me up.
A particular point that I think my noble and learned friend Lord Judge would have made, were he able to be with us, is that he is clear that this amendment and change to the Sentencing Act would be welcomed by the judiciary, who are often asked to make quite difficult judgments. This would make their ability to do so a great deal easier.
There is another important point. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, mentioned how some police forces around the country voluntarily started recording alleged misogynistic acts, primarily against women. We had a briefing last week, which I attended online, in which two of the police forces involved—Nottinghamshire Police and South Yorkshire Police—gave evidence, several years on, about how effective that was. The thing that came out clearly, which they find very frustrating, is that having amassed this information and passed it on to the Crown Prosecution Service, the way in which the CPS deals with the information and data that has been recorded and given to it as additional evidence when considering or making prosecutions is wholly inconsistent between different offices and areas. One of the virtues of inserting this amendment into the Sentencing Act is that it would make it crystal clear to the Crown Prosecution Service that information must be part of any case that is potentially brought before the judiciary, because this data is required to be considered when thinking about sentencing.
I commend this amendment to the Committee. It is simple, unambiguous and protects everybody.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The following characteristics are protected under the Equality Act: age—something else that we do not need to worry about; gender reassignment; and sex. There are others, but those are the three. Sex being a protected characteristic means that you are entitled not to be discriminated against on the ground of your sex, whether you are a man or a woman. That means that if you are a transgender woman, you will be entitled to be protected on the grounds of sex because you are a woman, and on the grounds of gender reassignment. So, the noble Lord says that gender is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, but a person is entitled, as one would expect, not to be discriminated against because of their sex.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for his lesson in equalities law. My Amendment 219A was degrouped from Amendment 219 late last week. While it is drafted more broadly than Amendment 219, I tabled it to address the very same issues covered by Amendment 219. I therefore believe that, for the convenience of the Committee, I should speak to my Amendment 219A now. I hope that the other noble Lords who have added their names—the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—will do so as well. On that basis, I will not move Amendment 219A in the next group. I hope that, given all the amendments left still to be debated, the Committee will welcome this.
My Amendment 219A, like Amendment 219, does have cross-party support, so the issues raised by both amendments are not party-political in any sense. Indeed, I find myself in the unusual position of being on the same side of the argument as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford; neither she nor I ever thought that we would be in that position. I have two main problems with Amendment 219, the first of which is directly addressed by my Amendment 219A. Amendment 219 pre-empts the work of the Law Commission, which, as we have heard, has been working on hate crime for some time now. Its consultation document runs to over 500 pages, with over 50 dedicated to sex or gender.
The Law Commission has received many thousands of consultation responses and is now working on its final position. I believe that its work should conclude before we legislate in this area, and my Amendment 219A gives the Government a regulation-making power to amend Section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations. That gives the Government, if they agree with and accept the recommendations, the fastest possible implementation route. The Law Commission’s final recommendations may well be controversial and therefore would not qualify for the special procedures for Law Commission Bills that we use in your Lordships’ House, if primary legislation were the route taken. Amendment 219A therefore uses the draft affirmative procedure to enable some additional parliamentary scrutiny.
I believe that it would be wrong for Parliament to anticipate the final views of the Law Commission. There are different views on both the principle and the substance of the extensions to the hate crime laws, and noble Lords would be wise to wait for the Law Commission’s final recommendations, rather than proceed on the basis of its provisional views.
On the extension of hate crimes to sex, the Law Commission was clear that it believed that two of its criteria for amending the hate crime legislation—demonstrable need and additional harm—were met, but it was far less clear that its third criterion of suitability was met. To mitigate that, its consultation includes some very significant potential carve-outs, covering, for example, domestic abuse and sexual offences so that, if hate crime were extended to sex, the very crimes that I know some noble Lords are particularly concerned about might not be included in the Law Commissioner’s final recommendations. This is not an area where there is a settled view about what should be done.
My second problem with Amendment 219 is a substantive one about whether, if hate crime laws are extended to sex, they should be—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness know when the Law Commission might produce its final report and what the timetable thereafter would be—for example, how long there would then be before the Minister has to respond and how long thereafter before there would be some provision in relation to it?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I think that was a trick question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
It is not a trick question; I would have thought that that piece of information might be quite important to evaluating her amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I will tell the noble and learned Lord what I know, which is that the Law Commission said that it hopes for a final report by the end of this year. It is then normal to give a period of time for the Government to consider their response and then there is a period after that for deciding on a legislative route.
My amendment offers a fast way through. If the Law Commission makes certain recommendations and the Government decide to accept them, my amendment gives the Government the power by regulations to amend Section 66 of the Act to achieve those recommendations. That is the best I can offer. I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, can give me a long lecture on all those Law Commission studies that have never ended up in law and the length of time taken. But this is another good reason why we should not, I think, proceed in haste on this.
I was about to move on to the second reservation I have with Amendment 219, which is whether, if hate crimes were extended to sex, they should also include gender. Amendment 219 includes the formulation “sex or gender” and that was, indeed, the Law Commission’s provisional view. However, its conclusion was rather more tentative than some of the other conclusions in the consultation document, and I think this is an area where its final views will be particularly important. In its very large consultation document on hate crime, it did not spend very much time on whether gender should be included as an addition to sex, and I suspect there will be a fuller examination on the basis of the responses to its consultation.
Sex is a concept that is easily defined: it is binary, based on biological reality and recorded on everyone’s birth certificate. Sex, as we have been debating, is a protected characteristic in equality legislation. Gender, on the other hand, is a social construct. It has no ready legal definition and is most definitely not a protected characteristic. While gender is sometimes used in legislation, it has in the past genuinely been as a synonym for sex. However, I believe that it is increasingly problematic for the word “gender” to be used in that way because it is being used by those who claim that gender is different from—and sometimes more important than—sex, and it is not binary. Some describe gender as a spectrum, some say that there is a finite number of genders, but there is no consensus on how many genders there are, with claims in excess of 100 genders.
I can illustrate how difficult the use of “gender” is becoming from something I discovered called nominalgender. Nominalgender means,
“a gender where the person’s gender is so much just them that no one else can even experience it. Most nominalgender people will define their gender as a mashup between other genders of a certain kind (like beegender, angelgender, etc) but it’s not a multiple gender, it is one”.
Who knew, my Lords? This new lexicon of gender is part of a gender identity theory. It is a controversial issue and has not hitherto found its way into legislation for very good reason. I believe that legislating for hostility towards gender would make for very uncertain law. The use of the word “gender” has moved well beyond an attempt to achieve drafting neutrality and has started to acquire a very different meaning.
There was discussion earlier about where transgender fits in. I do not believe adding “or gender” is necessary to meet any needs of those in the transgender community. Hostility related to transgender is already included in hate crime legislation. If the term “sex” was added to Section 66, hostility towards, say, a transgender woman would be automatically covered, either because she is transgender or because she is presumed to be of female sex. Therefore, there is no need for the ambiguity of “gender” to be introduced into the definition of the hate crime because there were no people excluded from that.
I have deliberately not addressed the substance of Amendment 219, which is whether misogyny should be added to the list. I am personally not convinced that the case has been made, but I did not table Amendment 219A to oppose the extension of hate crime to sex. Indeed, my amendment would allow a fast-tracked route to legislating for it if that were the outcome of the recommendation from the Law Commission. I believe that Parliament would be negligent if it rushed through a solution without waiting for the Law Commission to report on this difficult subject. I know that many noble Lords feel strongly about misogyny, as I do as a woman, but I entreat noble Lords not to legislate in haste.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Could I ask the noble Baroness a question on her remarks? She said that sex was binary, male and female, as recorded on birth certificates. How does she account for people who have a gender recognition certificate, who are able to change the sex on their birth certificate in those circumstances?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, that is dealt with by the Gender Recognition Act. In that case, the birth certificate is altered and for many purposes, though not for all, that person is treated as a woman.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 219 and to reinforce all the powerful arguments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I am not a lawyer, but it seems bizarre that sex and gender have explicitly not been recognised in existing hate crime legislation. Crimes motivated by hostility to disability, transgender identity, race, religion and sexual orientation are all recognised, but not those motivated by sex and gender. Yet, in a report published in January this year by UN Women UK, 71% of the 1,000 women polled had experienced sexual harassment in a public place, rising to a staggering 97% of women under the age of 25.
This is made worse by the sad fact that there is widespread scepticism among women and girls about reporting violence and abuse to the police because they have no confidence that their claims will be acted on or even taken seriously. Violence against women and girls does not occur in a vacuum, of course. Hostility towards women and girls creates a culture in which violence and abuse is tolerated and repeated. That culture has to be changed, so a reform to legislation, which this amendment proposes and which I hope the Government will support, must be accompanied by a transformation of attitudes within the police.
I believe that there are encouraging signs that this is happening, albeit slowly. I was fortunate to attend the briefing that has been mentioned on this amendment given by the former chief superintendent of police for Nottinghamshire, Sue Fish—a pioneer of this approach —and Stuart Henderson, North Yorkshire Police’s hate crime co-ordinator, who is currently delivering this policy. It was absolutely fascinating to learn how much of a difference can be made when the leadership of the force is committed to driving a policy forward. A number of other forces are doing the same, and I commend this approach to the Metropolitan police force as it struggles to respond to the tsunami of criticism on gender-based hate crimes.
Because not all police forces have signed up, there is no consistency of reporting or approach to these crimes. That is why the amendment is necessary: to ensure that every woman and girl right across the country can feel confident that the role of misogyny in what they experience on a daily basis will at last be taken seriously and dealt with appropriately. It is also necessary because it would require police forces to record instances of motivation by hostility to the victim’s sex or gender, enabling them to monitor much more effectively the incidence of these crimes and so address and prevent them. Evaluation of this approach in Nottinghamshire showed improved victim confidence to come forward and report crimes, and benefits to the local police in their efforts to combat these crimes. It is a great tribute to Sue Fish that she persisted in pursuing the need for this change, and to Nottinghamshire Police for embracing it as pioneers.
Finally, I am aware that the Government have asked the Law Commission to look at this, and it is due to report imminently. I hope the Government will not use that as an excuse to kick this into the long grass; even if the Law Commission reports soon, too many of its reports are ignored by the Government and not implemented. In replying today, I hope the Minister will acknowledge the urgency of this issue and commit to concrete measures, as set out in the amendment, to address it speedily.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I assure my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool that I intend to be brief. I speak to Amendment 219A, to which my name is attached. Sadly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has pointed out, violence against women and girls is still a major issue in this country. I do not think a week goes by without us reading or hearing about some terrible act.
A few years ago, I, like many others, would have conflated the words “sex” and “gender”. We discuss the gender pay gap, where actually we probably mean a sex pay gap. It has become clear to me that, as language evolves, sex and gender mean very different things. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has outlined this amendment very clearly, but I also believe that adding “gender” is unnecessary, as it could add further confusion to an area of law in which existing terminology is inconsistent and at times contested. Just in the short debate we have had tonight, we have seen that there is plenty more to discuss on the definition. I think we all agree that the protection of all people is important, and we should promote dignity, but that should be done without confusion.
I believe that we should wait for the Law Commission report, which I hope will be published soon, because it is a significant piece of work which will help inform the debate further.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, time is against us, so I will be really brief. From all our debates so far, I am convinced that the issue of inconsistent policing is the one where I would put most of my money in terms of improving the situation. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, which looked at the way police forces dealt with violence to women and girls, was very persuasive about the hugely patchy approach of police forces.
As far as the Law Commission is concerned, anyone reading its work will see that it is complex and that it did not come to an easy conclusion when it gave a provisional view that it would be helpful to add to the categories in the way suggested. Most notably, it identified the risk that hate crime laws could prove unhelpful in certain contexts such as domestic abuse and sexual offences. It then went on to quote evidence from the Fawcett Society, which argues that all sexual and domestic abuse offences committed by men against women should be understood as inherently misogynistic. There is therefore a risk that sex-based hate crime might disrupt this understanding because it would require juries to seek express evidence of misogyny in these contexts, potentially causing some offences to be non-misogynistic where there is insufficient evidence of this.
I am not qualified to comment on the detail, but it is clear that this is a complex issue, as are the issues of sex and gender. Given that the Law Commission will report by the end of the year, the key thing we want to hear from the Minister is that the Government will take the report seriously and it will not join other Law Commission reports in the long grass.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, we are all impatient for the Law Commission report, but I believe it is best to await it before deciding how best to frame any law on hatred towards women. Sex and gender have become conflated in ordinary speech, even in legislation, but they are not the same. While “sex” has a clear meaning in law, as defined in the Equality Act, the term “gender” does not, and is taken to mean social roles or stereotypes associated with someone’s sex, and that is too tenuous, at least at this stage, to be a legal definition.
If the intention of adding “or gender” is to ensure that legislation also covers hate crimes perpetrated towards trans women, it is unclear why the law would not catch a crime directed towards a trans woman on the basis of presumed sex. In addition, crimes directed against someone based on their transgender identity are already covered by hate crimes legislation.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am of a mind to be opposed to the introduction of a misogyny hate crime, but your Lordships will be delighted to know that I will not be sharing my broader thoughts with the Committee at this late hour. However, there are problems that we need to be clear about before we can even have this conversation. What is our definition of misogyny here? We just assume that we are talking about it as a hatred of women, but it is not straightforward to legislate against hatred of women in 2021, when there is such a toxic debate about what our definition of a woman is. What is a woman, and who is and is not a woman? We heard a very lively discussion earlier; we in this place do not necessarily agree.
We know that somebody can simply declare themselves a woman, regardless of biological reality. We know that the debate about whether only women have cervixes has scuppered leading politicians, who seem unsure about biology in that regard. I do not say this to be glib, in case the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, thinks I am trying to stir up trouble again. I do so because it seems a genuine issue that the conflation of sex and gender—I know that the amendment does not do that; it separates them out—means that “misogyny”, as hatred of women, is not straightforward at the moment.
I also want to know which or what misogyny this amendment is trying to address. If you erase, for example, sex-based rights, which is what some feminists think is going on at the moment, is that a misogynistic outlook? Some feminists certainly argue that it is. There is certainly a huge amount of visceral and vile hatred thrown at gender-critical women, meted out by some of the gender and trans extremists—not by trans people in general, I hasten to add, but the kinds of people who drove Professor Kathleen Stock out of her job at Sussex University. They sounded misogynistic to me, but are they the target of this amendment? I am drawing attention to the fact that wanting a misogynistic hate crime does not clarify to me what the amendment is trying to do.
I understand that what I have said is contentious and that not everybody here will agree with some of the points I have made even so far. In this context, is it appropriate to get the law, let alone the police on the ground, to try to untangle what is a very toxic discussion in society and implement this? I do not know how putting that on to the police will help women.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Would the noble Baroness perhaps accept that if she was to speak to some of the senior police officers, men and women, who have to deal with the victims of hostility and aggravated crimes, largely motivated by misogyny, and ask them what they think misogyny is, she would get a very clear response? They interact on a day-to-day basis with people who are direct victims of it.
While it is very interesting to have a “Moral Maze”-like discussion at a theoretical level, to be clear, what those of us proposing this amendment, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, want, is to do something now for the victims experiencing hostility based on misogyny. We should not be talking in airy circles about this; we need to do something.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I will try to avoid airy circles. Not long ago, I was invited to speak to a gathering of police officers of various ranks on the issue of hate crimes and I can safely say that it was a 50/50 split. As an aside, quite a number of the female officers there were supportive of me and my position, so this is not an airy-fairy, “Moral Maze” position, although it does try to have some principle.
I was about to go on to talk about policing. I understand that one of the reasons there is a sense of urgency about making misogyny a hate crime is in response to horrendous and high-profile murders and rapes of women. We are all mentioning Sarah Everard, but there are many more. I wonder whether, in fact, framing violence against women through hate will solve the problem that it says it will tackle. As far as I can see, we have laws against indecent exposure, stalking, voyeurism, sexual assault, domestic abuse and rape. They are criminal offences, largely serious, and I do not understand why an additional law would act as a further deterrent or reassure women—I do not get that. If, as some argue—I agree with them—women are having problems gaining justice for those very acts in the courts at present, why would hate crime as an aggravated offence make any difference if the crimes in question are not being policed, investigated or prosecuted satisfactorily in the first place?
When I read the literature on misogyny and hate crimes—this was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove—the theory goes that minor incidents of gross sexist behaviour are misogynistic and indisputably part of a continuum that will lead to more serious crimes. I worry, however, that there is a danger there of relativising the horrors of rape and murder and tangling up the police in events that are not as serious, meaning that they take their eye off the ball in what I think they need to be doing: policing the streets, protecting people, prosecuting and so on. I am worried that this will cause a distraction for the police from doing the very job they need to be doing.
To use one example—I have been involved in talking to people in the area—the organised networks of male grooming and the systematic abuse and rape of vulnerable young women in Rochdale and Rotherham were largely ignored by the authorities, downplayed and continually not discussed. That is what we should be discussing here. Labelling the abuse as misogynistic does not seem to me to help; I just want the authorities to do the job of investigating when women are abused. That is far more important.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly—the noble Lord, Lord Russell, will be pleased to know—to offer the Green group’s support for Amendment 219 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I shall simply make two points, one of which draws on the recent intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Russell.
First, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, referred to the origins of this amendment. Nottinghamshire Police Force has been a pioneer in this area. In my contribution on this subject on the Domestic Abuse Bill, I looked back beyond that. If you look at the history of how Nottingham police came to be doing it, it began with a group called Nottingham Citizens and a survey it conducted among the people of Nottingham. That led to a conference held at the Nottingham Women’s Centre, which informed the police and police action. This is something that very much grew from the grass roots up. In response to many of the contributions from people advocating Amendment 219A instead: this has been proven to work. It is there demonstrably on the ground. The fact is there.
For my second point, I refer to the author Caroline Criado Perez and quote her:
“There is enough data to know that men who kill women do not suddenly kill women, they work up to killing women … If only we were to listen to women and pay attention to the misogyny and aggression and violence that they deal with on a daily basis.”
That is what Amendment 219 seeks to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggests that we have to wait and wait and wait. I would suggest we have been waiting lifetimes—centuries—for this action. We have a proven model that has been shown to work. Let us put it into effect.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, her noble friend Lord Polak, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I want to focus on the amendment, not on a wide-ranging debate about everything that is wrong in relation to sex and gender or discourse in society.
I want to congratulate the noble Baroness because it is a simple and focused amendment. The word “misogyny” does not even appear in it. It is not thought crime. It is not even a speech offence. It follows a well-trodden path of adding protected characteristics or certain characteristics to a list. Hostility towards people with these characteristics will be an aggravating factor in a crime that already exists and has already been proven or admitted beyond reasonable doubt in a court. I say to noble Lords who are worried that I will come back to their fears and try to assuage them.
It seems totally unconscionable to me that, for example, race and religion have been aggravating factors in the code for so long but not hostility towards women. Hence, in the waiting millennia—certainly decades—since the code, these factors have been added. Some people will say that we never needed to add aggravating factors at all, and we could always trust the courts to get it right. Whether that is true or not—and I am not sure it is—we have a well-trodden system, and it is unconscionable, particularly at this moment when women and girls are feeling the way they are, that we should say we must wait because it is all very complex. If it is not complex in relation to race, religion and sexuality, it is not complicated in relation to sex. These are people who have already committed a criminal offence.
Why add aggravation at all? If somebody gets drunk on a Friday night and gets into fights with people they come across, that is bad enough. But if they go out after a few drinks on a Friday night to single out a particular group or a particular type of person based on their race or religion, or go out beating up women, that is an additional public policy problem, and that is why aggravation in relation to the group is a matter for this Committee and for policymakers.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for so ably and comprehensively introducing her amendment. We return to an issue that we debated during the Domestic Abuse Bill, making misogyny a hate crime. From the Front Bench, we support Amendment 219 and oppose the alternative Amendment 219A.
When we debated the Domestic Abuse Bill, I talked about the appalling kidnap and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has said, many more women have died as a result of male violence since then. As the chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales said a few weeks ago, there is a problem with sexism and misogyny in the police service and in society as a whole. Urgent action is needed. Some changes will take a long time, such as changes to social attitudes and police culture, but some changes can happen now. We have an opportunity with this amendment to make one of those changes now.
I did not support the amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill because I did not believe that that amendment made misogyny a hate crime. This amendment does. In the Domestic Abuse Bill debate, I suggested, as Amendment 219A does, that we should wait for the Law Commission report on hate crime laws. As the helpful briefing from the office of Stella Creasy MP says:
“Since 2010, more than half of Law Commission reviews have not been implemented at all, including the last review of hate crime legislation in 2014.”
I agree with the briefing’s assertion that this is an area where delay has tangible consequences. The evidence that there is a problem is overwhelming. In the wake of the tragic and horrific murders of Sarah Everard and Sabina Nessa, there is an opportunity to strike while the iron is hot, while public opinion is behind us, and where the issue is high in public consciousness. We need to seize that opportunity with Amendment 219.
I did not support the amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill because I believed that it was the wrong Bill, where one third of domestic abuse victims are male. I believed that it was the wrong Bill because domestic abuse is one of the worst possible crimes, because if there is only one place where someone can feel safe, it should be in their own home—that domestic abuse could not and should be treated as any more serious than it already is.
I also said:
“If noble Lords or Members of the other place do not think we should wait for the Law Commission’s report, there is an imminent legislative opportunity to make sure that hatred of women is treated in every way as a hate crime. We could work cross-party to amend the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is being debated in the Commons, to make misogyny a hate crime in every sense of the term. Even if the noble Baroness is not convinced by the Government’s concession, we do not need to rush this amendment through now when the ideal legislative opportunity is at our fingertips.”
The ideal legislative opportunity is at our fingertips—it is here and now, and we should do it.
I have to say that I found the arguments in the briefing that noble Lords have been provided with less convincing on the issue of sex and gender. I refer again to what I said on the Domestic Abuse Bill:
“If the Government only require police forces to record crimes where the victim perceives them to have been motivated by hostility based on the victim’s sex … it does not go far enough. Current hate crime offences are recorded when anyone perceives the offence to have been motivated by hatred, not just the victim. The amendment includes sex and gender, and this is important. If an offender believes the victim is a woman, and anybody perceives that the offence was motivated by hatred of women, it should be recorded as a crime motivated by hatred of women. It makes no difference … whether the victim is a transgender woman.”
There may of course be circumstances where an attack on a transgender woman might be more appropriately recorded as a transphobic hate crime, but:
“Where the victim or a witness believes that they were attacked because they were a woman because they perceive the offender believed the victim was a woman, it should be recorded as such. The use of the term “sex” on its own may exclude some offences”.—[Official Report, 17/3/21; col. 363-64.]
It has been argued that, legally, such offences would not be excluded, but we need to consider the practical implications of excluding gender, as Amendment 219A seeks to do.
There are some who believe that trans women are not women but men. Some of those people are very strident in asserting that view. I want to avoid that debate if possible, but the fact is that people are saying this, and that view may influence victims, witnesses and police officers. Some people may not accurately report crimes motivated by misogyny if they believe that this does not apply to trans women. If we are to protect women and record all crimes motivated by misogyny, gender must be included. A proposal such as Amendment 219A, which makes life more dangerous for some women, makes life more dangerous for all women. From the Front Bench, we support Amendment 219 and oppose Amendment 219A.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Labour Party has been at the forefront of calls to make misogyny a hate crime. Former Nottingham police and crime commissioner Paddy Tipping ensured that it was recorded as a hate crime there, and we have heard from my noble friend Lady Warwick about his work with Chief Constable Sue Fish in that regard. During the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act, we secured the piloting of the recording of misogyny as a hate crime among crimes of violence against the person, including stalking, harassment and sexual offences. Police forces recording misogyny as a hate crime is an important step forward, but we want to go further by including sex and gender in the list of protected characteristics in hate crime laws for the first time.
I shall speak only very briefly because of the hour, but I want to conclude by saying that I thought that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti encapsulated the decision before us. We in the Labour Party support Amendment 219 and oppose Amendment 219A. As my noble friend said, first of all, this relates to where an offence has already taken place. Secondly, it is already the case that race and religion are aggravating factors, and they have been for many years. We believe that misogyny should be added as an aggravating factor when sentencing.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Newlove and Lady Noakes for tabling their amendments. Both have highlighted the importance of tackling violence against women and girls, as have other noble Lords. We rightly share this priority.
These amendments provide us with an opportunity to discuss the important issue of hate crime, and also to pay tribute to the work of the Law Commission. It performs an important service, considering complex matters of law and making recommendations for change and simplification. This very valuable function helps to bring coherence to complicated and technical areas of law.
The Government share the opinion that all hate crimes are a great injustice and should be dealt with by the full force of the law. I know that noble Lords are aware of the breadth of activity to combat the scourge of hate crime, but in the interests of the hour—I do not think I have ever started my first group of amendments at 10 past 12 at night, so this is a first—I shall consider the amendments before the Committee.
As I have stated in the House before, in 2018, as part of the updating of the Government’s hate crime action plan, we asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of current hate crime legislation. This specifically included concluding a review as to whether other protected characteristics, such as sex, gender and age, should be included. The review’s terms of reference were to review
“the existing range of protected characteristics, identifying gaps in the scope of the protection currently offered and making recommendations to promote a consistent approach.”
As noble Lords have said, the Law Commission’s final report is now imminent. It may be published as early as this month, and that of course is a matter for the Law Commission, which is fully independent of the Government. Noble Lords accepted this during the passage of the then Domestic Abuse Bill, and I think we should see it through in the way we agreed.
However, I do not think that we should commit to giving effect to all the Law Commission’s recommendations before anyone—including noble Lords—has even seen and studied them. It would be inappropriate for any Government to sign what is effectively a blank cheque.
In particular, I know many people hope that the Law Commission will recommend—if I can use the popular parlance—that misogyny should be made a hate crime. To those people, and indeed to any noble Lord, I would say, “Wait and see.” We do not know what it will recommend, and nor should we at this stage. As an independent body which considers and weighs up the evidence, the Law Commission will come to its own conclusions. We will only know what the commission’s advice is when the final report is published.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, pointed out, where the Law Commission suggested it was minded to consider adding sex and gender to hate crime legislation, it did so only in a consultation. But the purpose of a consultation is precisely to consult. The Law Commission will also want to consider what consultation responses have said and to shape its conclusions accordingly. Whatever the commission’s inclination might have been in 2020, we cannot assume the commission’s final position until it has been published.
It would be premature to accept Amendment 219 and negate the whole purpose of asking this distinguished, independent organisation to give full and proper consideration to the whole construct, purpose and design of hate crime legislation. What is the point of the Law Commission in the first place? I know that people have been critical of it, but I think it is a very useful tool to deal with certain complex issues.
It would also probably be premature at this stage to accept Amendment 219A. As I have said and my noble friend stated, we cannot pre-empt what the Law Commission will recommend. What I think we can say is that the law is complex and contentious, and that has been reflected in our debate tonight. It seems to me that there is every possibility that the Law Commission will make recommendations that will require primary legislation to implement and I do not think it would be appropriate to make what could be quite significant changes to our statute book through secondary legislation. I dare say that, were such a proposal ever to emanate from the Government, I would expect noble Lords to be critical.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Yes, noble Lords can take that down and quote it against me.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, asked me about timelines and when the police were going to start recording the data. As one noble Lord said, we are currently in consultation with the NPCC and forces on how to take that forward. We will ask police forces on an experimental basis to record and identify any crimes of violence against the person, including stalking, harassment and sexual offences where the victim perceives it to be motivated by hostility based on their sex.
In conclusion, significant changes to the law require a full parliamentary process, with the proposals considered by both Houses in the normal way, with all the requisite parliamentary stages. I do appreciate the desire for urgency—I am sure that noble Lords looking at the clock do as well—but I do not think that should be the grounds for changing legislation without full and proper parliamentary scrutiny. Accordingly, I cannot advise your Lordships to pre-empt the Law Commission’s report or to act ahead of knowing what it will recommend. I therefore invite my noble friend Lady Newlove to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, considering the time, I will try to keep this short—I will not do a Second Reading speech to end.
This has been a really good debate, again; in fact, I think the whole session today has been interesting. I thank the Minister for her response. Obviously, the Law Commission does excellent work and, as she says, we will have to wait and see. What saddens me is that while we consult and have parliamentary Sessions and Governments and everything, the people on the ground need that support system and understanding, and they need the police service and the culture and everybody else to understand the hostility that they face. As a former Victims’ Commissioner, I have met many victims. Sadly, some went to report that they had been raped by their husband and were told, “You’re not the only one tonight, love”. That has really resonated about why it is so important.
Given that it is late, that this is a probing amendment and that, hopefully, we may have something from the Law Commission that we can come back to on Report, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.