House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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?
Covid-19 Update
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
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
(3 years 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
(3 years 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 Watch Debate 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
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
(3 years 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
(3 years 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
Health and Social Care
(3 years 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.
AQUIND Interconnector Project
Haworth Post Office
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Road Traffic Offences: Fatal Collisions
(3 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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
(3 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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
ACAS Guidance: Publication
(3 years 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
(3 years 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
(3 years 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
(3 years 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
(3 years 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
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
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]