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
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
May I begin by welcoming the new shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), to his place? I am sure that, like all of us, he will find that the rich and colourful diversity of the issues in the portfolio means that there is never a dull moment. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for his two years in the role.
Work on implementing the Environment Act is well under way. We have started developing legally binding environmental targets, consulted on measures to reform the way we deal with waste, published a draft principles policy statement and published a consultation on due diligence in supply chains. Finally, the Office for Environmental Protection has been legally established.
Mr Mohindra
I thank the Secretary of State for those words. In my beautiful constituency of South West Hertfordshire, as he will be aware, we have some stunning chalk streams, including the rivers Chess, Bulbourne and Gade, so I am glad to see the additional protections that the Environment Act offers. I have monthly meetings with Thames Water and related organisations. Can the Secretary of State tell the House how he is working with private companies to implement measures on limiting storm overflows?
George Eustice
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the important issue of improving water quality. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), shares his passion for improving chalk streams in particular. We have made it clear to water companies that they must significantly reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows as a priority. We have set out that expectation through the strategic policy statement for Ofwat; we have also taken action to place it on a legislative footing in the Environment Act.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
As we look at improving the environment, have the Government looked at the possibility of subsidising the growth of hemp, which allows us to make environmentally friendly cloth and biodegradable plastics and is a very good break crop for farmers to incorporate?
George Eustice
I know that there are the benefits that he mentions from growing hemp. Licences for medical hemp is an issue that the Home Office leads on, but it is an interesting crop; more people are starting to look at it and grow it. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I welcome the proposals in the Act for biodiversity net gain, with an obligation on developers to ensure that all new proposals feature at least a 10% improvement in biodiversity. In the guidance that the Secretary of State issues, will he ensure that that obligation applies to planning applications that are already in the pipeline, not just new applications?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Biodiversity net gain will be an important policy tool to support work in local nature recovery strategies and make space for nature in new developments. On his point about timing, I think the measure will take effect in 2023 and will apply at that point to applications going for determination when it is active.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Fly-tipping incidents increased by 16% to March this year. The number of enforcement actions has decreased in the same period because of a lack of staff and resources. How does the Secretary of State think that the implementation of the Environment Act will ever improve those figures and clean up our country?
George Eustice
As the hon. Lady will know, we have a significant number of staff—more than 10,000—in the Environment Agency. Waste crime and fly-tipping have been a priority for them, and a number of successful prosecutions have been brought.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Improving water quality is a priority for this Government. We are the first Government to work to tackle the historic issue of storm overflows, including by placing a duty on water companies through our landmark Environment Act 2021. That duty builds on the expectation for the water industry to achieve a significant reduction in harm from storm overflows, as laid out in our draft strategic policy statement for Ofwat.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful for that and very much welcome it. The Secretary of State will be aware that Morgan’s Hill in my constituency is the source place for southern England; a drop of rain that falls there could end up in the North sea, the English channel or the Atlantic ocean. The Government are reviewing the mandate for Ofwat. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Ofwat will be directed to ensure that the water companies have the funding that they need—that they can raise the funding that they need—to make the necessary investments in infrastructure: not just the grey concrete infrastructure, but the green nature recovery infrastructure that is needed to clean our rivers?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I can confirm that the new draft strategic policy statement that we have issued to Ofwat states that there is a clear priority around reducing storm overflows and delivering our environmental outcomes. Yes, in the next price review, such infrastructure will be at the top of its list of priorities.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
Ministers have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues. We work with the Environment Agency when necessary, and our chief scientific adviser engages with various experts to consider any adverse impacts arising from landfill sites.
Liz Twist
My constituents have been plagued for many years by landfill sites that often produce really foul smells, and many of them are concerned about the health implications. Now that we are all much more aware of air quality issues, will the Government take further steps to review the advice issued by Public Health England on toxic smells from these sites?
Jo Churchill
Only last week I visited a landfill site in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I know that it has a considerable impact on local communities. I also know that the hon. Lady has campaigned vigorously in respect of the site in Blaydon. We are now at the point of capture and contain: the site is being capped and the gases are being captured to prevent them from having that harmful impact. The site was monitored between January and September 2020, and the fumes were not found to be above safe limits.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
There is great potential for farmers to continue to increase productivity in an environmentally sustainable way. Last month we launched the farming investment fund, which will encourage that through, for instance, investment in new technology, new equipment and small infrastructure projects.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s answer, and also for the time that she took to visit farmers in my constituency last month. How will the investment fund support agri-tech innovation, which is surely a pathway to prosperity and profitability for Buckinghamshire farmers?
Victoria Prentis
The fund is broad, and we are willing to look at all sorts of programmes within it. Some great solutions could include new livestock feeds that might reduce methane emissions, robotics in horticulture—I have seen some very good examples around the country—and bio-fertilisers, which we are particularly interested in developing at the moment.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Far from helping farmers to increase productivity, this Government are demonstrating their keen ability to get in the way of productivity. We have a crisis in pig exports to China and seed exports to Northern Ireland and the EU, there are export health certificates for Scottish goods going to the EU but none for the EU’s goods coming to Scotland, there are the tariffs on jute sacks, and there is also the gross shortage and obscurity of the availability of labour. Would the Minister like to apologise to farmers in Scotland and say how she intends to improve this dynamic?
Victoria Prentis
I am indeed concerned about farmers in Scotland, but that is because they are not benefiting from the revolution in agricultural support that we are undertaking in this country, and I am afraid that the Scottish Government are holding them back.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
We are committed to increasing tree planting to 30,000 hectares per year across the United Kingdom by the end of this Parliament. We are spending £750 million through the nature for climate fund on trees, woodland and peat restoration in England.
Jason McCartney
The UK and Ireland’s “sourced and grown” standard preserves the biosecurity of our woodland, as it ensures that trees are sourced and grown solely within the UK and Ireland for their entire lifespan. Following the Government’s biosecurity consultation, can the Minister please reassure the House that the tree sourcing standard will allow these future projects to be eligible for Government funding?
Jo Churchill
I thank my hon. Friend for asking that important question. The plant health management standard will be the future baseline biosecurity standard for Government grants and contracts. That comprehensive standard, with 23 robust biosecurity requirements, covers the domestic production and international supply of all plants. I know that this is important to my hon. Friend, because the Colne Valley Tree Society is doing outstanding work.
Bob Blackman
I strongly support the provision of new trees, not only in woodland and beyond but in urban and suburban settings. Will my hon. Friend join me in praising the Trees for Streets project, which is working across urban settings to encourage the provision of trees in streets where residents can get involved not only in planting trees but in nourishing them?
Jo Churchill
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Harrow Council on being one of the first councils in the country to join the Trees for Streets project, which is funded by the green recovery challenge fund. It aims to support the planting of 250,000 street trees over the next 10 years, transforming our urban environment. The national planning policy framework supports that; it promotes street planting and makes clear the expectation that trees should be incorporated into new developments, making our environment better for us all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Woodland Trust Northern Ireland has encouraged all local councils to adopt a tree strategy in order to adopt ambitious tree planting targets. Will the Minister introduce a similar scheme here on the UK mainland to encourage the idea of localised tree planting in communities?
Jo Churchill
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago, but I would be happy to talk to him further about what is happening in Northern Ireland to see whether there are lessons to be learned.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Given that forestry is devolved, is not that 30,000 hectare target a bit of a con trick? Scotland’s target is 18,000 hectares, so the actual UK target is closer to 10,000 hectares. Why does the UK Government not step up, learn from Scotland and put forward an ambitious tree planting target?
Jo Churchill
I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not laud the ambition to plant those 30,000 hectares. Having spoken to those in Scotland, I would encourage the Scottish Government to get on and grant people the permission to plant those trees.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister was before the Select Committee last week saying that 7,000 hectares of trees would be planted in England by 2024. When planting those trees, we want native trees that have been grown in this country so as not to import disease. It takes three years to grow a tree, so we need the nurseries to be told exactly what we need for 2024.
Jo Churchill
We are working hard to ensure that my hon. Friend has that clarity and that we have that understanding in the area of biosecurity. We want to ensure that everybody knows what the rules are so that we can get on with improving the environment and planting those trees.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
We know that air pollution is the greatest environmental hazard to health, and we have taken significant action to clean up our air. Emissions of nitrogen oxides are now at their lowest levels since records began, but there is much more to do. The Environment Act 2021 sets a clear duty to set new targets for air quality, which is something that I am now working on.
Afzal Khan
People have a right to breathe good-quality clean air, regardless of where they live. Greater Manchester’s clean air zone is set to come into force in May next year, and it will go some way towards tackling the atrocious levels of air pollution in the region. However, the clean air zone will be effective only with sufficient funding, so will the Minister confirm the Government’s commitment to work closely with Greater Manchester to understand the impacts of the clean air zone and assess the need for further funding? To this end, will the Minister agree to a meeting?
Jo Churchill
As I have discussed with the hon. Gentleman prior to this, I would be happy to have that meeting. I agree that we need to get this right in Manchester and the broader Manchester area, and to understand that the clean air zone works for everyone. The Government have provided £132 million through our clean air fund to support the retrofitting of buses and coaches and the upgrading of heavy goods vehicles, private hire vehicles, hackney carriages, vans and minibuses, mitigating the impact on businesses and individuals. I would be happy to work with him, because I will be looking for assurances on how the money is spent and that it is being well spent on the people of Manchester to clean their air.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
The Government launched the pet theft taskforce earlier this year, and it published its recommendations in September, including the development of a new offence. I am pleased to say this is now included in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which has passed its Committee stage. I look forward to its Report stage in the new year.
Scott Benton
I welcome the Government’s taking animal cruelty seriously by introducing a specific dog abduction offence to crack down on dog theft. Cat owners have recently been more likely to purchase high-value pedigree cats and, heartbreakingly, criminals are now exploiting these cats and their owners, with cat theft rising more than threefold in the last six years. What measures are the Government taking to protect cats and to ensure there is no place for animal cruelty in our society?
Victoria Prentis
I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s point. The offence, as currently drafted, includes the power to extend it to other species. We are also taking other measures to protect cats, including compulsory microchipping, which was announced last week.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming the news that the US market is reopening its doors to UK lamb after two decades of restrictions. We want people at home and abroad to line up to buy British. We are establishing an export council and expanding our network of agrifood attachés.
Mark Eastwood
New Zealand currently exports £4.8 billion-worth of meat per annum, including £1.8 billion-worth to the Muslim world via a national scheme. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the Minister for Exports, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), to discuss setting up a similar UK-wide scheme that could potentially open up millions of pounds’ worth of exports for our farming industry?
Victoria Prentis
I would, of course, be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, as I have in the past. He is a great trade envoy to Pakistan. We work very closely on this with Ministers in the Department for International Trade, and we see significant opportunities for British agriculture in markets across the world, including the US, Japan, India and the middle east. We will be well represented at the Gulfood exhibition in February.
Martin Vickers
Exporting agrifood is fairly straightforward if it is wholly produced in the UK. Where part of it is imported from the EU or elsewhere, there are complicated rules of origin. What is the Minister doing to improve the situation so that exporting becomes much easier?
Victoria Prentis
There is no doubt that the rules of origin are complicated. We regularly meet our colleagues in the EU to discuss issues raised by our exporters, and we work collaboratively to resolve them where we can. We have also set up a new export support service to help businesses navigate the EU’s requirements. I would be delighted to meet any hon. Member who has a constituent with a specific problem.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Free trade agreements like the one with New Zealand are the biggest contributor to British farmers needing to improve productivity. What recent discussions has the Minister had with colleagues across Government on protecting farmers’ interests in future agreements? As I said, we work very closely with colleagues, particularly in the Department for International Trade, and I am confident they understand the issues raised by our farmers.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Farm incomes have grown significantly since 2016, as farm-gate prices in sectors such as beef, sheep and arable have risen to record highs. This Government are also delivering their manifesto pledge to maintain the agriculture budget throughout this Parliament but to spend it more effectively. Farmers will have access to new funds next year to help them invest to reduce costs and to manage their soil sustainably through our new sustainable farming incentive.
Sarah Olney
We hear stories of landlords turfing out their tenant farmers because the transition to the environmental land management scheme makes it possible for them to receive payments directly from the Government for rewilding or doing absolutely nothing, which means that the farmers who are producing our food will not have enough land to farm. So will the Minister tell me: how is it possible for tenant farmers to survive if they lose a quarter of their income now and are only getting a promise of a replacement in seven years’ time?
George Eustice
We have designed the sustainable farming incentive so that it is accessible to tenant farmers, and we have worked closely with the Tenant Farmers Association on that. As is always the case, even some of the agri-environment schemes we had while we were a member of the EU would have been carried out by the landlord—some of those investments and things such as land use change. However, the farmer is the one who farms sustainably and can deliver these projects, and so should be able to access the schemes.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I had a useful meeting with Stroud farmers and the National Farmers Union recently at a fantastic dairy farm that has introduced state-of-the-art robotics and transformed its practice. We all know, however, that even with fancy-pants technology farmers work around the clock and that farm labour is almost non-existent at the moment, so I was not surprised to hear nerves about farmers finding time to apply for the new schemes and getting their heads around them. What support is available from the Department?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Last year, we made some funding available to a range of consultants and advisers across the country to help support all farmers with the transition. That advice is available, and I can write to her to make sure that she can relay it to her constituents.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I regularly meet the chair of the Environment Agency to discuss flood risk management, and indeed I spoke to its board yesterday. We have doubled our investment in flood and coastal erosion defence to £5.2 billion, to better protect 336,000 properties across the country by 2027. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome investment, for instance, in the new flood storage areas on the River Mersey, which were vital to reducing the risk to vulnerable communities during Storm Christoph earlier this year.
Jeff Smith
That is welcome, because in my constituency we found out that this is a growing problem this time last year, when we narrowly—by 2 cm—averted a disastrous flooding incident in Chorlton and Didsbury when the Mersey flooded. What is the Department’s assessment of the state of readiness in general of flood defences and flood response services as we go into the peak winter storm season?
George Eustice
I discussed this issue with the Environment Agency board yesterday. It is that time of year when being alert to flood risk is absolutely at the top of our priorities, and I visited the flood response centre at Horizon House in Bristol earlier in the autumn. So we stand ready; sadly, we have got quite used to flood response, but we have a good team responding to this now and they are ready for anything the winter might throw at them.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the shadow Minister and welcome him to the Dispatch Box in his new position. I call Alex Sobel.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
On Boxing day 2015, many town and city centres were devastated by floods. Spending on national flood defences is, in fact, 10% down on what it was in 2015. With increased storm events, how will the Minister defend residential and business properties with adequate climate adaptation this winter?
George Eustice
First, may I apologise for my oversight in not welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his place at the beginning of this session?
We have made available £5.2 billion, and this is a significant increase in the capital programme over the next few years. Included in that is some dedicated work on property resilience, where we are working with communities and flood forums locally to identify how we can improve the resilience of individual properties and, when there is a flood incident, to make grants available to them so that they can replace some of their doors in order to be more flood-ready in future.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
We have banned plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds; carrier bag sales are down by 95% in main supermarkets, and we have extended our move on that issue to all businesses; and we are consulting on banning single-use plastic plates and cutlery and exploring how we tackle the scourge of wet wipes, sachets and other items. The Environment Act 2021 gives us a framework for extended producer responsibility, deposit return schemes and greater consistency in recycling, to help drive down plastic waste.
Tom Randall
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her answer. It has been said that the UK is one of the most significant plastic waste producers: each year it produces 99 kg of plastic waste per person, compared with 88 kg in South Korea and 81 kg in Germany. My constituents Amy and Ella Meek have set up the charity Kids Against Plastic to help to raise awareness in schools, and I am due to speak with them on a panel later today. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the responsibility of us all to reduce our plastic waste output?
Jo Churchill
Hear, hear—I agree absolutely and thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the excellent work of Amy and Ella Meek and their Kids Against Plastic charity. I wish my hon. Friend well on the panel this afternoon and congratulate them and others who are taking action against plastic and raising awareness in schools. It is the responsibility of us all to reduce, repair, reuse and recycle. We must get on with reducing plastic waste.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Each year, the UK faces a seasonal risk of the incursion of avian influenza associated with migratory wild birds. Although we have that threat each year, this year we are seeing the largest-ever outbreak of avian influenza in the UK, with 36 confirmed cases—the largest number since last year, when we had 26. We have put in place an avian influenza prevention zone, which came into force on 3 November in England and on 17 November in Northern Ireland, and an additional housing order was introduced on 29 November. Our chief veterinary officer continues to lead the response to this episode.
John Penrose
The replacement of bureaucratic and burdensome EU red tape with modern, nimble, digital UK alternatives, without compromising food or environmental standards, should be one of the biggest and most important opportunities following Brexit. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to introduce the “better regulation” proposals in my Government-commissioned “Power to the people” report, and when?
George Eustice
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on that report, which he and I have discussed many times. There are many things in his report that we do indeed intend to take forward.
Mr Speaker
I welcome Jim McMahon to his new position as shadow Secretary of State.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The devastation caused by Storm Arwen was significant. Even a week later, more than 20,000 homes in the north of England were left without power, and some with very little on-the-ground support. This was a national emergency that required a national effort, yet it took a full week before it was declared a major incident and it was a full week before the military were called in. Given that those most impacted were those in rural communities, and given the Secretary of State’s overarching responsibility for those communities, will he inform the House of when he visited those communities and what he took away from that?
George Eustice
My colleague the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food visited those areas last week and saw some of the devastation. The hon. Gentleman is right that there has been severe devastation and a tragic loss of many trees in those areas. There have been particular challenges in respect of power disruption; my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy obviously lead on getting that power back, and I know they have been working hard to ensure the issue is addressed.
Jim McMahon
Let us be absolutely clear: this was a national emergency but a Cobra meeting was not called; the Prime Minister was missing in action; and now we discover that the Secretary of State was missing in action. Instead of supporting the affected communities, the Government were bogged down here in London defending a dodgy Christmas party while hard-working people in the north of England could not even turn on the Christmas lights. Ofgem has announced a narrow review of the response by grid networks, but the situation requires the Government to take charge and carry out a full review, including of their own response. Will the Secretary of State apologise for not taking the time to visit and commit to a full and proper review?
George Eustice
As I said, the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food did visit and she held meetings with farmers to discuss their concerns. I have had raised with me issues such as damage to fencing and some of the problems that has caused for farmers. I know that my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have been working hard on the key issue of power disruption.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
George Eustice
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his passion for campaigning on these issues. We have made a number of improvements to Government procurement over the years, including introducing the so-called balanced scorecard some five years ago. There is more that can be done, and I will certainly look in great detail at this particular proposal that has come from him and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I welcome the new shadow Minister and the new shadow Secretary of State to their places. I commend the shadow Secretary of State’s predecessor, because I always found him a very diligent, knowledgeable and collegiate opposite number, and I look forward to working with the new team in the same vein.
After our exit from the EU, agricultural support for our farmers is changing throughout the UK, but support levels remain higher in Scotland than in England, and farming improvements are encouraged and promoted through our direct payment scheme. Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government will not, under any circumstances, attempt to use the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 or the forthcoming Subsidy Control Bill to undermine agricultural support in Scotland, or attempt to lower it to the levels in England?
George Eustice
We set out, through our schedule at the World Trade Organisation, the so-called aggregate market support that is available for these things, and that does not provide any particular constraint. Agriculture policy is devolved and so it is for each part of the UK to decide what policy works best for its own part of the UK.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
George Eustice
I am aware that my hon. Friend lives in a part of the country, and represents a constituency, famous for its ciders. I would be more than happy to meet with her and any of those businesses to discuss any particular concerns that they have, although she will understand that alcohol duties are very much a matter for the Treasury.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
My constituents were horrified to learn just how much sewage is dumped into Newcastle’s waterways during hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours each year. Instead of the meaningless progressive reductions that the Government are currently proposing, when will they ban the dumping of sewage so that my constituents can enjoy the glorious River Tyne in all its natural beauty and safety?
George Eustice
Earlier this year, we published the direction—the strategic policy plan—for Ofwat, which requires it to prioritise reducing the use of these combined sewer overflows and to secure the funding through the pricing review to deliver that.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a good point. My noble Friend Lord Benyon is leading on this issue and I will ensure that he can have that conversation. As I have said, we are following this closely, and the chief veterinary officer is leading our response.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
When will the Secretary of State wake up and take a lead on sustainability? We have talked about clean air and clean water, but we need every town and city in this country to be sustainable for communities. When will he join our campaign for 500 sustainable towns, cities and communities? Moreover, will he stop dodging “Farming Today” and not appearing on the show?
George Eustice
I regularly appear on “Farming Today”, as do my ministerial colleagues.
The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises specifically is addressed through the Environment Act 2021, which has just been passed into law. We now have biodiversity net gain, which very much relates to local authorities, making sure that we have sustainable growth and space for nature in every part of our country.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Although hon. Members on both sides of the House are justified in saying that it took a long time to restore power following Storm Arwen, is the Minister aware that when Storm Sandy hit the east coast of the United States, it took six months to restore power in some parts of southern Manhattan?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a good point. A storm of this scale, which brings down this number of trees, can cause significant damage to infrastructure. We should pay tribute to the work that many engineers would have been doing around the clock to try to restore power.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Wetlands, such as the RSPB’s Newport wetlands, are one of the best nature-based solutions for the climate, biodiversity and wellbeing challenges that we face, so what steps are Ministers taking to restore and create wetlands, as Government advisers have recommended?
George Eustice
Some of this work will be taken forward in coastal areas through our agriculture policy. We are also looking at protected sites more generally and the work that we can do in wetland areas.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
The commission’s view is that, as currently drafted, the proposals for a strategy and policy statement are not consistent with its role as an independent regulator. The provisions would enable actual or perceived involvement by the current Government or future UK Governments in the commission’s operational functions and decision making, including its oversight and enforcement of the political finance regime. The scope of the proposed power is significantly broader than similar mechanisms in place for other regulators. If these provisions are not removed, this would allow Ministers from one party to shape how electoral law is applied to them and their political competitors.
Alan Brown
It is clear that this power grab will mean risks to democracy. Even under existing rules, we have had party overspending seen as business as usual; that money funding the Tories in Scotland; Tory treasurers who donated £3 million made Lords; dodgy Russian donors; and cash for curtains. That shows the risk. Surely we need more power for the Electoral Commission, rather than a power grab by Tory Ministers.
Christian Matheson
The commission has made a series of recommendations to improve voter confidence in the regulation of election finance. The proposed new powers for the commission include the power to require information outside of an investigation and to allow data sharing with other regulators. These recommendations were recently echoed by the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The commission will take any opportunities to discuss these proposals further when it meets the Government from time to time.
Deidre Brock
The Electoral Commission identified that although unincorporated associations are considered permissible donors, those who give money to them are not required to be permissible donors, which means that they could receive money entirely legitimately from overseas sources and donate that money to political parties with nothing but the most perfunctory of checks. No transparency is required from unincorporated associations when they provide donations to candidates, rather than to parties. Government responses to the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggest that they feel that sufficient safeguards are in place to address the committee’s concerns. Does the Electoral Commission still consider these key vulnerabilities?
Christian Matheson
The commission has highlighted weaknesses in the transparency requirements for political donations by unincorporated associations. As the hon. Member says, they are not required to ensure that those who donate to them are permissible donors, which means that they could legitimately make donations using funding from otherwise impermissible sources, including, as she says, from overseas. There are also no transparency requirements in law for unincorporated associations that donate to candidates rather than to political parties or campaigns.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Christian Matheson
The commission’s independent evaluation of the Government’s pilots, which were held in 2018 and 2019, found no evidence that turnout was significantly affected by the trialled introduction of an ID requirement at polling stations. However, it was not able to draw definitive conclusions, particularly about the likely impact at a national poll with higher levels of turnout. The commission has recommended that any ID requirement should be secure, accessible and realistically deliverable. The detail of the Government’s proposals for a free, locally issued voter ID card will be key to ensuring accessibility.
Steven Bonnar
Disabled people are less likely to have the valid ID required in the Elections Bill. Blind and partially sighted people are also singled out for greater challenges to their rights to vote, with the Government using the Bill to weaken requirements to accommodate their needs at polling stations—an issue that the Government refused to rectify in Committee by rejecting an SNP amendment. Does the hon. Member agree that the Bill—through its voter ID requirements, and loosening support for the blind and partially sighted—is unjust and undermines the rights of those who are most vulnerable to exercise their vote?
Christian Matheson
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that if we are putting barriers in place in order to protect the sanctity of elections, those barriers should not disproportionately affect sections of society that are already faced with other barriers. The commission has identified certain demographic sections of the population, including people with disabilities, who might be more affected by voter ID proposals. It is also important that voters with disabilities can be confident of the support that will be available to them at polling stations when they vote, wherever they live. The commission will work with returning officers to ensure that they understand the new duty to provide any reasonable equipment that could help someone to vote. It will also provide guidance and set standards to help to ensure that all voters receive a consistent level of support.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church of England is very grateful for the generosity of congregations and local communities for the upkeep of its buildings, as it is to the Government for the recent £54 million of culture recovery funding, which included £20 million for capital repairs. However, putting repair and maintenance funding on a stable footing is essential if the Church is to continue contributing about £50 billion a year to national wellbeing, as calculated by the Treasury’s Green Book methodology. Past partnerships between Government and the Church have been very helpful in this regard, and with levelling up this opportunity is even greater.
Dr Hudson
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Churches in rural communities face challenges of small and sometimes decreasing congregations, significant upkeep of old buildings, and, often, being in a group of churches under a common minister. These churches are at the heart of our rural communities and play such an important role for the people in those communities. What is the Church doing to support the long-term survival of small rural churches?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue; he is absolutely right to do so. Our rural churches are a precious part of the Church of England, and we are looking at various options for small rural churches that could include, for example, new insurance and maintenance partnerships to remove some of the bureaucracy from priests and churchwardens while, very importantly, retaining local ownership. We are committed to a thriving rural ministry to attract the congregations to be able to sustain these churches into the future.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
In my work as a lay canon in the Church of England I have always been impressed by the engagement of local communities with churches in the process of sustainability in terms of caring for the building and caring for the place of the church in the community. Increasingly, we in the Church of England have new plans to make young people more energetic in this regard. Is that not at the heart of sustainability in the Church of England estate?
Andrew Selous
Sometimes the church is described as 22 people in need of a rest and a crowd in need of exercise. The hon. Gentleman has absolutely put his finger on something important, and I am grateful to him for raising it.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Andrew Selous
The Church of England places a high value on the covenant of marriage and does all it can to support families and parents. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York want to strengthen family life further and have set up a commission to examine what more the Church can do to achieve that.
Mrs Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I also thank my local vicar, Michael Brown, who came to Westminster to play an active role in my own wedding, for all he does in the parish. What more can we do, as politicians, to recognise these often unsung heroes of our communities?
Andrew Selous
I am sure we would all like to congratulate my hon. Friend on her wedding. I am delighted to learn about the support that Rev. Michael Brown gave to her for her wedding and about all the good work that he does in his parish. It gives me, and probably all of us, enormous pleasure to pay tribute to Rev. Brown and indeed to all our parish priests who work tirelessly to show the love of Christ to their parishioners.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Having been married for 34 years, I understand the importance of marriage and relationships that last. With that in mind, can I ask the hon. Gentleman what has been done to ensure that, where there are difficulties in marriages—and that happens—and difficulties perhaps in looking after children, the Churches can work with Relate and other organisations to ensure that marriages can last beyond for the years to come?
Andrew Selous
I think we can do something even before that, because I am very keen on marriage enrichment as well, and I think that the Church can do more to prevent marriages from coming into difficulty in the first place. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, it is a very important role for the Church to play when marriages do run into trouble, and that is what the Archbishop’s joint family and household commission is also looking at.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk)
In November, the National Audit Office produced an important report examining the financial sustainability of schools in England, which complemented its report on school funding in England in July 2021. The Government will respond to the expected Public Accounts Committee report on school financial sustainability after it is published.
Mr Hollobone
I welcome the Public Accounts Committee’s scrutiny of the financial sustainability of schools. This is an important report by the National Audit Office, and it shows that 22% of academy trusts had reserves equivalent to a fifth or more of their annual income, but on the other side of the equation, 27% of maintained secondary schools were in deficit. Does this not need to be investigated?
Mr Bacon
It is very possible that it does. Most maintained schools and academy trusts have been in surplus, but there have been significant pressures on some maintained secondary schools. As my hon. Friend says, a sizeable minority of academy trusts are building up substantial reserves, meaning that they are spending less than their annual income on their pupils. What is done about that is a policy question and thus a matter for Government, rather than for the National Audit Office.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
At last month’s General Synod, the Archbishop of York spoke about the revitalisation of the parish in order that parish churches can reach and serve everyone in their community. I can tell my hon. Friend that since 2017, the Church Commissioners have given £130 million to support ministry in deprived parishes.
Danny Kruger
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I quickly pay tribute to the Bishop of Ramsbury in my constituency, Andrew Rumsey, who has been appointed by the Church to review the use of church buildings across our country. The bishop is England’s foremost expert on the parish, and I know that my hon. Friend will want to save the parish as much as the rest of us. The Church of England’s vision for future ministry includes the line:
“a Christian presence in every community”.
What is the Church of England doing to ensure that every community has a locally based, theologically trained and well-resourced cleric?
Andrew Selous
I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend’s new bishop to his post. I can tell my hon. Friend that the Church of England remains committed to providing a Christian presence in every community. Last year, 591 people were recommended for ordained ministry, the highest number for 13 years. Ordinations to stipendiary ministry have increased by 43% since 2013. I also warmly commend the work of the Church Revitalisation Trust and its Peter and Caleb streams, which are increasing the number of clergy from diverse or working-class backgrounds and those in later life.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend has just said, he will know that there is considerable concern in parishes up and down the country about the recent consultation, which many fear could result in a weakening of the ministry, rather than a strengthening. What can my hon. Friend say to reassure people?
Andrew Selous
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern and that of many of our constituents up and down the country. I can only repeat that the Church of England remains committed to a Christian presence in every community up and down the country, and the work that the Church of England is doing at the moment is focused on making sure that that remains the case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I understand that the Government have set moneys aside for the restoration and maintenance of churches. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me and this House whether the same amount of money will be set aside for the UK? Will Northern Ireland be a participant and a recipient of those moneys?
Andrew Selous
The hon. Gentleman, whom I call my friend, asks a question slightly beyond the remit of my responsibilities as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, but I will make inquiries on his behalf and write to him. I speak for the Church of England.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend said earlier—[Interruption.] Good point. I ask question 8.
Michael Fabricant
Andrew Selous
Being a new Member, my hon. Friend is still learning the ropes. I can tell him that the commissioners recently allocated £20 million to the cathedral sustainability fund, and grants have been made for more than 120 new posts in cathedrals to support fundraising, engagement and financial stability. Deans and staff from our 42 cathedrals also recently met to learn from each other and share best practice.
Michael Fabricant
Take two, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend said earlier in answer to a previous question that according to the Treasury, £50 billion is generated for the economy by our lovely English cathedrals, including, of course, the 800-year-old cathedral in Lichfield. Cathedrals are not just places for worship; they are used as vaccination centres and concert halls, and even for political hustings and debates. They cost several million pounds each year to maintain, so could he say a bit more about what regular funding can be provided?
Andrew Selous
I am happy to do that. Indeed, £50 billion is the contribution to national wellbeing that the Treasury calculated through its Green Book methodology. My hon. Friend is one of Lichfield cathedral’s most steadfast and vocal supporters, and rightly so, because the cathedral is not just a centre of worship; it plays a vital role in the local community and economy by serving, for example, as a vaccination centre recently, as he said.
Although we are hugely grateful for the £29.4 million for cathedrals from the Government’s culture recovery fund, £140 million is needed for cathedral repairs and maintenance over the next five years. If we want our cathedrals to continue to be at the heart of our national life, we will all have to put our hands in our pockets to keep them in good repair, because we cannot let 800 years of worship and service fail on our watch.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Andrew Selous
Our parish clergy and lay workers try really hard to reach out to the isolated and lonely day in, day out. In addition, the free DailyHope telephone line—0800 804 8044—from the Church of England has been described as a “spiritual lifeline” for many isolated and vulnerable people. More than 620,000 people have listened to its prayers, hymns and services. It was recently described by one listener as,
“Something of a raft on which to hang on for dear life on occasions.”
Rachael Maskell
Churches have loci in every community. Across our country, a staggering 9 million people experience loneliness frequently or occasionally. As a result, in the coming Christmas season, many people will be isolated. They might be a new mum, somebody who has lost someone dear to them or somebody who has been left lonely because of the twists and turns of life. Churches could develop a loneliness strategy to address that issue across our communities and to provide friendship, love and hope to people. This season gives real impetus to the opportunity to do that. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the Church has a proper loneliness strategy, not just on the phone but in person, to support people across our communities?
Andrew Selous
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this incredibly important point, and at this time of year as well, when it is even more significant for many people. She is right that Christmas can be an especially lonely time, which is why I am pleased, for example, that churches such as St Michael le Belfrey in York are running the Love Christmas campaign as part of a national project to provide 1 million bags of kindness across the country. For some people, that Christmas gift will be the only one they receive, and there have been wonderful stories of people joining local churches after that type of outreach. I would say to her that a lively worshipping, outward-looking church, which looks to speak to the issue of loneliness, at the heart of our community is one of the best antidotes to the loneliness she speaks about.
Downing Street Christmas Parties Investigation
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the details of the investigation into Downing Street Christmas parties.
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
As the Prime Minister said to the House yesterday, he understands and shares the anger up and down the country, as do I, at seeing No. 10 staff seeming to make light of lockdown measures. I join the Prime Minister in apologising unreservedly for the offence that it has caused to people who have been through what everyone in this House knows is immeasurable pain and hardship as a result of this appalling pandemic. The Prime Minister has been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no covid rules were broken. However, the Government also recognise the public anxiety about this and the public indignation—and I share that—in the sense of where it appears as though the people who have been setting the rules may not have been following the rules.
As the Prime Minister confirmed to the House yesterday, he has asked the Cabinet Secretary to investigate the facts, and I would like to update the House now, if I may, on the details of this investigation. The terms of reference for the investigation are being published, and I will lay a copy in the Library of the House later today. I can confirm to the House that the Cabinet Secretary’s investigation will establish the facts surrounding the allegations made of a gathering at No. 10 Downing Street on 27 November 2020, a gathering at the Department for Education on 10 December 2020 and allegations made of a gathering at No. 10 Downing Street on 18 December 2020.
The primary purpose of the Cabinet Secretary’s investigation will be to establish swiftly a general understanding of the nature of the gatherings, including attendance, the setting and the purpose, with reference to adherence to the guidance in place at the time. If required, the investigation will establish whether individual disciplinary action is warranted. The work will be undertaken by officials in the Cabinet Office at the direction of the Cabinet Secretary, with support from the Government Legal Department. Those officials will have access to all relevant records and be able to speak to members of staff.
As with all internal investigations, if during the course of the work any evidence emerges of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the police and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused. I must emphasise that the matters relating to adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate, and the Cabinet Office will liaise with the police, as appropriate. All Ministers, special advisers and civil servants will be expected to co-operate with this investigation.
Finally, I can confirm that, as I have said, the findings of the investigation will be provided to the House and made public. Following the long-standing practice of successive Administrations, any specific HR action against individuals will remain confidential.
Mr Speaker
I just say to the Minister that his remarks were meant to take three minutes, not over four minutes. [Interruption.] Just a minute. So I will give some flexibility to the other two Front Benches.
Fleur Anderson
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank you, too, for granting this urgent question today. I also thank the Paymaster General for his statement and for giving more information about this investigation.
Trust is vital during a pandemic—trust in the decisions being made and, most importantly, trust in the people making those decisions and the judgment about them. My constituent Sophie wrote to me yesterday to say:
“My mother died of Covid on Christmas Day last year—she was alone and frightened in an isolation room in hospital on 18 December while the alleged party was happening. She was admitted to hospital for a non-Covid related issue and contracted the disease whilst in there. Both of us had followed the rules and it breaks my heart that I was only able to see her a handful of times last year, and couldn’t be with her in her final moments.”
She is angry; people across the country are angry.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that he has asked the Cabinet Secretary to conduct an investigation. I have asked for this urgent question as there are further urgent questions to be asked about the investigation into the parties—we do not need to call them alleged parties; they were parties—held in a Government Department or by Government Ministers elsewhere. Are there more parties that we need to hear about? Is this investigation just a way of being able to say, “We’re doing something” while pushing it into the long grass, or is it a serious investigation?
The Prime Minster said yesterday:
“I have been repeatedly assured…that there was no party and that no covid rules were broken…But I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to establish all the facts.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 372.]
Who gave these repeated assurances? If there was no party, why did Allegra Stratton feel the need to resign? Is she taking the fall instead of Government Ministers? If this investigation finds that the Prime Minister has misled the House, will he resign?
I look forward to the publication of the terms of reference for the investigation later today. Will it include all the parties—not just the three but any others that were held? Who went to these parties? Can the Minister confirm that the Cabinet Secretary and the remainder of the legal team that has just been referenced did not go to any of the parties and so are able to conduct the investigation without personal interest? If they happened, who colluded for a year in the cover-up of these parties? When is the deadline for the investigation? How will the outcomes be made public? Is there any limit on the sanctions that will be given to people found to have been in the wrong?
I welcome the assurance from the Paymaster General that the matter will be referred to the police if there is a case to answer. We on the Opposition Benches will be following what happens very closely.
Finally, will the Government just be straight with the British people?
Michael Ellis
May I first say that my heart goes out to the hon. Lady’s constituent and the many thousands of other people who have lost loved ones as a result of this pandemic?
As I said in my opening remarks, the investigation will be conducted by the Cabinet Secretary. I know that the hon. Lady and those on the Benches behind her as well as everyone in this House has confidence in the independence and integrity of our civil service; the Cabinet Secretary heads the civil service and he is conducting this investigation. How long it lasts will be a matter for him, and the matter will, if it discloses criminality, be reported to the Metropolitan police for further investigation. In previous ministerial roles as a Law Officer—Solicitor General and Attorney General—I superintended the Government Legal Department, another organisation which of course has integrity and the confidence of all; it will be supporting the investigation. All those who are questioned by the investigation—civil servants, special advisers, Ministers—will be expected to co-operate with it. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s questions.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Would it be helpful if there were a greater understanding of the fact that No. 10 is not a house but a front door, behind which there is a suite of modern offices and meeting rooms across three floors? It is perfectly possible to be in the rafters above No. 11 completely isolated from what else is happening in the building.
Michael Ellis
It is certainly true, as a matter of geography, that No. 10 Downing Street is a very large property with a multitude of offices and with many, many people working inside it. In that sense, of course—geographically—my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On 16 December, on national television, the Prime Minister asked everyone to exercise
“the greatest possible personal responsibility.”
London also went into tier 3 restrictions, which stated:
“No person may participate in a gathering… You must not have a work Christmas lunch or party,”
whether it was in an office or in somebody’s flat upstairs.
On 18 December, Dr Katherine Henderson of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine stated on the BBC:
“We are at a really dangerous point which could tip into finding it incredibly difficult to manage.”
The same day, 514 people died of covid-19. I am sure the NHS and those in care homes were already over the tipping point.
On 18 December, the Prime Minister stated:
“If you are forming a Christmas Bubble, it’s vital that from today, you minimise contact with people from outside your household.”
The evening that statement was given by the Prime Minister in Downing Street, a Christmas party was held in No. 10, where officials knocked back glasses of wine during a Christmas quiz and a secret Santa. I wonder whether the Paymaster General agrees with me that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and it is at a Christmas party, it is usually a duck.
Michael Ellis
No doubt, if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, he may wish to supply it to the Cabinet Secretary or the police. He has rehearsed to the House what regulations were in place at the time, and the reality is that that is accepted. What we need to do is investigate the matter of these gatherings. I have said what the primary purpose is going to be, which is to establish swiftly a general understanding of the nature of any gatherings that took place, including attendance, the setting and the purpose. That is what the investigation is all about.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
There is understandable real public anger about what seems to have happened at Downing Street, and that is contributing to people’s unhappiness and discontent with renewed covid restrictions. Will the Government do everything they possibly can to lift the current restrictions as soon as it is safe to do so and ensure that Christmas is not cancelled?
Michael Ellis
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question, and I share the anger. The reality of the matter is that we are focusing on the pandemic as a Government and as a nation. We need to ensure that everything is done to protect the people of this country from the effects of this pandemic, and that of course is going to be the principal focus going forward, as it has been throughout. However, we will always follow the science, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will have more to say in due course on the situation.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
First, my sympathies go out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing the short straw on coming here this morning to answer the urgent question. Can he explain to me the difference between a party and a “gathering”, in his understanding of the vocabulary? I note that he did not actually confirm that the “gatherings” or parties that we now know happened in No. 10 on 13 November, 27 November, 10 December, 14 December and 18 December will be within the scope of this so-called inquiry, which many Opposition Members already see as a cover-up.
Michael Ellis
The issue of the nature of the gathering goes to the heart of the investigation. Therefore, the answer to the hon. Lady’s first question about the nature of the gathering will be established by the Cabinet Secretary, assisted by the Government Legal Department, who will inform the police if any criminality is uncovered. So those questions will be answered in due course.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I should say at the start that I think Boris—sorry, the Prime Minister—is doing a great job of running the country. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the urgent question. I think the Paymaster General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) missed one of the questions she put, so may I put the question again? It is quite right for the Prime Minister to come to this House and say that he was told by someone, accepted it and did so in good faith. I want to know who the person was who told him. Perhaps the excellent Minister—he does not need any protection—will tell us that answer.
Michael Ellis
I do not have that answer. What I will say, as I have already said, is that, if required, the investigation will establish whether individual disciplinary action is warranted. That will be one of the principal focuses of the investigation. It will be ongoing and it will be in the public domain as soon as it is ready.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
In which case, can we get an assurance that the Cabinet Secretary was not involved in giving the assurances to the Prime Minister? If that is not able to be given, then it is quite inappropriate for him to be in charge of the investigation. The question of legal advice also arises because the Prime Minister asserted that no rules were broken. Will the advice on which that assertion was made be given to the inquiry when it is held? On the question of the possibility of the investigation being passed on to the police, will people interviewed by the inquiry be interviewed under caution? The Minister, as a former Law Officer, will know that there is a risk of contamination of evidence that has been obtained in an internal inquiry unfairly, which would then prejudice prosecutions in the future.
Michael Ellis
The right hon. Gentleman is jumping ahead with his last point. Of course, whether or not there will be any police investigation is dependent on whether the investigation by the Cabinet Secretary uncovers any suggestion of criminality, which is then referred to them. If that then happens, that is entirely a matter for the police and not, of course, for the Government. I know the Cabinet Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman makes a suggestion about that. I have confidence in the integrity of the Cabinet Secretary. I also know the Prime Minister and I have confidence in the integrity of the Prime Minister. I have known the Prime Minister for many years. The Prime Minister is a man of honour and integrity, and he presented to this House his position yesterday. What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should wait and see what the investigation uncovers.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
If it turns out that one of these gatherings involved politicians or Ministers, it is clearly of a very different order to half a dozen members of staff bursting open a bottle of prosecco and having a drink before they departed for Christmas. [Interruption.] That does not excuse it. If it is the case that it was indeed members of staff, it begs the question what sort of supervision and management structure there is. Who was the supervisor? Who was the senior person concerned? Who should have been able to discipline this matter? Can the Minister assure me that a proper management structure is being looked at again, to make sure that this could not happen in the future?
Michael Ellis
The matter my hon. Friend raises is a matter for the inquiry to uncover, but I can assure him that the people who work in No. 10 Downing Street, including over the pandemic, are hard-working industrious people who are seeking to serve their country. They work very hard to do that. What he mentions is a matter of great concern to the people of this country, as it is to me. We all wish to know the terms of the investigation, and I have announced to this House what the terms and the scope of the investigation are. They will clearly be published and a copy of the terms will be laid in this House.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Revelations of the 18 December gathering in No. 10 Downing Street have triggered much anguish across the country, so may I press the Minister on how exactly the Government Legal Department will support the investigation?
Michael Ellis
The Government Legal Department can provide support in a number of ways, and it will be up to the Cabinet Secretary to decide how he wishes to seek its support. One of the things he could do, for example, is ask for its advice as to the legal position on various matters. There are myriad ways that the Government Legal Department can help and give advice. It will be up to Simon Case as Cabinet Secretary, who heads the home civil service, to deal with the matter.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House will wish to pass on our congratulations to the Prime Minister and his wife on the birth of their new child today. The Paymaster General has been very careful in his words when addressing the House, but does he agree that one of the key issues is that those who are making draconian rules have to live by not only the letter of the rules, but the spirit of them?
Michael Ellis
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the news that, in the past few minutes, the Prime Minister and Mrs Johnson have been safely delivered of a baby girl. I am sure that the whole House will want to send them best wishes.
My hon. Friend’s point is understood. He is right to say that the public are angered by this matter. We share that anger and the matter must be investigated. Of course, people should follow the rules and it is crucially important that they continue to do so. That goes without saying and it applies to everyone.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Everyone experiences bereavement differently, but for those of us who have lost loved ones during the pandemic, there is a sentiment that increasingly unites us: anger. I am angry that while my mum lay dying in hospital, I could not hold her hand. I am angry that I had to bury my father-in-law and mother-in-law two days apart. Above all, I am angry that members of this Government could be so flippant, so callous and so arrogant as to host not one, not two, not three, but seven parties and then lie about it. Will the Minister confirm that the Cabinet Secretary will also investigate what happened on 14 December and 13 November, which he missed out? Will he also confirm that the Cabinet Secretary will have access to all documents, electronic communications, visitor logs and CCTV footage relating to the reported incidents?
Michael Ellis
I start by saying how very sorry I am to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s personal losses, and I offer my profound condolences for them. I know that there are many thousands around the country who have also had personal losses and my heart goes out to them, too.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the flippancy of a video recording that is in the public domain. It was totally unacceptable, grossly inappropriate and, frankly, inexcusable. I can say no more than that, and I will not try to go behind that. We are going to investigate. The Cabinet Secretary, of course, is non-political. He has the authority, as one would expect of the head of the civil service, to call for whatever material—whether it be documents or otherwise—that he wishes, and he will have the support and assistance of the several thousand lawyers in the Government Legal Department and of others if he needs it.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My constituents in Kettering are very angry indeed at reports of Christmas parties in Downing Street during what was a very large second wave of covid. The behaviour was totally inappropriate and possibly criminal. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that serving the public, whether as a Member of Parliament or as a civil servant, is a privilege and that the public should be treated with respect at all times, including with behaviour inside Downing Street?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend answer a question from the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) that I do not think he answered in his response? If the Cabinet Secretary or any members of the investigatory team were at any of these parties, will he ensure that they do not take part in the investigation?
Michael Ellis
I agree, of course, that it is a privilege and an honour for all of us to serve our constituents in this honourable House. What I can say is that my understanding is that the Cabinet Secretary has denied any attendance at any gathering that is the subject of this matter, but the reality of the matter is that he can therefore be said to be completely separate at the head of the civil service and able to conduct a thorough investigation, as one would expect from someone with his seniority. I reiterate that he has—I am told—indicated that he was not at any relevant gathering.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Over the period of the pandemic, people have been unable to have office Christmas “gatherings”, children’s birthday “gatherings” or any other type of annual “gatherings” that they would often have. I certainly hope we will not find that it is the drinks cabinet office that is investigating these matters.
Sanctions against staff have been talked about, but we need to be clear that if any wrongdoing is found, sanctions will also need to be taken against any Members, regardless of what office they may hold. Will the investigation look at whether there have been any breaches of quarantine at any of these “gatherings”?
Michael Ellis
The Prime Minister said yesterday to this House that Ministers, special advisers, civil servants and anybody else would be subject to disciplinary action if appropriate, so that applies. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Minister said that
“Ministers, special advisers and civil servants will be expected to co-operate”.
What will happen if they do not co-operate? Will they be required to incriminate themselves? Does this also apply to other guests present, including members of the press?
Michael Ellis
Mr Case, the Cabinet Secretary, will have to determine how he wishes to deal with that matter. One would expect him to take a robust course.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
My constituents, like those of a lot of hon. Members here today, are very angry about what has gone on at this party. They have made sacrifices throughout the year, and they think that one of the outcomes of this should be the resignation of the Prime Minister. He should take full responsibility for the incompetence that has been going on in his Government.
I think it is important to get to the point here. Surely someone yesterday must have asked the person at the rehearsal for the press conference who asked Allegra Stratton the question about the party why he asked that question. We would like to know the answer to that.
Secondly, to come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I am sure that the Minister wants to come to this House fully briefed and to respect the House for what it is. Before he came here today, did he not ask anybody at No. 10 who briefed the Prime Minister that no party took place?
Michael Ellis
I share the hon. Gentleman’s constituents’ anger. I know that they will be representative of constituents around all the parties. [Hon. Members: “Gatherings!”] The fact of the matter is that the gatherings will be investigated for what they were and for the scope thereof, and I think he knows that.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
A No. 10 source has told CNN that Downing Street was an island where they had to work, and lockdown was not happening in the same way there as it was happening for the rest of the country. That single sentence sums up the culture of entitlement of this Government. No man, or woman, is an island—and, of course, we must remember for whom the bell tolls. Does the Paymaster General think it is right that the Prime Minister can get away with throwing staff members under the bus, rather than reining in the culture of entitlement that he himself has created?
Michael Ellis
The right hon. Lady quotes John Donne. It is true that no man is an island entire of itself, but we know that there is no culture of entitlement, and I do not recognise that characterisation. An investigation will be launched by the Cabinet Secretary. It will uncover what needs to be uncovered and the details will be ascertained.
The right hon. Lady referred to the key workers who have had to work in myriad different ways during the pandemic and its various stages. Of course we appreciate the work that all our key workers do, in whatever capacity.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
At the beginning of the year, because I was following rules, I almost missed the birth of my son. I was told that I had to protect nurses and midwifery staff in the hospital where my wife had an extremely complicated labour. It would seem that, just five weeks earlier, Downing Street was holding soirées, or gatherings, or parties, while my wife and I—and many of my constituents, and people all over the country—were dreading and living in fear of not having their birthing partners present at the beginning of what are often very complicated processes. I think it is deeply shameful that the Paymaster General—whom I believe to be an honourable man—should stand there defending the completely and utterly indefensible behaviour of the Prime Minister, possibly other Ministers, and civil servants in thinking that they were simply above the rules that everyone else was told they had to follow.
I would like a straight answer—yes or no—from the Paymaster General. Did any Minister or Conservative MP attend any event, soirée or whatever he wants to call it that allegedly broke covid rules in Downing Street last year on 13 or 27 November or on 10, 14 or 18 December? If they did, they should be sacked and they should be investigated by the police.
Michael Ellis
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman experienced the personal effect of the pandemic that he has described to the House and I am sorry that he missed out on the birth of his child. He asked about the nature of the people who attended any gathering. That is exactly what the investigation will establish—whether there was a gathering, the nature of it, the scope of it, any attendees and so on. That is exactly what it will be all about and the hon. Gentleman will hear the result in due course.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Paymaster General agree that the one person who has come out of this with any shred of integrity is Allegra Stratton? I have known Allegra for many years. She is a first-class journalist, a woman of honour and a very nice person, and I am sure that she would not have agreed to the description “a gathering in the attic”. She is a woman of integrity, and I admire the fact that she had the honesty to resign yesterday.
Michael Ellis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that. It was, if I may say so, characteristically generous of him. I do not personally know Ms Stratton, but I am absolutely sure that he is right. She was clearly mortified yesterday, and extremely upset by what has happened.
We all, in our day-to-day lives, seek to do the best we can to represent our constituents and serve in the public interest. I know the hon. Gentleman has done that for many years, and I thank him for it.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Christmas party debacle proves further what we all know—this Government are sneaky, manipulative and corrupt, and believe they are above the law. Even their own Back Benchers are fed up. We in the Scottish National party have repeatedly called for the Prime Minister to resign because it is the morally right thing to do, so I ask this question: are reports that the resignation of the Prime Minister is dependent on a decision by rich Tory donors true?
Michael Ellis
I do not understand the nature of the hon. Lady’s question—[Interruption.] She does not know the Prime Minister. I do know the Prime Minister and have done for many years. He is a friend of mine and I know him to be a man of honour and integrity who is working hard in the interests of the people of this country, and she should reflect on the public service that all in the Government and the Opposition do to the best of their abilities.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
From Collette in Middlesbrough:
“During lockdown, my 74-year-old mam was really lonely and depressed, but obeyed all the rules, as we all did. She sadly passed away in January 2021 alone in her flat. We were only allowed 30 people at the funeral so lots of mam’s friends and family were unable to attend. Nor were we able to have a wake to celebrate her life afterwards and comfort us. The government robbed us of that. So how dare they break the rules and hold a Christmas party. I’m crying as I’m typing this email, been crying since I watched the news yesterday. People must be held accountable and police action taken. We cannot let them get away with it.”
So instead of Allegra Stratton carrying the can, will the Prime Minister for once in his privileged, narcissistic, cheating existence do the right thing and resign?
Michael Ellis
My condolences to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. The Prime Minister has said, as I have said from this Dispatch Box, that disciplinary action will be taken if appropriate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent can be reassured by that. As to the course of action the police choose to take, if any, that is a matter entirely independent of Her Majesty’s Government; it will be up to the police as they are operationally independent. We have said that the Cabinet Secretary will involve the police if, during the course of his investigation, he uncovers any criminality.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has repeatedly told this House that all covid rules were followed in Downing Street. Will the Minister publish the covid risk assessments undertaken prior to any parties, social events or gatherings that took place on Government premises in November and December last year?
Michael Ellis
I have noted what the hon. Lady says. That will be a matter for the Cabinet Secretary, and he will be free to seek any documents he needs during the course of his investigation.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
We have rightly heard much about the consequences of the Downing Street parties on the moral leadership of this Government at a time of crisis. The response of the Met police thus far, in refusing point blank to investigate, must also be called into question at a time when several instances of the breaking of covid regulations in December last year have been prosecuted in the courts. With important regulations being reinstated, does the Minister think that the lack of respect that many will now accord this Government and the police is a dangerous combination for public compliance?
Michael Ellis
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to criticise the police. The police are entirely independent in this country, and they make their decisions based on the evidence before them. It is entirely a matter for them, and it is not appropriate for me to comment on the operational actions of the Metropolitan police or anyone else in the police service. I have great confidence in the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and in the service of the Metropolitan police to this country.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I, like many in here, have met constituents who have lost loved ones, and I have seen the immense sadness that this has caused. I feel that my constituents and many others have been utterly betrayed, so can the Minister explain how the Government are planning to regain public trust, now that stricter plan B rules are being introduced once again?
Michael Ellis
Public trust is of paramount importance and it is necessary because we want to relay to the public the need for caution in dealing with this pandemic and the necessity of getting a booster vaccination—more than 20 million people have now had a booster vaccination. It is of paramount importance that the general public continue to exercise caution in all their dealings because the effects of this pandemic are what we know them to be, and I offer my condolences to the hon. Lady’s constituents on the loss they have suffered. We need to focus on ensuring the pandemic, which has robbed this country of so many precious lives, is dealt with as effectively and as efficiently as possible. That is what the Government have done, that is what the Government are continuing to do and that is what the Government will do.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Government are supposed to be lawmakers, not lawbreakers. When these gatherings, parties or whatever were happening, across Coventry and Warwickshire we have had 5,000 incidents in the last 20 months in which people have been fined for breaking the law: a bar in Leamington was fined £10,000 for having a gathering; 200 Warwick University students were fined for holding various events; and another pub landlord was fined £1,000. “Party” is a synonym for “gathering.” These were not business meetings, were they?
Michael Ellis
That is exactly what the investigation seeks to uncover. If there was a gathering, it seeks to uncover the nature of that gathering.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The issue is not the however many gatherings. The Prime Minister has made a litany of errors, any one of which would have caused a decent Prime Minister to resign, whether it is the illegal Prorogation, the Barnard Castle incident, the comment on letting bodies “pile high in their thousands,” the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan that has cost lives or the scandal surrounding Owen Paterson. Is it not time for the Prime Minister to go back to watching “Peppa Pig” and leave the grown-ups to lead the country?
Michael Ellis
As the hon. Lady knows, the Prime Minister has been given repeated categorical assurances about the party that has been alleged. The reality of the matter is that the allegations are just that. She makes those allegations and the nature of the investigation is to discover whether any gathering was in breach of any regulations. It has been made clear that, if there was a breach of any regulations, disciplinary action will follow, but these are gatherings that occur on a regular basis.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
An event, gathering or party is
“any group of three or more persons who have assembled or gathered together for a social occasion or other activity.”
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said there was no party. The Minister now talks of a gathering. So does the Prime Minister now doubt his own version of events? Will the Cabinet Secretary also be investigating the cover-up of parties and gatherings at No. 10 Downing Street?
Michael Ellis
The hon. Gentleman should wait for the scope of the investigation, which will be made clear in a document laid in the Library of the House later today.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
When, in early December last year, Kay Burley of Sky was busted for having a birthday party in then tier-2 London, she was contrite and accepted a six-month ban from the airwaves. In the interest of consistency, we saw a similarly distressed Allegra Stratton walk the plank yesterday. Will any male members of the Government or prominent public figures face a similar six-month ban? If not, why are women always the fall guys?
Michael Ellis
I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the matter. We have made it clear that there will be disciplinary action if the Cabinet Secretary uncovers any cause for such action.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
In December last year, my friend sat with his dad to write a list of the people who would be permitted to attend his mum’s funeral. At the same time, we now know No. 10 was hosting myriad parties that the Prime Minister claims to know nothing about, despite the fact they happened in his own house. Surely even the Minister must accept that a Prime Minister who seeks to protect partying, indeed a Prime Minister who seeks to protect himself, rather than protecting the integrity of public health messaging, is no Prime Minister at all.
Michael Ellis
The hon. Gentleman says that we “know” certain things, but we do not—they are unproven allegations. That is why we have an investigation, just as investigations take place when other allegations are made every day in police and other affairs. What we will seek to do, through the Cabinet Secretary, is investigate the allegations that the hon. Gentleman and others make.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Now that the Paymaster General has had the opportunity to hold a gathering of his own, at least when it comes to his thoughts on this matter, will he heed the injunctions of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and expand the scope of this investigation to include all alleged instances of “gatherings”—or whatever we might like to call them—related to the Government on government property? Given that the Metropolitan police have, to date, shown a marked reluctance to investigate the allegations about these gatherings, will the Paymaster General confirm that he is not aware of any legal impediment that would stand in the way of the Metropolitan police investigating these matters if they so chose?
Michael Ellis
First, I do not think that this is my gathering—if it is anyone’s, it is Mr Speaker’s. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses again to criticise the police obliquely—I have no idea why he chooses to take that approach. We are blessed in this country with a police service of integrity and independence, and I have every confidence that just as they routinely investigate matters of extreme importance, so here they can be relied upon to investigate where appropriate—I emphasise the “where appropriate”. The Cabinet Secretary has said, and we have said, under the terms of the investigation, that if necessary—if criminality is uncovered during his investigation—he will, again, engage the police.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I know the pain and sacrifice my constituents in York have experienced over the past 18 months. They are sickened by what they have seen has happened at these so-called “gatherings” at No. 10, but they are also infuriated by the obfuscation of this Government, avoiding accountability. Therefore, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer these matters to the police, because my constituents have no confidence in an internal investigation? The investigation must be independent, in order for us all to be able to see what really happened.
Michael Ellis
The Cabinet Secretary is independent. Cabinet Secretaries in this country serve all the political parties, dependent on who is in government, and they can be relied upon to investigate the matter fully, independently. We will await the results of his investigation.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Just today, the Tories were fined nearly £18,000 for not declaring the donation for Downing Street refurbishment. So will the Minister confirm that a gathering to look at the Prime Minister’s shiny new curtains still would breach regulations? More importantly, will the Minister confirm that even if people stick to the line, “It was a socially distanced gathering, with bring-your-own booze”, that is still a party that breached the regulations and that if the Prime Minister was armed with that information, he misled Parliament and must resign?
Michael Ellis
The nature of any gathering is, as I have repeatedly said, going to be a matter for the investigation.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Like most ordinary people, I have no idea what the difference is between a gathering and a party, and I note that the Minister has been unable to clarify that. Given the complete absence of leadership that we have witnessed, does he share my wider concern that as we enter a new wave of the pandemic, these unsavoury revelations have seriously and gravely undermined public compliance with the rules, which will cost lives? In view of that, why should anyone believe a single word the Prime Minister says?
Michael Ellis
The Prime Minister has initiated an investigation by the Cabinet Secretary and it is a matter now for the Cabinet Secretary to delve into. He will, of course, have all the authority commensurate with that office to seek to discuss the matter with individuals and to source any documents or anything else he may need. He will have that authority, so it is now a matter for him.
Business of the House
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 13 December will include:
Monday 13 December—Consideration of Lords message relating to the Armed Forces Bill followed by, remaining stages of the Subsidy Control Bill.
Tuesday 14 December—Motions to approve statutory instruments relating to public health following the statement made by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care yesterday.
Wednesday 15 December—Second Reading of the Professional Qualifications Bill [Lords].
Thursday 16 December—Debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
At the conclusion of business on Thursday 16 December, the House will rise for the Christmas recess and return on Wednesday 5 January.
By your leave, Mr Speaker, I wish to say a few words of thanks to the former Cabinet Office adviser Gosia McBride, whose secondment to the Government came to an end this week upon her return to the House service to take on the crucial role of the head of the Governance Office and the secretary to the Commission. The period of her secondment has seen some unprecedented challenges and she has worked tirelessly to provide invaluable advice to Ministers, and especially to me, on parliamentary procedure and handling, particularly in response to the covid-19 pandemic, when our procedures had to be adapted.
I am immensely pleased that I will have the opportunity to continue to work with Gosia in her new role on the Commission. She is absolutely brilliant and a source of first-class advice. The House is very lucky to be served by Clerks of such ability and it is truly the case, Mr Speaker, that my loss is very much your gain, but we will both work with her in future and I have a feeling she will keep us both in good order.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business and, of course, join him in giving wholehearted thanks to Gosia McBride, with whom I look forward to working in her new role on the Commission and in the Governance Office.
Will the motion on Tuesday to approve the statutory instruments relating to public health following yesterday’s announcement include any mention of mandatory vaccination for NHS staff, as has been widely rumoured?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister stood right there at the Dispatch Box and said that he was “sickened” by a party that apparently did not happen—it might have been an event—but, if it did happen, definitely did not break any rules. But that is exactly why he—or rather, the Cabinet Secretary—will now hold an inquiry and that is exactly why evidence will be handed over about something that may or may not have existed. I do not think that was what the Government had in mind for crime week.
The Prime Minister does not seem to know about seven events—parties or gatherings—in his own residence, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could help me out. In “Debbonaire Towers”, we would know if an event, gathering or party was happening in our place. How big does a place have to be for the Prime Minister not to know about all seven?
Judging by the video I have seen of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments at a dinner earlier this week, it does rather seem that he, too, thinks it has all been a bit of a joke—that after the British people followed the rules and made the sacrifices that have been mentioned this morning by colleagues throughout this place, yes, the Prime Minister’s staff laughed about covering up their Christmas party, but the right hon. Gentleman also seems to think it is funny.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) mentioned in the urgent question, it does rather look as though the woman staffer has been asked to walk the plank, as my hon. Friend said, while the men around her are just standing back. Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, for instance, he is not apologising for his laughter? Will he tell us—the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) mentioned this—who told the Prime Minister that there was no party? Who exactly was that? It must be known, because we have heard repeatedly from the Dispatch Box, “The Prime Minister was told”—by whom? Will the inquiry now include the cover-up of that information?
Over the course of the past week, just like with the other scandal recently, Ministers were put up to spout lines that they clearly did not believe, until yesterday, when the Health and Social Care Secretary did not even get put up. I know that it must be hard for the Prime Minister to admit that he was not even invited to the party/gathering/event in his own place. Can the Leader of the House please look at the questions that I have just asked? Furthermore, does he also agree that it really is a very bad look indeed for a group of male politicians to let a female staffer take the rap for the mess? She laughed. He laughed. She has apologised and resigned. What will he do?
In November, the Public Accounts Committee published a report into efficiency in Government. It comes as no surprise to me, and I suspect to millions, that the report found that this Government overpromise and underdeliver. Given that the Prime Minister is probably wishing that he had not wasted £2.6 million of taxpayers’ money on a room in No.10 for daily televised press briefings, especially as the only clip that we will ever see now is the one where his now ex-press secretary joked about the party/event, can we have a debate in Government time about efficient and competent Government spending?
On Tuesday, a now former civil servant who had been involved in the organisation of the evacuation of Afghans after the fall of Kabul revealed the chaos in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office at the time. This included the fact that many, many emails—I believe he said thousands of emails—including many sent by Members from across this House, were left completely unread, and even unopened. It must be almost certain that some of those who were left behind have at least suffered and, at best, suffered under the hands of the Taliban, and possibly worse. More than four months later, we still do not have the promised Afghan resettlement scheme. We therefore need to hear from the Foreign Secretary in a statement to this House, to respond to the whistleblower, explain what has happened to the resettlement scheme, and assure us that steps have been taken to ensure that a situation such as the chaos in Kabul this summer could never happen again and that the chaos in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office could never happen again.
Finally, in a new one for Erskine May, yesterday our Opposition day on the Government’s rail betrayal was interrupted for a ministerial statement. The Government have downgraded and derailed the northern powerhouse already, because, in the past seven years, they have re-announced the project or recommitted to a major rail project in the north more than 60 times, and now, like so many train services in the north and elsewhere, it has been cancelled. Our motion passed last night, so can the Leader of the House confirm when the Secretary of State for Transport will update the House in person before the end of the year—he does not have long—on his Department’s cost-benefit ratio analysis for the revised HS2 line? We are talking about overpromising, underdelivering and wasting taxpayers’ money. If it was not clear before, it certainly is now: this Government have lost their grip and it is working people who are paying the price.
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, the motions that will be brought forward on Tuesday will be announced as normal the evening before. That is completely routine with motions coming before this House.
The hon. Lady says with regard to No.10 that something may or may not have existed. That, of course, is the whole point, and that is why an investigation is taking place and why the Cabinet Secretary will be looking into it.
I am delighted that the hon. Lady mentioned crime week, because this has been crime week and the Government are making enormous efforts to tackle violent crime. From 2019 to 2022, in the 18 areas worst affected by serious violence, we will have spent more than £105 million of taxpayers’ money to develop 18 violence reduction units, and more than £136 million to support an enhanced police response. We are recruiting 20,000 more police officers—11,000 of whom we have already recruited—so there will be more police on the streets. We are increasing the number of female police officers and ethnic minority police officers, so the police will represent the community better. The police are getting £15.8 billion of funding, and the Government also announced during crime week a strategic plan to tackle drug abuse. I am delighted that the hon. Lady has given me the chance to talk about what the Government are doing so well and are so committed to doing.
The hon. Lady asked a whole string of questions about what went on in Downing Street. I would like to pay tribute to Allegra Stratton, a very distinguished figure and a very capable journalist, who decided to resign yesterday. That does not undermine, as I heard the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) say in the previous session, her great distinction, her contribution to Government and her wider work as a journalist, which was first class. It also does not undermine what she did as somebody one had to deal with, as I did when she was working on The Guardian, for “Newsnight” and with Robert Peston, and she has left with great dignity.
What I was saying at the Institute of Economic Affairs was how nice it was to be free of restrictions so that we can have parties this year. That was what I was being pleased about, as opposed to the comparison with last year. The situation has got better because of what the Government have done, so the hon. Lady complains about Government spending—although she did not have anything very specific to mention in relation to that—but the £400 billion that was spent on saving the economy was absolutely fundamental. It has meant that the economy is recovering and people are beginning to get back to normal.
Yes, I accept that there is some tightening of restrictions, but those restrictions are there to ensure that we do not have to go back to where we were a year ago. We are being proportionate, sensible and cautious. This is surely the right way to go, because we have seen a rapid economic recovery, which we need to protect and for which taxpayers provided £400 billion. In fact, I am pleased that this week our socialist friends are referring to taxpayers’ money, rather than pretending that it is Government money. This is an encouraging, cross-party approach to the proper use of the money of hard-pressed taxpayers.
As regards the railways, now the runaway train has gone down the hill with £96 billion of spending. It is an extraordinary amount—the highest in real terms since our friends the Victorians were building the railways. What the Government are doing with the railway would make Ivor the Engine proud. It is a really important set of spending commitments that will ensure that we have the transport that we need, through the integrated rail plan. I am glad to say that the north is getting six times the amount spent on Crossrail. Crossrail is not happening as fast as it should because of a socialist Mayor, so it is the socialists who let us down on rail and the Conservatives who get the trains to run on time.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
After four years, two general election manifestos and a hand-signed pledge by the Prime Minister, where is the legacy Bill? The Northern Ireland Secretary promised this House that we would have it, to help to protect Northern Ireland veterans from endless investigation and reinvestigation, by the summer recess—he broke his word. Then he faithfully promised that the legislation would be introduced into Parliament by
“the end of the autumn”—[Official Report, 14 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 398-399.]
We now have the business up to Christmas and there is still no Bill. If the Secretary of State repeatedly breaks his word to the House of Commons, he has no honourable option but to resign. He has let down his party and the people who fought to uphold the law in Northern Ireland. When will Brandon Lewis resign his seals of office?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the fact that I have not been able to announce the legacy Bill during my period as Leader of the House, and particularly post the general election, but I remind him that the Government speak with one voice on these matters and we share the responsibility for the Bill not having been brought forward; it is not specific or personal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because Bills have to be agreed collectively before they can be presented.
This Bill is in equal measure important and complicated. It is right that we should treat former soldiers, who have served this country bravely, fairly and that we should protect them. It is also right that we should not give carte blanche to terrorists. Getting this balance right in the legislation that we bring forward is not simple, so although I regret the fact that this Bill has not come forward to the timetable that was hoped for and anticipated, there is good reason for that, and it is unfair and unreasonable of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) to lay it all at the door of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Can we have a debate about the Prime Minister just simply going? We have reached a sensitive point in this pandemic where the next few weeks will be absolutely critical in the battle with the virus, yet we are led by someone who the public simply do not trust and who they believe is less than truthful. This is someone who no longer has the authority to see down the maskless, right-wing libertarians in his own party and their dangerous, do-nothing, let-covid-flourish nonsense: a Prime Minister who has just been fined £17,800 regarding the refurbishment of his flat; a Prime Minister with the attitude, “Do as I say, not as I do.” It cannot go on—and the thing is that Conservative Members know it.
There are rumours, Mr Speaker—you have probably heard them—that the Leader of the House is going to have the House rise on Tuesday so that the embarrassing indignity of PMQs is not repeated once again and the Prime Minister can sidestep all of them at the 1922 committee. Will he take this opportunity today to say that this House will run until Thursday next week?
The shadow Leader of the House is absolutely right: it was not just Allegra Stratton who made light of the party that never was. The Leader of the House could not help himself at the Institute of Economic Affairs about the police investigations and with his oh-so-funny, rib-tickling rubbish about imperial measures—his favourite subject. So here is another chance for him—it is not just the women who have to apologise or resign—to apologise to this House for the insensitive remarks that he made the other day.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that
“you should work from home if you can.”
Well, this House has shown that it can, with virtual participation and proxy voting. After the loss of public trust, we now have an opportunity to lead by example and do exactly what the Prime Minister says, so will the Leader of the House take the Prime Minister’s call seriously? For the sake of the people who work here and the people we serve, will he now turn the virtual Parliament back on?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Once again the hon. Gentleman is furious. It is very hard to tell, because his fury is so perpetual, whether there are any degrees of fury that come forth from him. He said there should be a debate on the Prime Minister. SNP Members had one only just over a week ago; they lost. They do not like losing. They keep on losing. They lost the referendum; they do not like that either. They lose again and again and they come back to the same old subjects.
The hon. Gentleman criticises me for making a joke about imperial measures. I know he has no sense of humour, at least professionally—he may do in private—as it is part of his image, but while making a joke about imperial measures may not be very funny or win any awards for humour, it seems to me to be an eccentric thing to be concerned about.
The hon. Gentleman complained about the Electoral Commission’s report. I seem to remember that there is some very large amount of money missing from the SNP, so perhaps we could have a debate—perhaps I should arrange one in Government time—about the missing money of the SNP, or perhaps he would like to own up about it now. Perhaps we should give him another go later on so that he can say, “Is it half a million pounds that has gone missing from the SNP—I wonder where it’s gone.” Is it missing down the sofa, or has Mona Lott stashed it away somewhere? Who knows, but wouldn’t it be fun to find out?
Then the hon. Gentleman wants to go away again. He never likes being here. He always wants recesses except when we announce them. He now seems to be asking me to give an early recess for some strange reason, when I have just announced the business for Monday to Thursday of next week—but business is announced as it is announced. Of course we should be here working. What the Government have said in their guidelines is that people should not go into work if they do not need to. Parliament does not work properly with people absent. It is very disappointing that the Opposition are so lily-livered about holding the Government to account that they want to go back home early. That is not how democracy should work.
Being here holding the Government to account and asking the difficult questions is just as important as people being in their offices who are delivering Government services. We know from our constituents that services have not been as well delivered when people have been working from home. I know, absolutely, that the House authorities will ensure that people who do not need to be here to deliver services will be able to work from home, and that is quite right, but democratic accountability requires MPs in this Chamber, and that is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Overnight I have been contacted by many businesses in my constituency that are deeply concerned about how the sudden switch to working from home will affect both productivity and the local economy as a whole. Therefore, may I ask for an urgent Government debate on what impact these additional restrictions will have on local businesses and our economy, what support will be provided to businesses following yesterday’s announcement, and how we can make sure that there is a road map in place to ensure that people return to their workplaces as soon as possible?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There will be a debate on Tuesday on the new regulations, and that will be an opportunity to raise these matters, but I say to my hon. Friend that people are asked to work from home if they can, and it is a judgment for people to make as to whether they can work from home effectively. It is not law, it is guidance, and therefore I encourage people to make decisions for themselves.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for our meeting yesterday. Subsequent to that meeting, I can inform him that an application for a debate on Holocaust Memorial Day is anticipated, so time for that at the end of January would be greatly appreciated.
On imperial measures, I still remember, sadly, that an acre is a chain by a furlong, so we have to remember these things, because they are vitally important. Our constituents often still work in imperial measures, and the conversion into metric can be difficult for some.
Union Electric Steel, a company locally known as Davy Roll in my constituency, produces forged and cast roll products that are exported around the world. It employs more than 200 people in highly skilled jobs, but its running costs have a high energy factor. The company has seen its energy costs quadruple and, at times, sextuple during the past 12 months, but no Government help appears to be available to support this important business. Can we therefore have a statement on what the Government will do to support energy-intensive industries such as Union Electric Steel through the current energy cost crisis?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for the early notice on Holocaust Memorial Day, which is a very important date. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, an acre is a chain by a furlong—22 yards by 220 yards. Where do we find a chain on a cricket field? Between the two wickets, although I am not sure they have been finding that as successfully as we might have liked in Brisbane. I very much note his point on energy costs for highly energy-intensive businesses and for the company in his constituency that produces cast roll products and employs 200 people. It is obviously really important that industry is able to cope with these energy costs, and we have a very good energy strategy. Current spikes in cost are difficult for business, and I will pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I hope everyone would agree with the Leader of the House that it is absolutely right that this House works by being here and hearing the information, not by having television screens reporting all the information. Why, then, do the Government insist on having TV press conferences to announce new policies? It is, as the Leader of the House says, this House that debates the things. I really hope—this is a genuine request—for a statement next week on ministerial statements. When he announces the day for that, can he tell me that the hour before that a press conference will be given to explain what will be in that statement?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I seem to remember that Jim Hacker was initially the Minister for Administrative Affairs, and having a statement on a statement does sound like it was invented by Sir Humphrey Appleby for the amusement and entertainment of the nation, rather than for the elucidation of facts and information.
It is important that the country at large understands the changes that are being made. It was thanks to your good offices, Mr Speaker, and the co-operation of the Opposition that a statement was made interrupting the Opposition day. A motion was moved without notice, which is a highly unusual procedure, to ensure that protected time for the Opposition day was not eaten into. That ensured that the courtesies to the House and the constitutional proprieties to the House were observed, but there was also the opportunity to inform the nation at large. It is inevitably a balance, but yesterday—thanks particularly to you, Mr Speaker—we got it right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister referenced the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and said it is very important that we get the eligibility details right and that an announcement will be coming from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office “in due course”. Given that the scheme was announced in September, and there has been no further progress, will the Leader of the House make time available for an urgent debate on this matter to ensure that vulnerable religious or belief communities remain a priority in the scheme?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the subject of religious minorities, whose safe passage it is essential to ensure. The Home Office is working quickly to establish the details of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme which, in its first year, will welcome to the UK up to 5,000 vulnerable Afghans who have been forced to flee the country, with up to a total of 20,000 over a five-year period. We are working with various partners, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to design and open the scheme amid a complex and changing picture. Further details will be announced in due course by the Home Office, but in the meantime, I will pass on his concern to the Home Secretary.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I am not sure if my right hon. Friend is aware, but Harrogate Town association football club recently beat Portsmouth in the FA cup, which means that they have qualified for the third round for the first time in their history. That is a fantastic achievement for a club that has been built from the ground up and that became a professional team only in 2017. Can we have a debate to look at that ground-up approach to see what more can be done to encourage younger people in particular to play the game and how talent can be identified early, nurtured and developed through to local and national teams?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The FA cup, which, as right hon. and hon. Members will recall, was won in 1878-9 by the Old Etonians when they defeated the Clapham Rovers 1-0, is a football competition that people take enormous interest in. I congratulate Harrogate Town on their great achievement and wish them success in the third round. With a bit a luck, perhaps they will go to Wembley—let us see if they can do what the Old Etonians did all those years ago.
There is a huge benefit to early participation and the Government work with football authorities to encourage grassroots participation. I hope that we are seeing the fruits of nurturing great talent in this country, not least through the success of Euro 2020. In terms of a debate, I see that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is still in his place. I am not sure whether he will take that as a formal application, but I am sure that he will take it as an informal one.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s former spokesperson resigned after being caught on video laughing and joking about a rule-breaking Downing Street party. This week, the Leader of the House was also caught on video laughing and joking about rule breaking while giving a speech at a lectern. She has resigned and surely he should resign too—or is it another case of Government Ministers believing that there is one rule for them and another for everyone else?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to come to the Institute of Economic Affairs—it possibly talks too much sense for him to be able to cope with it—but he would be welcome to come to future events to see what goes on and how nice it is, as I was celebrating, that we are back together having parties without restrictions. That is extremely welcome.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Leader of the House might be aware that the Mayor of New York introduced compulsory vaccination certification this week for all workers—public and private sector—and for all children aged five and over attending any sort of activity, sport or entertainment. Does he agree that that is tantamount to compulsory vaccination? Can he assure the House that the vaccination certification that we are being invited to vote on for large venues will never be extended in that direction?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The United Kingdom operates a system of informed consent for vaccinations. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care say this morning that compulsory vaccination would be “unethical” and “wouldn’t work”. Any employer who proposes to introduce a requirement for staff to be vaccinated will need to consider the existing legal framework, including the law on employment, equalities and data protection.
The Government have committed to, where possible, make time for votes on regulations of national significance that apply to England or the whole of the UK before they come into force. May I make one point about this House? No new restriction can be imposed on Members of Parliament attending Parliament except by primary legislation. We have a right, dating back to 1340, of unmolested access to the Palace, and nothing can or should be done that would restrict that in any way.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Following the UK’s departure from the EU, the Government opted to initiate an independent programme, the Turing scheme, to replace the operation of Erasmus in the UK. The British Council is currently contracted to operate the scheme in its first year. Yesterday, media reports appeared that the firm Capita had been awarded the future contract to administer the scheme in the British Council’s place. No such statement has been made to Parliament as yet, so given that there are no suitable departmental oral questions prior to recess and given the impact that the decision will have on the British Council’s future, will the Leader of the House advise whether a statement will be forthcoming?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. It is always important that this House is kept informed. I will take this up with the relevant Secretary of State, and ensure that an answer is provided both to the hon. Lady and indeed to the House.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I must say that in my constituency there is a sense of exasperation and exhaustion with the imposition of new covid rules, and a real fear that we are now back on the conveyor belt to more restrictions. Can we have a debate on how we learn to live with covid and its variants in the long term without unacceptable measures such as widespread use of vaccine passports, or the shocking suggestion that members of the public might be forced to get a vaccine? That would be unacceptable, and it is not what we need in this country.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend because I think I share the concerns and frustrations of her constituents. I do not think anybody wanted to be in this position. I think she is right in saying not only that we should learn to live with covid, but that we are in the process of doing so in that through the vaccination programme—88% of people over 12 have been vaccinated—we are getting life back to normal. Some temporary measures have been introduced to try to delay the seeding of the omicron variant, but if variants keep on coming, ultimately we are going to have to return to normal life, and I think that is just the way it is going to be. I think we are beginning to learn to live with covid, and that must be the way policy is going. That is why these temporary measures are both proportionate and go with the consensus among the British public that we have constantly worked with the grain of public opinion in any restrictions that have been imposed, and I think that is the right thing to do.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In York, I am really worried about vulnerable children and children at risk, I am very worried about vulnerable parents, I am very worried about social workers working in children’s services and I am very worried about the level of funding that is going towards those services. I do not want to hear that we have to have another serious case review, and that we have to learn lessons again. We have heard that too many times, so can we have a debate about children within the care system, the risks that are faced and how we can resolve this issue once and for all?
Mr Rees-Mogg
What can I say to the hon. Lady? I think the angels weep over what happened to little Arthur. It is so just mortifyingly sad to see those pictures of that sweet little boy, who was so brutally treated. I share her frustration that we talk about lessons learned, and I have got in my notes today that I am meant to say lessons will be learned, but that is what we always say, and it is not good enough. We need to protect little children.
Are there easy solutions? No. Are there problems that we can identify? Were there issues with covid that meant people were not going out to work? Why do hon. Members think I keep on saying in this House that there are jobs people need to do face to face? People have to get out and do some of these jobs. The limitations are on people who can work from home, and we should not turn that into being on people whose jobs are essentially done out of the home.
There are so many things that need to be put right, and the spirit is certainly willing, but can I promise the hon. Lady that tragedies will not happen again? No, of course I cannot. However, as I say about the sadness over Arthur, I found it almost impossible to read the news stories because I was thinking of the children I know and my own children, and how could somebody behave like that? I sympathise with what the hon. Lady says.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Highway maintenance is one of the top priorities for residents, particularly those in rural constituencies just like mine. Given that Lincolnshire has over 5,000 miles of road to maintain, can we have a debate on the national allocation of the road maintenance grant so that counties such as mine receive the fair share that they deserve?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, I would probably want the fair share for Somerset before it goes to Lincolnshire, but I very much sympathise with what my hon. Friend is saying. Roads are absolutely essential to the lives of our constituents, and the percentage of journeys by road is much higher than any other form of transport by mileage covered within the United Kingdom. The spending review 2021 announced £2.7 billion over the next three years for local roads maintenance in places not yet receiving city region settlements. That is enough money to fill in millions of potholes a year, repair dozens of bridges and resurface roads up and down the country. The three-year settlement should help local authorities plan effectively to manage their highway assets and tackle potholes and other road defects across their local road networks. Individual authority funding for local roads maintenance is allocated using a formula based on the local highway assets for which each highway authority is responsible. Lincolnshire County Council received more than £89 million for highway maintenance in 2021-22, but I understand that my hon. Friend is taking this further and having a meeting with my noble Friend Baroness Vere next week to discuss the issue.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Leader of the House is right: we did have a debate just nine days ago on the integrity of the Prime Minister. But in the very short time since that debate we have had the scandal over the Downing Street parties—plural; pick a number between one and seven—and this morning we hear that the Prime Minister told the adviser on ministers’ interests in May that he did not know who paid for his flat refurbishment in February this year yet we have learned that he WhatsApped Lord Brownlow in 2020 asking for more cash. So may we have a debate in Government time on the importance of integrity in public office?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Scottish National party had its debate nine days ago. The SNP does not like the Prime Minister; that is the state of affairs. Nothing I say from this Dispatch Box will change that. I am not a hypnotist; I will not be able to convert their minds. However brilliant my oratory may or may not be, I will not be able to persuade them, because I am like whoever it was who tried to charm the deaf adder; the deaf adder stoppethed up its ears, and the SNP seem to have their ears very stoppethed up, Mr Speaker.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
On Monday, India and Bangladesh celebrated the first Friendship Day and next week Bangladesh will celebrate Victory Day when it finally gained independence from Pakistan. The then Prime Minister of Bangladesh was welcomed to Downing Street by Prime Minister Ted Heath; the UK was one of the first countries to recognise Bangladesh. So may we have a debate in Government time on relationships between the UK and Bangladesh and how we can further them still more?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The UK and Bangladesh share a close relationship based on strong historical and people-to-people links. We continue to work closely together on our shared interests, including security, development, climate, trade and the Rohingya crisis, and throughout the year we have celebrated Bangladesh’s 50th anniversary. It is worth noting that most of these independence anniversaries are about independence from us, so it is nice to celebrate one that is about independence not from us but from someone else, and we look forward to commemorating Bangladesh’s 50th Victory Day on 16 December. The Prime Minister met Prime Minister Hasina last month to mark the 50th anniversary of our bilateral relationship, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend might want an Adjournment debate, out of your kindness, Mr Speaker, to celebrate this relationship further.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
As you know, Mr Speaker, I have been in this House for 41 years and I agree with you and the Leader of the House that at its heart what makes this place work is that when there is a ministerial statement it takes place in this Chamber. May we also have an early debate on the value of working across parties with all-party groups? That is how I have succeeded on many issues, introducing seatbelt legislation and much else. Working in all-party groups is at the heart of this place yet certain people in this House are murmuring against all-party working. It is important—it civilises this place and is effective—so may we have a debate on the importance of cross-party working?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by saying that I have read press reports that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of standing down at the next election. May I say how sorry I am to hear that? He has served this House with enormous distinction. I think he told me once that he first stood to be the MP for Taunton so he could almost have been a near-neighbour of mine, which would have been a different state of affairs and different for the people of Huddersfield. But 41 years of public service is a remarkable achievement and one really worth celebrating regardless of our political differences, which leads on to the hon. Gentleman’s point about cross-party working. Of course I am not going to promise him a debate—he knows that—but cross-party working is invaluable, and I do try in this Session, as I hope hon. and right hon. Members have noticed, to do whatever I can to help people particularly with individual constituency issues, because I think we do all have one objective in this House, which is to improve the lives of our individual constituents.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I met the most inspirational constituent recently. Bryony Thomas has fought off devastating pancreatic cancer and speaks movingly about the impact on her life, her weight loss, her family and her energy levels. Bryony is campaigning for increased use of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy and to help others by raising awareness of this cancer, which she found is one of the least understood but most deadly common cancers. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising Bryony and other campaigners, and consider granting a debate in Government time so that we can consider the merits of PERT treatment?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by praising Bryony for campaigning in this way, which must be extraordinarily difficult? I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this matter. I know from my own experience that one of the things one can do as a Back-Bench MP is campaign on such issues with cross-party support very successfully. Do not give up—that is my key piece of advice. Ask me questions, ask for Adjournment debates, ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and ask at Prime Minister’s questions.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guideline on diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer in adults recommends offering enteric coated pancreatin for people with unresectable pancreatic cancer and to consider this treatment. NICE publishes a quarterly standard on the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer, including PERT, but sometimes the availability of drugs and the decision making of NICE is encouraged and enhanced by campaigning in and through this House.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
There is a plethora of websites run by private companies masquerading as UK Government websites, offering assistance with things such as renewing driving licences and passports. They invite people to call high-premium phone numbers and hold them on the line for long periods or ask them to pay very high charges for very little assistance. These websites stay on just the right side of the law by having very small and very easy to miss disclaimers that they are not official Government websites. Will the Leader of the House make a statement about what action he can take against profiteering by sites masquerading as Government websites to con people out of their hard-earned cash?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Once again, I thank the hon. Lady for raising a point that I think will concern many people across the House. Even when we know that these sites exist, when we are looking for a Government service it is quite easy to find the first one or two that are enormously expensive and have charges that the Government websites do not begin to have. It is easy even for people who are alert to these things and aware of them to be caught. She raises a really important point. Joint Committee scrutiny of the online harms Bill is just about drawing to an end and that Bill will come forward, so this issue will be discussed, but I will pass on her concerns immediately to the Secretary of State.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
In Blaenau Gwent and across the country, illegal off-road biking continues to be a scourge on our towns and countryside, intimidating local people and tearing up our environment. It must be stopped. In my area, Gwent police is doing good work on it, but given that this is crime week, can we have a statement outlining the Government’s plans to act on illegal off-roading?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about something that I think affects many of us in rural constituencies; I have certainly had complaints about it in North East Somerset. It is threatening, it is unpleasant and it can be extraordinarily noisy. I am delighted to hear that Gwent police is acting effectively, but I will of course pass on his concerns to the Secretary of State.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Barnsley clinical commissioning group recently stated that there is currently a huge gap between the unprecedented demand for GP services and the available capacity in GP practices, both in Barnsley and nationally. Can we have an urgent debate in Government time about the fact that far too many people cannot get a GP appointment?
Mr Rees-Mogg
In my own constituency last week I went to see St Chads surgery, which is suffering in exactly that way. Demand is exceptionally high. This seems to be partly because of normal seasonal factors, partly because of covid and in particular among children, and partly because people were not necessarily going earlier on in the pandemic. This is an issue that CCGs across the country are working on. Practices are doing their best to meet and manage demand, which is obviously important, but the hon. Lady raises a point which I think is well known but none the less is extremely important. I will raise her point with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Attached to the Government spending review is, of course, the big Red Book, which highlights that Scotland’s North sea oil and gas sector will contribute some £2 billion to the UK Treasury in the coming year, on top of the £375 billion that has already been taken in. Does the Leader of the House not agree that we should have a debate in this House on the merits of ring-fencing that additional £2 billion to deliver two things: the Acorn carbon capture underground storage project in the north-east of Scotland; and match funding for the Scottish Government’s £500 million Just Transition Fund to protect my constituents’ livelihoods going forward?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is in favour of more North sea oil development, which is not, as I understand it, the line of the leader of the Scottish National party in Scotland. He seems to want to have his cake without baking it, rather than to have his cake and eat it. I would point out that £2 billion, though an important amount of money, pales into insignificance compared to the £6.5 billion that is coming from UK taxpayers to support Scotland as extra money under the Barnett formula. There was £1.7 billion that went through the self-employed scheme and 910,000 jobs saved through the furlough scheme. So, £2 billion is not an amount to be sniffed at, but they get a lot more than that.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It will be two weeks tomorrow since Storm Arwen hit my constituency, causing many to lose their power supply. I want to thank all the people in the community who helped, including the Chopwell community centre, the Winlaton community centre, the Blaydon youth and community centre, and especially the Riverview Bakery in Blackhall Mill, which catered for residential homes that were without power. Can we have a debate in Government time, please, about the impact of Storm Arwen and how we got to the position of having so many failures for a 10-day period?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I join the hon. Lady is paying tribute to those who helped, particularly the Riverview Bakery? The mere thought of the cakes they may provide is making me hungry. The point she raises is very serious. As it happens, one of my oldest friends was caught by this storm and had no power for over 10 days —he was made my oldest and coldest friend, I think, during that period. Electricity companies have a very serious responsibility to get power back to people who have been affected. That is what electricity charges are paid for: to ensure there is a robust system of repair when things go wrong. Everyone knows that from time to time storms come in and cause damage to power lines. The service that was provided was simply not good enough. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has made a statement and there was an urgent question.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Leader of the House will know that on a number of occasions I have asked him questions on transparency. Today, I want to ask him from a slightly different angle. I recognise that local government is devolved, but we have a situation in Midlothian where the Labour-led Midlothian Council has overturned years of community consultation over the siting of a new Beeslack High School—my old high school, as it happens. In June, a document was made public and taken down within minutes. At three subsequent meetings, private reports have been taken and no indication has been given to any public member about the site of the new school. May we have a debate in Government time on the importance of transparency at all levels of government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I find myself in considerable agreement with the hon. Gentleman. Local councils must be transparent about what they are doing. Transparency is beneficial for government most of the time. Obviously, we cannot give away the nuclear codes, but beyond that the more people know and the more people understand, the more we get better government. Also, the more people know, the more willing they are to support things. Midlothian Council may have found the best site possible and it may be supported by everybody, but if it is not willing to tell people, it will never know that. On the other hand, it may have made an awful blunder.
Mr Rees-Mogg
From the head movements of the hon. Gentleman, I think that that is what he thinks. I do not know how Hansard reports head movements, but there was a distinct head movement to a bungling by the council. But, yes, of course: the council should reveal all the information it is required to reveal under freedom of information requests and otherwise by law.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I was very pleased that the Leader of the House announced the business for the whole of next week, until Thursday, because the election of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee is due to take place on Wednesday and I hope I might be a candidate.
Can we have a debate on the issue of county lines? Last Friday, I spent time at Hull interchange with officers from British Transport Police who were carrying out a county lines operation. They were a superb group of officers, assisted by Railway Children, a charity that works to get alongside and support young people who, sadly, have got involved with county lines. I wonder whether we, as a House of Commons, need a debate about what additional resources British Transport police, home police forces and local authorities need to deal with the scourge of county lines.
Mr Rees-Mogg
That was a very subtle campaign moment from the right hon. Lady, but under the circumstances, it was entirely permissible and orderly. She is absolutely right about the scourge of county lines. It is a very serious problem, which the police have been tackling very effectively in the past couple of years. They have managed to break up quite a lot of county lines and, crucially, rescue children. I understand that some of the children involved in county lines are as young as five—certainly as young as seven—so this a serious concern. The police are involved and it is being tackled; people are being arrested and charged with drug offences, and it is part of the drugs strategy that was announced this week. I cannot promise her a specific debate, but the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), is in his place.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Very sadly, antisocial behaviour continues to blight parts of Denton and Reddish. It needs firm action, so can we have a statement on whether the powers and resources available to local authorities such as Stockport and Tameside, and to Greater Manchester police, are adequate to tackle the tearaways?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This issue is fundamental—I am sorry to hear of the antisocial behaviour in Denton and Reddish—because the police and local authorities have powers, but we all know that low-level antisocial behaviour can lead to more serious crime. I am beginning to sound a bit like a broken record on the 11,000 extra police, but I must mention that, because having police who are available and present is a very good way of stopping antisocial crime. Dealing with drugs and county lines—this goes to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson)—also reduces antisocial behaviour, because of the enormous quantity of crime that is drug-related, and particularly the theft that is responsible for the purchase of drugs. I believe that half of murders in this country are drug-related, so antisocial behaviour, drug crime and more serious crime are all interrelated. He is absolutely right to raise this matter in relation to crime week and I am sure that the House will discuss it on many occasions.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Today marks United Nations International Anti-Corruption Day—a day designed to highlight the negative impact of corruption on society—and from the flat refurbishment to the Owen Paterson scandal to cash for honours, I simply do not have time to list all the allegations of corruption against this Government. However, in the light of their actions that are dishonest and embody corruption, will the Leader of the House make room for a debate in Government time on corruption?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Today is also the feast day of St Æthelgifu, who is the daughter of Alfred the Great and who became an abbess; I am more tempted to offer a debate to celebrate the virtues of one of England’s leading saints. This country should be incredibly proud of its reputation on corruption. We have the toughest anti-corruption laws on what goes on not just in our country, but in our companies trading abroad. We try to ensure that British companies obey the highest standards globally. We should be really proud of that and not talk down the nation. In league tables, we always come very near the top, because we have a good political system, proper representation in this House and a free press. All that ensures that we have a country that we can be proud of.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
We are only days away from the two-year anniversary of the Second Reading of the Bill that became the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. At that time, huge promises were made—£350 million a week would be given back to the NHS, and there would be huge trading opportunity and a decrease in the cost of living—but was it all worth it? Can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of Brexit and a report from the Government that would show the impact of Brexit, region by region, and what that has meant for us all? For good or ill, the country needs to know.
Mr Rees-Mogg
We can start Prayers every morning—I may propose this as a formal resolution of the House—with a celebration of Brexit. We should have the Brexit prayer and perhaps even the Brexit song, beginning, “Gloria in excelsis Deo”, because it has been a triumph for this nation in reasserting its freedom. The NHS already had the £350 million that was on the side of the bus. That was delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in 2018, with an extra £34 billion uplift for the NHS by 2023-24. Just think of the vaccines that we have and the success of the vaccine roll-out programme. I believe that I mentioned earlier in the year the happy fish that we have, so there is general celebrating and rejoicing that we are now a free country once again.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Across Bath and North East Somerset, 6,000 households are on the social housing waiting list. Our council, which the Leader of the House and I share, is delivering the first new social homes for rent in a generation and we should congratulate it on that. However, the Government are making it incredibly difficult for councils to build new social homes for rent, certainly in the numbers that we need, so can we have a full debate on the dire need to build more social homes for rent and hear what the Government are saying about actually delivering them?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am beginning to think that the hon. Lady has access to my diary, because last week she raised a question relating to the Royal United Hospital, with whom I had a meeting the following day in which I raised some of the points that she made, and tomorrow, I am having a meeting with the chief executive of Curo, which is a social housing company that does a really good job. I have found in my dealings with Curo that it is consistently receptive to issues that their tenants face and quick in response, so I can discuss some of the points that she raised today.
In addition, the Government are committed to increasing house building. The sheer volume of house building is what ensures that there are houses for everybody. Whether it is social or affordable housing—however it is defined—we need to build more, which is why it was announced in the Queen’s Speech that there would be a planning Bill. However, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for helping me with my diary management.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I reinforce the call from my good and hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) in requesting a debate on Storm Arwen, and particularly the need for an independent public inquiry. At no point have the local authority or Ministers shown any self-awareness of their failings over the lack of leadership and delays in getting welfare support to residents affected by the loss of power, some for 10 days. There seems to have been a collective effort by Conservative politicians at both local and national levels to push all the blame on to Northern Powergrid in the storm’s immediate aftermath. I believe that there are some similarities with the failure to accept responsibility for the No. 10 Christmas party debacle.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is quite a leap of imagination to go from a party to power lines being blown down in a storm. The responsibility for power lines inevitably lies with power companies. The hon. Gentleman may never have been the greatest proponent of privatisation, but private companies have a responsibility to deliver service to their customers. The message that we had from his hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) was that, actually, society at large had rallied round. That should always be welcomed and viewed positively. The Government do not do everything; society has its place, as does private business.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
My constituent Jan Ahmadzai, a British national, was in Afghanistan visiting his wife and five children when Kabul fell. He was due to be evacuated, but unfortunately he was close to Kabul airport when the suicide bombing took place. He has since managed to flee with his family to Pakistan, but the only information that we can get from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is that he should report to the Afghan embassy in Islamabad. Can we have an urgent debate in Government time to raise such issues on behalf of constituents such as Mr Ahmadzai and his family?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Obviously the evacuation from Kabul was incredibly difficult. Operation Pitting was a remarkable achievement; I went to Brize Norton to see some of the people who had been involved, and some of them then came to the House of Commons. Their work was really very remarkable, under extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
Rather than offering the hon. Lady a debate, I think it is more useful if I say that if she sends me the details, my office will be more than happy to take up the case of Mr Ahmadzai and see whether we can help in getting answers from the FCDO—in the hope that they are not all on leave.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I was delighted to hear the Leader of the House’s words in favour of transparency, so I look forward to his support for a debate in Government time on unincorporated associations and on closing key vulnerabilities identified by the Electoral Commission in how those associations receive donations. The frankly scandalous situation whereby their donors are not required to be “permissible” donors means that those associations can receive moneys from overseas sources entirely legitimately and then donate to political parties and candidates with perfunctory checks, if any.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Unincorporated associations are a fundamental part of how this country operates. Lots of football clubs, cricket clubs and so on are unincorporated associations—they have a very proper place in society. However, I point the hon. Lady to the Elections Bill, which I think is now in the other place, having been dealt with by this House. There will be opportunities, should their lordships make any amendments, for us to consider it further.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Can we please have a debate in Government time on the enforcement of the ministerial code? The Electoral Commission’s report today on donations for the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat states that the Prime Minister was WhatsApping Lord Brownlow asking for money in November 2020, but it would appear that the Prime Minister also told Lord Geidt, the independent adviser, that he had become aware of the funding source only in February 2021. It remains to be seen whether in those circumstances Lord Geidt will feel able to continue in the role of independent adviser, but whoever does that job will have to do it with every assiduousness—shall we say—and exhibit perhaps a greater degree of curiosity and perhaps a little less trust than has been the case to date.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I fundamentally dispute that—I think that the right hon. Gentleman has the wrong end of the stick. The Government have a mandate from the British people by virtue of having won an election. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister because of that simple fact. The ministerial code is a code in the Prime Minister’s name. It is followed carefully and the Prime Minister is responsible for it.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My constituent, who is on maternity leave caring for her baby and her disabled daughter, has just had this month’s universal credit cancelled because her partner was paid a day early and it was counted as double pay. That means that, as well as earnings deduction, they are losing the mother’s carer and child disability elements. Will the Leader of the House instruct the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make sure that the family get the money they are due, urgently and certainly before Christmas?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am aware of the problem that occurs when people receive two payments within a month; it has caused problems for constituents of mine in the past. If the hon. Gentleman gives my office the full details, I will make sure that they are sent to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions as a matter of urgency. I am not brave enough to instruct the Secretary of State.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Today, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has published the names of 208 employers in the UK that failed to pay their staff the national minimum wage. I was very pleased to see that none sits within my constituency’s local authority this year. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on the effectiveness of naming and shaming, and on how smaller or newer businesses can avoid common accounting pitfalls that can lead to it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think that naming and shaming is effective, particularly as I think—although I have only seen brief press reports—that the list includes some very large companies that have not been paying the national living wage, which will go up to £9.50 next year. It is a legal requirement; companies must obey the law. Once companies are named and appear on these lists, I hope that the relevant authorities will scan the list and see who they ought to focus on investigating, because it is a serious matter.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for responding to questions for a smidgen over an hour.
Delivering Justice for Victims
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Tom Pursglove)
Today, we are publishing a consultation on a new victims’ law to raise the voice of victims in our criminal justice system, expand their role in it and strengthen the accountability of all the agencies charged with supporting victims across the system.
We have a moral duty to protect the victims of crime, improve the level of service that they can expect from the criminal justice system and raise the quality of support that they receive. It is the right thing to do, but it is also essential on a practical level to ensure that in operational terms we have the most effective justice system possible. After all, we can secure convictions and bring down rates of crime only if victims have the confidence to report crimes to the police and engage with prosecutors to make sure that their testimony is heard in court. For both those reasons and at every level, we must do better.
As things stand, too many victims feel that the criminal justice system does not deliver justice for them. Too many feel let down by the system, which compounds the pain and suffering from the original crime. In fact, it is worrying that as many as three in five victims do not even report a crime that they have suffered. A survey by the Victims’ Commissioner shows that, based on their experience of the criminal justice system, a third of victims would not report a crime again. The evidence demonstrates that a third of victims who do go to police will later disengage from the process.
In those cases, justice is not delivered for victims, and the public are left exposed to criminals left to carry on offending. That must change. The Government are determined to improve the service and support that victims receive from the point at which a crime is reported right through to their experience in the courtroom.
We have already taken a range of actions to support victims. We have strengthened the victims code, which sets out the minimum standards that victims can expect. We have invested £300 million this year in victim support services, of which the Ministry of Justice has provided more than £150 million; we announced in the Budget that that will increase to £185 million per year by the end of this Parliament, ensuring that more victims can access what can be life-saving help. We have passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 to protect victims and strengthen measures against perpetrators. We have published the end-to-end rape review report, setting out a plan of action to drive improvements for victims across the criminal justice system. We have begun to improve the trial experience for victims by rolling out pre-recorded cross-examination—known as section 28—for vulnerable victims, so that those who want to can give evidence earlier and outside the courtroom, making the process less harrowing so that victims can present their best evidence and helping to secure more convictions.
But we must go much further. I want to guarantee that victims are at the very heart of the criminal justice system. Rather than feeling peripheral to the process, victims should feel supported so that they can properly engage at every step. Our plan for delivering a world-class service to victims has five crucial elements that we will deliver through the victims Bill.
First, we want to amplify the voice of victims and ensure that they are properly engaged at every stage of the criminal justice system. We want to ensure agencies communicate with victims better. For example, we are consulting on the requirement for the prosecutor in certain types of case to communicate directly with victims before they decide whether to charge a suspect. We believe that such direct exposure to the victim is essential to giving them the confidence to go to trial and to see their cases through, and will help to reduce what are known as the victim attrition rates. As well as amplifying the voice of individual victims, these measures will strengthen the voice of whole communities. We intend to put explicit provision for community impact statements in the victims’ law and the victims code, mainstreaming their use in appropriate cases to ensure that the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts understand the wider scale and extent to which crime can blight whole neighbourhoods.
Secondly, we will increase transparency in respect of the performance of our criminal justice agencies. Today we are publishing the first national criminal justice and adult rape scorecards. They will bring together data to give a cross-system view of performance, including aspects that matter to victims such as how long it takes for cases to be investigated and charges to be made, how long cases wait in the courts before they go to trial, the number of guilty pleas, and what happens to cases when they reach court. One thing that is immediately clear from the data is that we must do better. Some cases are taking too long to get through the system. Covid-19 may be a factor in that, and we are working to bring down backlogs, but rape cases in particular are taking far too much time to get to court. That is not good enough and we are determined to put it right.
A further set of localised scorecards, giving the more granular local detail, will be published early next year. The scorecards will monitor victim engagement so we can see where in the system victims are being failed and take steps to fix that, and the local scorecards will show us where in the country the system is delivering for victims and where it is not. That data and that transparency will equip victims, and our criminal justice agencies more generally, to better monitor performance, and to better understand the problems in the system and address them more effectively, while spreading the very best practice more widely.
Thirdly, we want to ensure that there are clearer and sharper lines of accountability when victims do not receive the right level of service. We will enshrine the victims’ code in law to send a clear signal about what victims can and should reasonably expect from the criminal justice system. It follows that we must also hold the respective criminal justice agencies to account when it comes to delivering for victims. We will strengthen the oversight mechanisms and their focus on victims across the board, from complaints procedures to reinforced inspection regimes nationally and police and crime commissioners locally. That will give victims more effective redress when something goes wrong and it will improve accountability.
Members will recall the Government’s rape review action plan, which was published in June. Today I can announce that we are publishing a report detailing progress against its aims, so that we can hold criminal justice agencies to account for how much they have improved outcomes in tackling this horrendous crime.
Fourthly, we want to help victims to rebuild their lives through accessible and professional services, and ensure that criminals pay more to support those services. We propose to increase the victim surcharge, which helps to fund victim services; that will mean criminals paying more to right their own wrongs, and in the process help victims to recover from what they have suffered.
Our consultation will also meet the commitment made to the House, during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, to consult on the provision of support services for victims of domestic abuse. We want to improve the commissioning and co-ordination of services, particularly for victims of traumatic crimes—domestic abuse, sexual violence and other serious violence—so that they can be given the right support at the right time to help them recover. As part of that, we plan to strengthen the support available from independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, which we know makes victims almost 50% more likely to remain engaged with the criminal justice process.
Finally, we want to ensure there are better tools to protect victims and prosecute culprits. We are already making significant progress, and I can announce today that we are planning a national roll-out to expand provision of section 28 pre-recorded cross-examination for sexual and modern slavery victims to all Crown courts, with the specific priority of ensuring that victims of rape across the country pre-record their evidence and avoid the ordeal of facing the full glare of the courtroom.
Let me explain how this will work. The CPS will decide, in consultation with the victim, whether to apply under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The judiciary will retain oversight and discretion to ensure that the interests of justice are properly served. This has the potential to increase the number of successful prosecutions and earlier guilty pleas. The justice scorecards will help us to evaluate progress in this regard, and will highlight any challenges in practice. We will be guided by ongoing evaluation of data from courts already trialling the section 28 arrangements. I am committed to working carefully with the judiciary and criminal justice agencies on this expansion, as are my ministerial colleagues.
This Government will deliver credible change for victims. We will give them a more powerful voice at every stage of the criminal justice system. We will increase transparency and redress in respect of the support that they receive in practice. We will ensure that every criminal justice agency is properly held to account for its role in the wider system. We will better protect victims, especially victims of rape and sexual violence, to give them greater confidence about giving the testimony that can help to secure a conviction. We will make the perpetrators of crime pay more to help victims recover. That is our plan to give victims the justice they deserve, and to build back a better, stronger, fairer country. I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving me early sight of his statement, which is welcomed by Labour Members. Goodness knows it has been a long time coming, having been promised time and again over several years. I only hope that the proposed consultation exercise is dealt with rapidly, that people are listened to and that we see proposed legislation with no further delay. I also hope that the Minister will tell us what he understands to be the timescale for that to happen. I can inform him that we will work constructively with the Government to ensure that the new victims’ law is fit for purpose, and is a law of which we can all be proud. He could even save himself some time by simply adopting Labour’s victims Bill, which actually does the job.
The Minister’s words were not just an illustration of how much the new law is needed, but a damning indictment of the Government’s inaction over the past decade. The number of victims who have dropped out of the system has doubled in the last five years, and a record of number of cases have collapsed over the last year. I know that the Minister has not been in his post for long, but he must be embarrassed to stand before us today and tell us that confidence in the justice system is so poor. Three in every five victims do not even report a crime, a third of victims would not report a crime again, and a third of victims who do go to the police drop out of the process before any case can come to court.
If we are to help victims, we must get the court system correct. In October 2021, the National Audit Office released a damning report on the Government’s handling of the court backlog. It found that the Crown court backlog had already increased by 23% in the year leading up to the pandemic, and had increased a further 48% since its onset. Not to put too fine a point on it, the NAO said that both the Ministry of Justice and its courts agency were not working together properly to solve problems which had their roots in pre-pandemic cuts.
The Government have their work cut out to deal effectively with rape cases alone. One in 67 rape complainants actually see a case come to court, and it can take four years for that process to be completed. The latest data from the Crown Prosecution Service shows that the number of rape convictions fell by 6.7% in the last quarter, and we have seen the conviction rate fall considerably, from 72.9% in quarter 1 of 2020-21 to 66.2% in quarter 1 of 2021-22, a reduction of 6.7%. The number of days from receipt to charge has been increasing quarter on quarter: according to the latest figures, it increased from 125 days to 170 days in the same period. Under this Prime Minister, rape victims are being abandoned by the justice system. At the current rate, it would take the Government 18 years to return to the pre-2016 levels of prosecution, which they promised to reach by the end of this Parliament.
We welcome the fact that section 28 is being rolled out, but it is all well and good for the Lord Chancellor to commit himself to overseeing that national roll-out; what I want to know is why it has taken so long. He could have got it moving much more quickly and saved more victims from the stresses of court if his Government had supported Labour’s amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill back in the summer. Can the Minister tell us what the timeframe is for this roll-out?
As for scorecards, perhaps the Minister can tell us what score he thinks we should give the Government with numbers like these. There are 3,357 victims of violent and sexual crime who have already been waiting over a year for their day in court, and a further 654 victims of these horrific crimes have been waiting over two years. Will he also assure us that he will have the extra resources to ensure that all his proposals can be implemented?
Five previous Justice Secretaries have promised a victims Bill, and all five have failed to deliver. Victims will have very little confidence that the current Justice Secretary will succeed where his predecessors have failed. It is damning that victims now tell us that their experience of the justice system was worse than the crime itself. Just 19% of victims believe that judges take account of the impact of crimes on them, and just 18% believe that they are given enough support. Fighting to overturn CPS decisions not to prosecute, lengthy court delays and people waiting years for their day in court—all this sends a very bad signal about how victims are treated by the justice system. We can see why women and girls, in particular, give up.
Since 2010, the CPS has faced a 25% budget cut and a 30% reduction in staff. Police forces in England and Wales lost 21,732 officers between March 2010 and March 2018—that is 15% of their total number. More than half of all magistrates courts in England and Wales have closed since 2010. It is an abysmal record.
Victims do not want a consultation; they want action. Labour has a ready-made Bill to end violence against women and girls, to clear the backlog through an increase in Nightingale courts and to fast-track rape and sexual violence cases. Our victims Bill would also improve rights, strengthen protections and accountability, improve communications and ensure that victims were no longer treated as an afterthought. This Government have come out with a statement today. They must now match their warm words with deeds and ensure that they fulfil their promise to put victims at the very heart of our criminal justice system.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was sorry to see his announcement last week that he would be stepping down from the House at the next general election. Having been a Government Whip, I have spent many hours with him on Bill Committees, and I have always appreciated the way in which he has gone about his business here in the House. I also appreciated the constructive tone that ran through at least the start of his response to my statement.
One thing that I am particularly concerned about in the approach that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to adopt here is that he keeps talking about a Bill that he and his colleagues have prepared. I do not think that being prescriptive about all this is the right approach. This is a fundamental reform and a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver meaningful reforms and get this right, and I think the right approach is to have meaningful consultations with the sector, with victims, and with those with knowledge and experience in these matters, in order to deliver a policy that is fit for purpose and delivers on the aims that I would like to think all of us in this House agree on. At the end of the day, we are talking about the victims of crime. Some of them have been through horrendous, unthinkable trauma, and we owe it to them to come together constructively and responsibly and to debate these matters in a measured way to ensure that we get the response right for them. That is my job, and it is the responsibility of Members of this House and certainly of the ministerial team at the Ministry of Justice to get this right.
We have a strong record on crime, and of course the ultimate objective is to ensure that there are no victims in the first place. That is why we are committed, for example, to rolling out 20,000 extra police officers. We want to prevent crime from happening, and we want more police officers out on the beat catching criminals and deterring crime. That is exactly what we are doing. I repeat that our plan for victims will deliver a world-class service to them by amplifying the victims’ voice, by increasing transparency in the system—Members across the House will recognise the real importance and value of that—by strengthening accountability, by improving support for victims, including through criminals paying more towards the support we put in place, and by generally providing better tools to protect victims and prosecute criminals.
The approach that we take to these matters as a Department and as a Government is one of non-defensive transparency around the policy. Some of what we are announcing today is a starting point. This is an iterative process, for example, with the scorecards. I would welcome input from Members across the House about the scorecards and what more we can do to improve transparency so that we can drive genuine improvement.
The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the issue of the courts backlog. We have taken comprehensive action to address the backlog. As part of the spending review, we are investing £477 million in the criminal justice system over the next three years to help to reduce the backlog and to deliver the swift access to justice that victims deserve. We have taken decisive action, but the shadow team seems to have a pretty short memory. Prior to the pandemic, in February 2020, the courts backlog was 19% lower than it was in the last year of the Labour Government. Meanwhile, we have kept the wheels of justice moving in unprecedented circumstances, so the Opposition really do not have a leg to stand on in this regard. The courts Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is here in the Chamber and is overseeing this important work.
Despite the Opposition’s criticism, the funding that we are putting in place is far in excess of anything that was ever put in place by the previous Labour Government. Our £185 million package is over four times as much as was spent in the last year of the previous Labour Government. Our record shows that we are on the side of the victims, while Labour failed to support them in the way that we are doing now.
On the issue of rape prosecutions, I would just draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that the data on the scorecards relates to quarter 2. That provides important context, and we are obviously now six months on from that. Our plans will significantly improve the way in which the criminal justice system responds to rape. Before the end of the year, we will publish the first ever adult rape scorecard; introduce a single source of 24/7 support for victims of rape and sexual violence; roll out a new investigatory model—Operation Soteria—that focuses on the suspects’ behaviour rather than that of the victims; and expand pre-recorded cross-examination through section 28 for victims of rape and sexual violence. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the implementation of that last policy, and it is of course crucial that we get it right and that it is delivered appropriately and sensitively. That is why we are working with our criminal justice partners and the judiciary to deliver that roll-out as quickly as possible and in an appropriate manner.
The point that I made at the start applies to how we debate these matters. We are talking about victims of crime, and I want us to have a constructive debate over the course of the next eight weeks as we consult on these measures. There is a comprehensive engagement plan in place to do that, and I would really welcome Members from across the House contributing their ideas, helping to shape this, and encouraging their constituents and the organisations that they work with in their constituencies to make their views and experiences known so that we can get this right and deliver the meaningful change that victims deserve.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I very much welcome this statement, and the tone with which the Minister has approached this matter. We need a serious and measured debate about how we best serve the victims of crime, and I particularly welcome the proposal to put the victims code on to a statutory basis. As he notes, this is something that the Justice Committee has called for, and the Committee stands ready to assist with any prelegislative scrutiny in that regard.
The Minister is right to flag up the issue of delays and their impact on victims, and one of the key causes of delay is victim attrition, particularly in relation to rape and serious sexual offences. The most important means of tackling that is sustained financial investment in the system, which, as he rightly observes, has been lacking for decades. It was lacking under previous Governments when I was in practice at the Bar, so no one party can claim a monopoly of concern on that. The current settlement is the best for decades, but will he ensure that it is applied to investment in maintaining the courts in good physical condition, maintaining the supply of good-quality judges—both full time and recorders—and, importantly, funding the legal profession properly so that we have good-quality barristers and solicitors available to prosecute and defend these important and sensitive cases. Good-quality lawyers on both sides speed up cases and give a better outcome for the victims.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his sage advice. It is fair to say that on these matters I am keen to have a constructive working relationship so that we can get this right, and I genuinely believe that the Justice Committee has an awful lot to contribute to the consultation process as we shape this policy. He is absolutely right about victim attrition. That has undoubtedly been a barrier to securing the greater numbers of prosecutions that we would all like to see delivered. Of course, section 28 will play a really important part in delivering on that, informed by the work on the trials of that technology that we have seen previously.
Independent sexual violence advisor provision is also important, and engagement with ISVAs has a significant role in helping victims to sustain their participation in the criminal justice system and in bringing perpetrators to justice. My hon. Friend also makes an important point about courts, and my hon. Friend the courts Minister has heard what he said. The £477 million injection that we are making in that regard is also important.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Jackie Wileman was on her daily walk when she was killed by four men who were joyriding a stolen heavy goods vehicle around Barnsley. Those four men had a hundred convictions between them, one had previously killed by dangerous driving and one was in the probation system. The judge gave them the maximum sentence of 14 years but said he would have liked to have given more.
Jackie’s brother Johnny has bravely campaigned on the issue of sentencing for dangerous driving, on which I welcome action, but Johnny and his family feel completely let down by every part of the system. Will the Minister outline how things would be different for Johnny under these proposals?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Lady is a strong advocate for her constituents, and she raises a very difficult and tragic case in her community. I am sure the whole House’s thoughts are with the family and friends of her constituent. It is important to say that we are taking action on this issue through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which I am sure she will welcome, to take sentences from 14 years to life.
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I warmly commend my hon. Friend for his statement and the consultation document. As he will know from when he was my departmental Whip, a lot of the language in this document is familiar to me. I am pleased about that, because it is with a proper seriousness of purpose and a sense of acknowledgment of inadequacy that we have to approach this issue.
I put on record my thanks to Emily Hunt, the independent adviser on victims. I appointed her and worked well with her, and I can see her hand in this excellent document.
Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, when this consultation finishes—and in the spirit of what he said about cross-party working, which is hugely important—we will have prelegislative scrutiny to get this once-in-a-generation Bill absolutely right for the future?
Tom Pursglove
I am fond of my right hon. and learned Friend, and I thoroughly enjoyed working with him. He made a significant contribution during his time as Lord Chancellor, and it undoubtedly shifted the dial considerably on many areas of policy in relation to the criminal justice system. He was consistently passionate about victims and wanting to see genuine improvement for them. It is fair to say that his hand is most definitely on this work, and I would never want to disregard the very good work that has been done previously. I am grateful to him for everything he has done in this regard, and I look forward to his participation in the consultation. I share in his remarks about Emily Hunt, and it is our intention to have prelegislative scrutiny to allow Members on both sides of the House to scrutinise and help shape the plans.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
As the Minister knows, the Home Affairs Committee has also taken a great deal of interest in these matters. I welcome his statement on the intention of Ministers to make these changes to the criminal justice system to benefit victims. I am especially pleased that he mentioned the scorecards that will help spread best practice to areas that are not doing as well as they could and are basically letting down victims. Why does there not seem to be a specific strategy to tackle gender-based violence? That does not seem to be in this package as clearly or as up front as it should be. When will we get something on that?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive tone of his question. The tackling violence against women and girls strategy, which was published in July, is fundamental to the work in this area. Separate from this session, I am sure Ministers would be happy to talk to him so that he can further understand our work in this inevitably important area.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I very much welcome the Minister’s statement, which emphasised the need for victims to be at the heart of the criminal justice system. I know from my experience as a magistrate that it can sometimes be difficult for victims to fully understand the sentences passed in the courtroom. Does he agree it is important for magistrates and judges to be very clear about how long will actually be spent in prison, or about how a community order will both punish and rehabilitate offenders?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend takes a real interest in these matters, and he has also been a tireless campaigner in this space. I am grateful to him for his contribution.
Transparency is always important, which is precisely why we are introducing the justice scorecards so that people can see more about the work that is happening and the state of play as it stands at any given time. For the reasons I set out, we want to drive improvement not just on a national level but in the local context. I hear my hon. Friend’s point, and I will gladly take it back. We should keep under constant review what more we can do to be transparent so that victims know exactly where they stand.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I visited Woolwich Crown court on Monday to meet the judges, and I saw the excellent work they are doing to keep the system running through these very difficult times. One point they made that echoes the points raised by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) is that they need more recorders and more qualified barristers—there is a problem in identifying the number of barristers needed to keep the system going. They also need covid funding to continue beyond the end of March, especially as we face this new variant. Jurors have no choice other than to be in court, and the court has had to create a safe environment. Some of the funding will disappear and some of the facilities will therefore have to be got rid of. Can we look at covid funding to ensure we keep the court system going and to ensure juries are looked after in court?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for talking about his experience of visiting his local court. It is important to point out that we are increasing the number of recorders, and of course we work in close collaboration with the judiciary on these matters. Ministers, as would be expected, have a strong working relationship with the judiciary to understand the needs that exist. Again, we are investing £477 million in court recovery.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank the Minister, my parliamentary neighbour, for his statement, and I congratulate him on his work on the new victims Bill. Residents in Kettering want to see fewer victims of crime and more criminals in jail paying for their crimes. As well as the national effort to help victims, what work is he doing with the Northamptonshire police, fire and crime commissioner to get more localised support for victims in Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour, who is ever innovative in his questions. It is fair to say that many leaflets have gone out over the years with both of us on them to campaign for more police officers out on the beat catching criminals and deterring crime, which is exactly what we are delivering and what people in Corby and east Northamptonshire want.
We have an excellent police, fire and crime commissioner in Northamptonshire, Stephen Mold. I would urge Stephen to take part in this consultation and to get across the experiences and issues of victims in Northamptonshire so they can be reflected in this work and so we can get the policy right for residents in Northamptonshire and across the country.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As a former police officer trained in the handling of sexual offences, I know very well that victims must be at the heart of the criminal justice process. Allowing victims to prerecord evidence is a key part of that, and it already happens in Scotland. The Home Affairs Committee discussed the section 28 pilot last week, and concerns were raised in evidence that barristers and recorders have been unable to take on cases because the system is not sitting well alongside the standard court process. I am grateful for the outline of how the Government intend to implement section 28 further, but will the Minister advise me on what impact this feedback is likely to have on the roll-out?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the section 28 reforms, and she is right that the reforms are pivotal to helping victims to come forward and to give their best evidence so we can secure prosecutions. She will appreciate that we are consistently discussing these matters with the judiciary, who, obviously, have a significant role in implementing this policy. We will make more detail on that known as the roll-out progresses, but I can assure her that these angles are being looked at closely and those discussions are ongoing.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome this statement. On Tuesday, my hon. Friend said that the consultation was imminent, and he has been true to his word. Does he share my concern, however, that the definition of “victim” within the victims’ code is pretty restrictive, unlike the situation in other jurisdictions, which I touched upon on Tuesday? Will he ensure that as we go through this consultation process the voices of those who have not traditionally been regarded as victims are heard and that as the code moves into statute we do much better by them, so that their situation, and the trauma and tragedy that they go through, through no fault of their own, is mitigated?
Tom Pursglove
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. We had a good debate on Tuesday evening, at the end of business, on these matters, and I look forward to meeting him to discuss this in greater detail. One key issue that I raised in responding on Tuesday night is that there are always needs that we need to look at. It is important that these matters are considered on a cross-government basis and that the support in place for individuals in the many different circumstances they find themselves in, particularly the mental health support, is kept under constant review. I encourage him to take part in the consultation and makes his views known.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement today and I hope that we are able to deliver more justice for victims, because being a victim is for life. It is important to bring personal circumstances to the House, in order for people to understand the situation. In my case, the person who was responsible for the death of my daughter in a hit-and-run accident was sentenced to prison, and so got a custodial sentence, but of course they are eligible for home detention curfew. So this is not just about what happens before and after; it is about what happens throughout the whole process. We got a phone call from the probation service about this home detention curfew process, but it was transactional. I am not criticising the people involved or the system per se, but it was a transactional process. We got no guarantee that we would be listened to, as we were in relation to a victim statement—we got no guarantees that we would be taken into account at all. So it is important that that point is incorporated in this: that victims do have the formal right to be heard even after the actual court process itself.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing his personal experiences to the House this afternoon. That must have been incredibly difficult to talk about, and I can only imagine the impact that that whole experience has had on him and his family—it is truly heartbreaking. I wonder whether he might be willing to meet me to discuss this in greater detail. The point I would make is that I always expect the criminal justice agencies to be engaging with people in an incredibly sympathetic and understanding manner. I would appreciate the opportunity to understand a little more about his experience, so that we can try to make sure that that never happens again and that any issues are dealt with properly. I look forward to meeting him to discuss it.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
As my hon. Friend will be well aware, child sexual exploitation is, sadly, an undeniable problem in my constituency. So I am very pleased that the Government are launching this consultation, on a Bill that puts supporting victims of these horrific, horrendous crimes at its heart. Will he explain what further support the Government plan to provide to victims of these horrific crimes, particularly via the independent sexual violence advisers and other services that help those who have experienced child sexual exploitation?
Tom Pursglove
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a vociferous champion on these matters on behalf of his constituents. He raises an important issue through his question. Of course, ISVAs are very important in this work, which is why we are committed to increasing considerably the number of ISVAs that are available to support victims. It is also crucial to point out that, as well as the baseline national provision that we help to support, there are of course opportunities for police and crime commissioners to supplement that work, based on local circumstances and local need. I am sure that he will be making his views known as part of this consultation work, as he has a really valuable contribution to make.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the commitment to providing additional means by which victims can present their evidence in the courtroom. Does he agree, however, that we need to cast the net a little wider, in order to ensure there are additional means for certain victims to report crimes in the first place? I recall from my time many years ago in local government the success of third-party reporting centres, which were there to ensure that crimes that may otherwise, for a whole number of reasons, go unreported do get into the system.
Tom Pursglove
I thank my hon. Friend for that question on this important issue. The Government are clear—and I know that all Members of this House echo this message in their communities—that it is so important that people come forward and report crimes where they exist, in order that we can have a very accurate picture about the state of play in individual communities and ensure that the right resources are directed at those challenges. I have mentioned this previously, but we want more police officers out on the beat catching criminals and deterring crime. That accessibility to the criminal justice system—that confidence that is given as part of visibly seeing police officers out on the beat—is fundamental to confidence and to delivering on reducing crime. He raises a number of important points through his question, and I will gladly ensure that the Minister for Crime and Policing is made aware of what he raises, but the message that must go out is that people need to come forward to report crime where they find it and experience it. If my hon. Friend has suggestions to make, through the consultation, on how we can do better on reporting, I would be appreciative if he would make them known.
Point of Order
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your assistance and guidance on how more formally to place on the record thanks to advisers and other officials who helped me during my time in office. I did pay tribute to one adviser earlier, but it has prompted me to ask a more general question about whether there is a mechanism that could allow me and other former ministerial colleagues to properly, and in appropriate circumstances, place such thanks on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. I note that he seeks, rightly, to put on the record certain things he wants to say, and it is possible that he has just done it. It is not unheard of for those who have left ministerial office to make a personal statement. There are various other ways in which he can draw attention to the gratitude that he wishes to express, but I think that in many ways he has achieved his goal. It is very nice to have a pleasant point of order. [Laughter.]
Women in the Armed Forces
Defence Committee
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Sarah Atherton will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call her to respond to those in turn. Front Benchers may also, of course, take part in questioning. I call Sarah Atherton to speak on behalf of the Defence Committee.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a real privilege to be able to give this statement to the House today, on behalf of the Defence Committee. First, I wish to put on the record my interest as parliamentary patron for the veterans’ charity Forward Assist.
In July, the Defence Committee published a report on the lived experiences of women in the armed forces and female veterans. The intention was that, on publication of the report, we would come to the House and give a Select Committee statement on its findings and recommendations. However, as the report was released during recess, the decision was made to delay the statement to the House until the Ministry of Defence responded. Last week, we received a 40-page response from the MOD, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for this statement, which gives me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Defence Committee.
I wish to acknowledge the people who, over the past 18 months, made the report happen: first, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who graciously relinquished his chairmanship of the Sub-Committee, allowing me to chair the inquiry; secondly, my colleagues on the Defence Committee, who showed continual commitment and support throughout the inquiry; thirdly, the Committee staff, including the chief Clerk Mark Etherton and the Committee specialist Lucy Arora, who have been a pleasure to work with; and, finally, Rachel Varley, my parliamentary researcher, who spent many days at my side reading and listening to some very sobering evidence.
I thank the Secretary of State for lifting the defence instruction notice to allow servicewomen to speak to the Committee, which is normally forbidden. That illustrates the Secretary of State’s dedication to our endeavour. Thanks to that decision, just short of 10% of the female serving population came forward to give their accounts. I put on the record my most sincere thanks to the 4,106 women and veterans who completed our survey, in addition to the 76 pieces of oral and written evidence that we received. The inquiry happened thanks to all who contributed, and the credit is theirs.
Let me quickly outline the report, its scope and our recommendations before I address the response from the Ministry of Defence. The inquiry looked at the whole military life cycle of a servicewoman, from recruitment and retention to the transition to civilian life. The scope of the inquiry was therefore vast. I have limited time so I shall focus on four main themes: recruitment and retention, especially in respect of those with families; the role of the chain of command in overseeing complaints; the service justice system; and, finally, the issues that female veterans face when they transition to civilian life.
Incredibly, 90% of women would recommend a career in the military, as I would. However, when things go wrong, they go dramatically wrong. I and the rest of the Committee were shocked to discover the volume of women who told us that they had experienced bullying, harassment, intimidation, discrimination and worse: serious sexual assault and rape. In fact, 62% of the women surveyed said that they had experienced abuse while serving. One of the big issues was how the lodging of a complaint coloured their military careers going forward and how the complaint had a legacy that impacted on the rest of their lives.
The Committee made 35 recommendations; I will not run through them all, but I will explain a few of the key areas. First, we recommended that for complaints of a sexual nature, the chain of command should be entirely removed from the complaints process. The reason for that recommendation was that in some extremely harrowing cases the perpetrator was also the commanding officer, with servicewomen unable to escape the environment where the assault took place or avoid the perpetrator.
We also recommended an increase in the independence of the complaints and investigations processes, which should move away from being managed within the unit where the alleged incident occurred; a central defence authority, which should sit outside the single services, to deal with complaints; that the decisions of the service ombudsman be binding; and that cases of serious sexual assault, rape, murder and manslaughter be removed from court martial jurisdiction and heard in civilian courts.
Servicewomen reported to us failings in kit, uniform and equipment—including body armour made for men, helmets falling below their eyes and no sanitary products available on operations—that have huge impacts on operational effectiveness. We recommended that be rectified so that women have suitable kit that enhances rather than inhibits their combat ability.
On retention, most women who leave the Army do so after returning from having children. We recommended policies to improve family and personal life, including the swift roll-out of wraparound childcare to all bases and all services by the end of 2022, and a more flexible working environment.
On veterans, we recommended more recognition for women who have served. Of all the veterans and armed forces charities in the UK, there is only one that deals solely with women veterans: Salute Her in Newcastle. I wish personally to thank Paula Edwards, who runs the charity, for giving evidence to the inquiry and then supporting the extra 147 new referrals—in addition to the 1,800 women she currently supports—as a result of the inquiry.
Let me outline the MOD’s response. First, I put it on the record that the Secretary of State was two months late in issuing the reply. However, I forgive him as he has agreed to most of our recommendations. Crucially, the MOD has agreed to remove the chain of command’s remit from complaints of a sexual nature. That is hugely transformative and will improve the service for women currently serving and for those who serve in future. One question that I have for the Minister and hope to address in this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate is how it will all work in practice. The devil is in the detail. I need confirmation that if a servicewoman is sexually assaulted, there will be a reporting and investigating process that is completely outside the chain of command, so that she can continue to work without fear of repercussion.
The MOD has also agreed to make the complaints system for non-sexual offences more independent by employing an outsourced investigations service. However, ambiguity remains over the alternative reporting mechanism and just how involved the chain of command will be in complaints relating to harassment, bullying and discrimination.
The service chiefs will be commissioning a six-month sprint to look at women’s health needs and uniforms. In fact, some months ago, prior to the publication of the report, the MOD announced the roll out of sanitary products for all those on operations and more choice on hairstyles—I am reliable informed that one style is called “battle braids”. I am pleased that the MOD is already making changes in those areas. Such changes have huge impacts on the day-to-day living of women and their sense of being valued, recognised and listened to.
I was disappointed that the MOD refused to accept the recommendation to remove rape from military jurisdiction and to place it into civilian courts. The Secretary of State and Ministers know the strength of feeling on this issue and the evidence to support the recommendation is clear for all to see.
In many ways, the Secretary of State went further in his response to our report, which is most welcome. I am pleased about the aspirational target of having 30% women in the armed forces by 2030, showing ongoing commitment to our servicewomen. Having liaised with our equivalent committee in the United States, I am pleased that the Secretary of State has committed to scoping an international conference next year, to look at best practice and progress as the world is waking up to the issues faced by women serving in the military.
This report has taken almost 18 months of work and is the first time that the issues faced by women in the armed forces and female veterans have been examined in this way. The inquiry gave them a platform and their voices have been heard. As a veteran, it has been an honour to chair the inquiry. I commend this special report to the House.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) on chairing a most extraordinary exposition of some of the most profoundly disturbing issues that women face not only in modern life but specifically in the armed forces. They are a credit not only to their constituents and to the Committee but to women who seek a role in the armed forces.
On the cultural change that is required across the forces, which is mentioned in the report, does my hon. Friend agree that cultural change is also required specifically among the officer corps and that that should not be based on gender? Critically, around the Army Servicewomen’s Network, we should ensure equity of representation for younger women and for Black and minority ethnic women in the armed forces, and not only reflect the upper ranks who, frankly, seem in the report to be part of the cultural problem at the heart of this devastating investigation.
Sarah Atherton
I thank the hon. Member for his question. He has been extremely supportive throughout this work, and, like me, sits on the Defence Committee. He is quite right: we both identified that we needed to make sure that the voice of the junior ranks was equal to that of the senior ranks. I know that the Ministry of Defence has referred back to the women’s defence network, and I have assurances from the Secretary of State that there was junior rank representation on that Committee. As far as leadership is concerned, the MOD has introduced a raft of initiatives around leadership. Performance assessments have been adapted to make sure that underperforming officers are sanctioned with a process that makes it easier to get them removed from their positions, but we, the Defence Committee, will keep a watching brief on this.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has done such an amazing job. It proves the importance of scrutiny and what can be done with a sub-Committee, and it was a pleasure to participate. It was also quite shocking to hear some of the evidence from across all three services. We have now opened up all appointments to women across all three services, but, clearly, there is a lot more to do. The fact that we got a 40-page response from the MOD is significant and shows how seriously the work is being taken. I ask the Minister to consider this question of taking serious offences out of the military courts and into civilian ones, and I say well done to my hon. Friend for standing firm on this belief. The Justice Lyons report also said that this view should be recommended. I understand that the position cost my hon. Friend her Parliamentary Private Secretary’s job. I hope the Whips will recognise why she had to stand firm, and that it will not be too long before she is back into that post. I say well done to her. I am pleased that we are able to explore these matters further in the Westminster Hall debate this afternoon.
Sarah Atherton
All I can say to my right hon. Friend is thank you very much.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I also congratulate the hon. Member on leading this report. I have just a couple of questions. The Government’s response to the Committee’s report says that many women do not experience harassment, but they are concerned that 11% of women in the services faced sexual harassment last year. Sexual harassment, particularly in the workplace, is under-reported. Does the Committee consider the Government’s statement a fair one, or does it agree that that statistic may not be reflective of the reality?
Secondly, one thing that comes through is the hard work that the RAF has put in to making its force a more welcoming environment for women, and it is clearly a priority. Does the Committee agree that the RAF seems to be a front-runner in the forces in addressing concerns, and has it considered how that could be further honed and implemented across the forces?
Sarah Atherton
I thank the hon. Member for her questions. Based on the evidence that we have received, I absolutely disagree with the MOD’s statement about the level of abuse. Some 62% of our survey respondents had received some sort of abuse. The RAF did the best out of the three services. We had the least amount of evidence coming in from the RAF. This needs to be looked at. It is a younger service. We need to be modelling what it is doing and extrapolating that to the other services. We also have the Wigston review, and I am pleased to say that, in its response, the MOD says that it will give a thorough review of its recommendations in, I believe, 2023.
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her report, which is born out of her own experience in the services. I am sure that the service personnel and veterans whom I represent in Swindon will have great cause to thank her for what she has achieved. In particular, I was struck by the point that she made about the importance of holding the investigative process in a far more independent way. Is that not vital if the capacity of the Service Prosecuting Authority is to be enhanced? One worry I have about moving serious offences into the civilian courts is that that could have the unintended consequence of downgrading the investigative capacity of the Service Prosecuting Authority. Probably the better answer is the enhancement of the reliability, independence and integrity of the investigative process so that we see more victims coming forward and for that reaction to see a rise in the number of cases being brought. It seems that the numbers coming forward are very low, which leads to a vicious cycle of inexperience and poor outcomes for far too many servicewomen.
Sarah Atherton
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question, and recognise that he was the previous Justice Minister. He is quite right when it comes to investigations. Many women told me that the investigation process was almost as traumatic as the incident itself, which then affected their future lives. Many of them were discharged on the back of the incident and the investigation, and then a lot of them had mental health issues and problems going back into civilian life. That is where the problem lies. Looking at investigations, I know that, on the back of the evidence that we provided, the MOD is making a few movements in that regard. With only 16% of cases having any forensic evidence taken, how can we expect cases to get to the courts for a conviction? That in itself is a problem, as is the lack of victim support. I know that the MOD has outsourced its investigations unit and that it is putting in place victim support units. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I warmly commend my hon. Friend for the work that she has done on her Committee and for her report. Her Committee highlights the fact that juggling service life with family life can be hard for all service personnel, but especially for women, who are more often the main care giver, especially for dual-serving couples, and especially against a background of longer and more frequent deployments. Is she satisfied with the Government’s response to these concerns?
Sarah Atherton
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The MOD has had strategies in place for many years around flexible working. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) may have been involved with putting those in place, but some of the evidence that we heard was that, while they were available, they were hard to get. Personnel were denied access to these schemes because of operational effectiveness. Their commanding officers were not granting the schemes. One thing we want to look at is the accessibility of these schemes. There is absolutely no point putting policies, strategies and initiatives in place if they do not make a positive impact on the ground. I know that, next week, the Minister will introduce his family strategy, which I will look at with interest. Most women leave the military after returning from maternity leave, which is a problem that needs to be embraced. I am confident that the Minister is trying to do that, particularly around dual-serving couples.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on this comprehensive and, at times, quite harrowing report. It is a huge body of work and some of it made for quite difficult reading. I was most disturbed by the tenfold increase in cases of rape and sexual assault on the under-18s. Given the Government response to her report, is she confident that servicewomen are safe from sexual violence in their workplace? Furthermore, given that rape and sexual assault will continue to be dealt with by court martial rather than by civilian courts, will she return to this issue at any future date to see whether there has been any increase in the number of convictions as a result?
Sarah Atherton
I thank the hon. Member for her question. The Secretary of State asked the Defence Committee to visit Harrogate to see what it was doing around support for young servicewomen, and we were quite impressed. The MOD has acknowledged that there is a problem, which is a big step in itself. It is one of our oldest, most male-dominated institutions and it has now recognised and vocalised that there is a problem and is putting plans in place around supporting those women, which is a massive step forward. I was quite pleased with what I saw in Harrogate, and I did go with scrutinising eyes. With regard to serious sexual assault, murder, manslaughter and rape being held within the military service justice system, I am disappointed. To me, the evidence was overwhelming. Over this period, the MOD gave us quite a few streams of evidence and statistics, and, quite frankly, I was not convinced by any of them. The last one seemed to conflate two lots of databases, one of which was about conviction rates. The MOD seemed to be quite happy that it was investigating more and was therefore doing better, but I would say if it is investigating more, it has a problem—and my question would be, if it is investigating more, why are more cases not getting to the courts? That question raises concerns about the investigation process, which the MOD has acknowledged, and it is putting plans in place. The Defence Committee is going to be conducting a review of the MOD’s recommendations and progress on them in a year’s time, and I will continue, if permitted, to pursue this issue.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) for her hard work in delivering this groundbreaking report, and all the female service personnel and veterans who took part.
The majority of women in our armed forces have satisfying and successful careers serving our country, and I am pleased to see that most would recommend it to others. The Government, in their response to the report, have agreed to some much-needed recommendations that will enhance this experience further. Commitments have been made on fundamental issues with uniform and equipment, and complaints will finally move towards being independent from the chain of command. I hope that those changes will happen swiftly. However, as has been mentioned already, the report reveals that far too many serving women are still experiencing harassment, discrimination, assault and bullying while serving.
We will have the opportunity to discuss the report in more detail in Westminster Hall this afternoon, but I want to address one of the most important points now. The Minister has said that he will not remove cases on most serious crimes from the service justice system and put them into the civilian courts. In the debate earlier this week, he justified this by arguing that his position allows the victim to choose between civilian proceedings and court martial, and that this is necessary in a small number of cases.
I pay tribute to the charity Salute Her, of which the hon. Member for Wrexham is a patron. When I spoke to the organisation this week, it said that of the 600 victims of sexual assault it has supported, not one has wanted to go through the military court system. I think that the hon. Lady agrees that it is simply not acceptable for the Government to ignore the incredibly important recommendation in this report to ensure that the most serious crimes are heard not in courts martial, but in civilian courts. Does she agree that the Government should relook at this matter?
Sarah Atherton
I thank the hon. Lady for her support over the last 18 months. Obviously, I agree that the Government should look at that issue again, and we will be looking at it as we go forward.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) for this extremely powerful and hugely important report. I look forward to continuing to discuss these issues later in Westminster Hall, but I want at the moment just to put on record my absolute assurance that we see this report as an urgent opportunity and a lever to drive urgent and positive institutional change so that women can thrive and prosper in the military.
Sarah Atherton
I thank the Minister for his response. We will continue to work together.
Backbench Business
Financial Services: UK Economy
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the importance of financial services to the UK economy; and calls on the Government to provide adequate support to help create the right regulatory and operational environment for that industry to ensure that the UK is able to retain its competitiveness on the world stage.
It is a pleasure to lead this debate on the future of the UK’s leading industry: financial services. The arguments about its importance are well known and well rehearsed. The financial services sector is the UK’s biggest export industry by far, with a £78 billion a year trade surplus. In fact, the UK is the biggest net exporter of financial services in the world; we export more financial services than any other country on the planet, including the US, Singapore and all of the EU combined. That means that, as a country, we can afford to import all the smartphones, flatscreen TVs and other manufactured goods that we are so keen on, particularly at this time of year.
The financial services sector adds £194 billion gross value added—that is, it contributes £10 in every £100 of all the UK’s economic output. One in 14 UK workers is in financial services. That is 2.3 million employees, two thirds of whom are outside London. Indeed, this industry really is spread across the country. Scotland has less than a tenth of the population of France, but exports about half the amount of financial services that France does. The financial services sector pays more tax in a year than any other sector—£76 billion in the last year. As the Chancellor pointed out in his Mansion House speech in the summer, that is enough to pay for the entire national police force and school system combined.
During this hideous pandemic, I am glad to say that the financial services sector stepped up to the plate and played a crucial role in keeping the economy going. It lent more than £75 billion in emergency finance to nearly 2 million businesses. Indeed, it lent £101 million to more than 2,000 businesses in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire. To help homeowners, lenders also gave nearly 3 million mortgage deferrals during the pandemic. The financial services sector certainly has played its part in ensuring that the economy has bounced back so quickly. Now, guided by the Government, it is also increasingly playing a critical role in ensuring that we reach net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. From green bonds to climate-related financial disclosures to carbon markets, the financial services sector will help, rather than hinder, in the biggest challenge facing humankind: stopping climate change.
Although we all recognise the importance of financial services, it is not a popular sector. A leading German politician once said to me that it was the great British tragedy—that we do not like our most successful industry. It has often brought that unpopularity upon itself; we all know the reasons, so I will not rehearse them here. It is one of the few industries in which we are genuinely world leaders, but regular surveys of international financial centres show that our crown is starting to slip: London is now usually ranked second to New York; our lead over Singapore and Hong Kong shows signs of shrinking; and our global market share in some sectors, such as insurance and bank lending, is trending down. That is a cause for concern, but not alarm. We can turn the tide, but we need to have a clear strategic objective that the UK should be the world’s leading international financial centre.
The industry is at a major turning point. Financial services policy in the next decade will be very different from financial services policy in the last decade. We are at the beginning of a new era. There are two major reasons for this, and both represent major opportunities. The first is that the wide-ranging reform and reconstruction of the industry in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis has, by and large, been completed. Almost the entire regulation of the industry was rewritten in a tsunami of reforms from both the EU and UK. This absolutely needed to be done to ensure that the crisis could not happen again—to protect taxpayers and consumers—but that regulatory repair job is now largely behind us. We must not forget any of the lessons from it, but we can now pursue a more forward-looking agenda. The Government have set this out in their document, “A new chapter for financial services”, which was published earlier this year and which I very much welcome. It sets out a vision for the UK as a leading financial centre that is open, innovative, competitive, and green.
The second reason that we are at a turning point is that we have left the EU. Clearly, leaving the single market represented a major challenge for many financial services companies—and I think that I am right in saying that not everyone in the industry fully supported Brexit. But leaving the EU has created opportunities to ensure that regulation and legislation is tailored to our national circumstances. We do not have an equivalence deal with the EU, nor, indeed, that promised memorandum of understanding. I actually never thought that such a deal or memorandum was that necessary; it was more a “nice to have”, rather than a “must have”.
There are many other existing legal routes for UK-based financial services companies to sell to clients in the EU, as we are currently seeing. The no-deal scenario that we had in financial services does have the advantage of giving us full regulatory control. There are three fundamental problems with the EU financial services regulation, from a UK perspective. The first is that the necessity of getting agreement from 27 or 28 countries means that it is very inflexible; once a law is made, it is very difficult to change it. Secondly, the EU tends to focus on competition between its members rather than global competition. It is more worried about competition between London, Paris and Frankfurt than between London, New York and Singapore. Thirdly, the EU necessarily assumes a one-size-fits-all approach even though markets in different EU countries often have incredibly different dynamics. In contrast, when we had the chairman and chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority in front of the Select Committee yesterday, they talked about how we can now have a very agile policy regime.
When we left the EU, the Government ensured legal continuity, as they had to, by incorporating all European financial services legislation wholesale into UK law. Now, though, we can take our time to consider what reforms we want both to EU-originated laws and to laws that we adopted unilaterally when we were part of the EU. We must of course abide by global regulatory principles, as set out by international bodies such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the Financial Stability Board, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions, and the Financial Action Task Force. However, those various principles are at a high level and below them lies an awful lot of detail—and we know where the devil lies. We must continue being a beacon of high regulatory standards and resist any temptation of a race to the bottom, but we should also get the details right and ensure that they are appropriate, proportionate, and do not have unintended consequences. There is no conflict between abiding by globally high standards and being globally competitive.
Reform of imported EU legislation will take many years, if not decades, but the Government have made a start. They have completed the Lord Hill review of stock market listings and the Kalifa review of financial technology and adopted their recommendations, which now need to be implemented. We need to ensure that the prospectus directive is made more proportionate. I personally support allowing two classes of shares to encourage investment in start-up companies. The Government are now consulting on regulatory reform of wholesale financial markets, particularly the second markets in financial instruments directive, MiFID II, and the rules on the capitalisation of the insurance market—Solvency II. If we get the reforms of Solvency II right, that promises to unleash productive investment across the UK, especially in high-growth firms. MiFID II and the European market infrastructure regulation are extraordinarily detailed and prescriptive, and could be simplified without harm. Excessive detail can prevent beneficial innovation. We should avoid gold-plating international standards, unless there are clear reasons to do so. Rules on pre-trade transparency can be counterproductive. The share trading obligation can be safely removed.
Some retail legislation, such as on PRIIPS—packaged retail investment and insurance products—is applied to wholesale markets for little purpose. This week on the Treasury Committee, we heard from representatives of the commodities exchange, ICE Futures Europe, that they are required to produce countless retail key information documents for institutional investors who do not want them and will never read them. It was, they said, a pointless waste of time. Retail and wholesale markets are different and need to be treated differently. We should avoid making our rules extraterritorial unless there is a clear reason to do so. The EU often requires all EU-headquartered financial services companies to abide by EU rules wherever they operate in the world, in a deliberate attempt to set global regulation, but the UK should start with the presumption that UK-headquartered financial institutions need only abide by the rules in the markets where they are actually operating, as long as those markets operate by global standards. For example, when trading in the US, the presumption should be that UK financial services companies just need to abide by US rules.
The Government should also consider reforms to the capital requirements directive and regulation. These are the rules that implement the Basel capital rules for banks into EU and then into UK law. The Basel rules are designed for international banks operating across borders, not domestic banks operating just within one country, but the requirements of the single market meant that the EU ensured that the same capital rules were applied to domestic banks operating just in one country as were applied to international banks operating around the world. The UK should consider following the US rather than the EU and not require non-systemically-important domestic banks, such as challenger banks, to abide by inappropriate global capital rules. This could improve competition among banks without affecting prudential stability.
There is also domestic legislation that the UK could usefully revisit. The Treasury is currently reviewing the ringfencing rules separating retail and wholesale banks, which, in part, duplicates imported EU regulation on bank recovery and resolution. The ringfencing rules can lead to very complex and inappropriate governance structures for retail banks that do not have any significant investment banking operations, and it is certainly worth looking at whether that can be changed.
Critical to the continuing success of financial services will be the process by which we make new rules, which the Government are also reviewing. Our financial services rules will no longer go through the EU policy-making machinery. They will no longer be scrutinised in extraordinary depth and amended at length by the European Parliament’s formidable Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which I wrestled with many times, and which was once admirably chaired by the UK’s own Baroness Bowles. There is no way that the UK Parliament has the capacity to replicate that function. Parliament must set the objectives and principles of future financial services regulation, but the details should be determined by the regulators, particularly the FCA and the Bank of England.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I agree that, as we are currently set up, the UK Parliament could not even begin to replicate what the European Parliament did with regard to oversight of regulation, but surely, if we, as a Parliament, were properly geared up with appropriate support, we could.
Anthony Browne
I basically agree with the hon. Member, a fellow member of the Treasury Committee.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
This is a really important point that we discussed in the debate last November prior to the Financial Services Act 2021, which came into force earlier this year. The key point is that we are giving the regulator huge increases of power with almost no appropriate increase in parliamentary scrutiny of those powers.
Anthony Browne
I thank my hon. Friend. That is exactly the point I was about to come to.
This will give the regulators more power, as my hon. Friend said, over issues that will directly affect the lives of voters. That means that they must be made more accountable to voters’ representatives—that is, to Parliament. The Government and the Treasury Committee are considering how that might work, and the Committee has held various hearings on the issue.
One proposed solution is a stand-alone financial services committee such as exists in Washington—the US House Committee on Financial Services, a stand-alone committee that just considers financial services. However, there is a real risk that that would tread on the toes of and undermine the existing Treasury Committee, which must retain oversight of all the Treasury’s functions. Another alternative is a full Committee of both Houses—the House of Commons and the House of Lords—but that would be unmanageable on an ongoing basis. It has worked as a task and finish group, such as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, but it would be very difficult on an ongoing basis. I am coming to the conclusion that the Treasury Committee needs—I totally agree with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) on this—a well-supported sub-Committee, or secretariat, that can do the work in focusing on financial services regulation and holding the newly empowered regulators to account. It could include appointed expert advisers, as well as members from the House of Lords, on an appropriate basis.
Obviously, we would need to agree the governance around that. As the Government have made clear, this is an issue properly for Parliament itself to decide. The Treasury Committee will make its own recommendations in due course. Indeed, if any Members here have other thoughts on it, I would be very interested to hear them.
The regulators themselves are also changing. The Government have proposed giving them international competitiveness objectives, but that must be very much secondary to their principal objectives of financial stability and consumer protection. They must not lose focus on their principal objectives.
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend is right that we must not move away from the primary focus, but does he agree—he made the point earlier on the difference between wholesale and retail—that there ought to be a more balanced view between wholesale regulation and those two objectives if we are to remain a global centre internationally?
Anthony Browne
I agree. I support having a secondary objective of international competitiveness and growth. A regulator could decide on policy A or policy B and, from a UK perspective, it could make no difference in terms of consumer protection or prudential stability, but one could mean that we were more able to compete internationally. We asked the chief executive and chair of the Financial Conduct Authority about this in the Treasury Committee yesterday and they went through the details on how that might affect their thinking. But we absolutely must not lose sight of prudential stability. We have had a crisis once and we do not want it again.
We must maintain our support for innovation in financial services, as long as it brings real consumer and economic benefits. We must ensure that the fintech sector thrives. Creating a digital identity ecosystem, which the Government are looking at, will certainly help. As cryptocurrencies grow, it is inevitable that they will need some form of regulation to protect consumers, but it must be done in a proportionate way that focuses on tackling any harms. It is absolutely right that the Bank of England is exploring central bank digital currencies. We do not know whether retail customers want direct access to central bank funding, but it is absolutely right that we try to find out.
Finally, I want to cast our eyes across the world, and look at international partnerships. We are no longer part of the EU, and we do not know what our future relationship with it will be. As I said earlier, I consider any memorandum of understanding as a “nice to have” rather than a “must have”, and it certainly must not shackle the UK’s new regulatory regime. Any partnership would require both sides to agree it, and there seems little political desire for that at the moment on the other side of the channel. Rather, UK-based banks are worried that the EU is considering ways deliberately to make it more difficult to offer services to their EU-based clients, and we have to keep an eye out for that. That makes it all the more important that the UK forms meaningful partnerships with other international financial centres. I have long advocated a close financial services partnership between the UK and Switzerland, a major financial centre. We share a common approach, a global outlook and pragmatism.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Anthony Browne
I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend and current member of the Treasury Committee.
Felicity Buchan
Does my hon. Friend agree that given their importance to our economy, both in London and throughout the country, we need to ensure that financial services are at the front when we are negotiating trade deals and market access with other countries?
Anthony Browne
I very much agree. I was coming to this point. If we can get those elements into trade agreements, we should aspire to do that. However, often, regulatory agreements between regulators are more appropriate.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to the importance of financial services in trade deals, it is important that we are aware of supporting other professional services that go with them, such as law and accountancy? The legal underpinning and enforceability of our financial services deals is critical going forward.
Anthony Browne
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I have been focusing obviously on financial services, but there is the wider concept of financial and related professional services, including legal services. As he knows far better than me, London and the UK are a global centre for legal services. That is a huge export industry in its own right and we should do what we can to promote that internationally.
I was just talking about the importance of the relationship between the UK and Switzerland. We have a lot to gain by working more closely together. That is why I am delighted that the Government are working towards an outcomes-based mutual recognition agreement with Switzerland. I emphasise that it is outcomes-based because it is pragmatic and we share that pragmatism. Similarly, we can have an ambitious agreement with Singapore and other jurisdictions, such as Japan and South Korea.
I am pleased that the Government are working closely with the United States to remove barriers to financial services trade between us. We have some agreements and we could have more. The Government are doing the same with Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Coming to the point about trade agreements that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) raised, I welcome the agreement in principle on the UK-New Zealand free trade deal, which facilitates cross-border data transfer and recognises the importance of allowing firms to offshore back-office functions. Those are both important for financial services.
We can promote financial services through trade agreements and mutual recognition agreements between regulators to the benefit of both sides. The Government must continue to work closely with our partners through the G7, the G20 and the Financial Stability Board to ensure consistent international standards. As the most globalised of all international financial centres, we are more impacted by global inconsistencies on standards than other jurisdictions.
Sir Robert Neill
My hon. Friend makes an important point about co-operation between regulators and agreements between regulators. Does he agree that that is particularly important in the context of dealing with the United States, where much of the regulation takes place at the state, rather than federal level? Therefore, it is not easily embraced in a straightforward, normal type of free trade agreement.
Anthony Browne
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly valid point. I know that the UK Treasury has spent a lot of time wrestling with the relationships with the United States, which is in many ways almost unmanageable, because it has 50 different state regulators, and the federal regulators answer to Congress, rather than to the Government, so agreements between Governments may not have an impact on the regulators themselves.
In conclusion, we are at a turning point for Britain’s financial services industry. In the past decade, we have faced the major challenges of the global financial crisis and Brexit, and we took the steps necessary to forge through both of those. We can now look forward to a new era of financial services, with new opportunities. We need to make sure that the UK is the undisputed leading international financial centre, both globally competitive and serving communities and consumers across our country, and exporting more, creating more jobs, funding more businesses and paying more tax. That is something we should all welcome.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), who has opened this Backbench Business debate and is a fellow member of the Treasury Committee. He has given us a grand tour of a large and diverse sector of the economy that is, as he pointed out, very important. He also pointed out that it is affected by a range of issues at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman gave us some of his ideas on what should be happening post Brexit with some of the more complex of the EU directives that have been onshored—in particular, MiFID—which have been against the grain of how the UK financial services and insurance industries have always tended to work. He hinted at the philosophical difference between EU regulation in these areas and how the UK more traditionally did it; it is the difference between having principles-based regulation, which is not so specific, and the EU way of doing regulation, which tends to be so specific and puts a lot of those specifics in legislation. When I was in the Treasury and in the Department for Work and Pensions as Pensions Minister, it was a battle that we constantly had with the EU in the Council of Ministers and with the Commission.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
indicated assent.
Dame Angela Eagle
I can see the Minister is nodding, possibly because he recognises some of those tensions, which always existed when we were in the EU.
When we were in the EU, because of the size of the influence of the UK financial services industry as part of that bloc, we had a very good and effective way of pulling at least a lot of the regulation that went on more towards our way of doing things. One of the worries I have post Brexit, which I suppose is a philosophical and practical worry, is that the EU will now go off and do a lot more of the things that we were able to persuade it not to do when we were a member. The divergence between how EU regulation works and how we may wish our future regulation of financial services to work is likely to grow larger.
It has not been a very friendly divorce to date, and there may well be implications to that, too, in terms of competition for business. We have seen some of that in the wholesale markets for euros and we will doubtless see more of it. The outcome of our way of leaving the EU will challenge some of the agreements that we came to and the influence we were able to have when we were inside the Council chambers, the European Parliament and the European Commission, rather than the situation we find ourselves in now. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, that can be an advantage, but it can also be a disadvantage. It is an opportunity, but there are also threats and issues that we have to deal with. We have a sharp disjunction with the recent past, after 40 years of that kind of influence, that we will have to deal with in the coming period. We have the inadequacies of the non-existent deal on financial services, which was part of the EU-UK so-called trade agreement, and those are already having an effect.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we are in a period of rapid regulatory change, which would have been the case regardless of whether we left the European Union. The fact that we have, and the fact that we have onshored all this regulatory machinery, means that we now have to start looking at how we wish to change all of it.
Even thinking about the sheer weight of work and oversight that will have to be done by the Treasury Committee is quite overwhelming, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged in the exchange we had during his speech. The Minister must go weak at the knees when he thinks of the detailed work that he will have to put in to deal with the onshoring in the aftermath of Brexit, and whether we want to move quickly or slowly to adapt the laws and regulations that we have imported.
Members of the Treasury Committee have also gone weak at the knees thinking about how they might have some oversight, because of the highly technical nature of much of that regulation. We certainly need to be significantly more tooled up than we have been if we are to have proper oversight of what the regulators are tasked with doing, what philosophical direction the Government wish to go in, and what the practical aspects of that method will mean for our financial services industry and, of course—they have not been mentioned much—for consumers in the UK and for financial stability.
We should not lose sight of those two basic reasons why we have to get regulation right. Consumer protection is a huge issue in financial services, as the hon. Gentleman touched on when he said that financial services are not always the most popular sector of our economy. Perhaps some of those who supply and form part of the industry ought to stop and think about why that is they case and do some self-reflection about it.
Clearly, financial stability is also crucial in an era when markets are becoming more rapid and more global. In the context of highly rapid technical change, financial stability becomes even more important, because innovation outruns the capacity of many regulators to keep up with what on earth is going on in some markets. Those two important issues have to underpin all regulation; the future of the entire financial services industry rests on them.
Regulatory change in a rapidly evolving situation with a lot of flux is inevitably difficult for those who participate in the market and for those who wish to regulate it. It is also difficult for those such as the Minister who want to see how it can be properly harnessed and allowed to be beneficial to our economy while being safe. It is a period of big uncertainty and flex. New technology has the capacity to change things and lead to innovation, some of which might be fantastic and some of which might be awful. That structural issue has hit us greatly through the innovations of digital currencies.
The systems that control financial services have to deal with the practical and philosophical issues that arise, such as whether digital coins are ever stable, what central banks ought to be doing to deal with that, and whether the wild west of Bitcoin and the rest should be left as a gambling thing on the side. Those markets can be volatile—the wild west—but the capacity of software such as open registers and blockchain, and their potential for transparency and in-time and open trading of all sorts of things, could be harnessed for good purposes as well as for the more nefarious ones that feature on the darker edges of the net. On top of that, the demands of climate change will cause a systemic change in the way that things are valued, priced and assessed for value.
That structural change will completely change the context in which the financial services industry has to exist. In the UK, which is one of the most open economies in the world and always has been, we know how important the financial services sector is, and not only to London as a global centre. In 2020, it was worth £164 billion to the UK economy, which is the third-largest sector by size in the OECD. That is 8.6% of economic output, half of which is generated in London but half of which is generated across our regions. Of the 1.1 million jobs, 91,000 are in my region of the north-west. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out, it is one of the few sectors where we have a healthy trade surplus—£46 billion in 2020. It is the fifth-largest economic sector in our economy, and all the more important for that.
As the hon. Gentleman also pointed out, the sector is important for taxation, with £28.8 billion in tax taken from it. According to PwC, it makes up £75.6 billion, or 10% of the total receipts. In the face of such change—technological, structural or the disjunction of Brexit—any Government would want to see how they could remake the environment in which the financial sector can operate and flourish to benefit and protect the sector so that it can benefit and protect our economy. We certainly all have a stake in ensuring that that is the case.
In that area of flux, we have to remember that the regulators, although they could be powerful, are struggling with an increasingly complex and fast-moving environment that they are not always geared up to deal with in detail or to keep on top of. We have seen the travails of the Financial Conduct Authority and how it manages the perimeter, and philosophically the view of caveat emptor—that the buyer should beware in all circumstances. When things go wrong, the reputation of the entire financial services sector is at stake, so it is a difficult balance.
The Financial Conduct Authority gave evidence to the Treasury Committee yesterday, some of which reflected how difficult it is to try to remake a regulator after scandals such as London Capital & Finance, at the same time as operating within all the extra complexity and uncertainty. It has a formidable task. I suspect that being chair of the FCA is one of those jobs where people are told that, if they do a stint, they will get the diplomatic equivalent of the Washington embassy as a reward. The current Governor of the Bank of England is one example of that.
The FCA needs to be strengthened. We as policy makers, and the Minister in particular, have to think about how it can practically do the job. The job cannot be so big and complex that it is undoable. Sometimes, the way that the FCA has to cope means it is difficult for it to achieve a balance and be given a job that it can sensibly do. We know there is a big turnover of staff at the FCA at the moment, and that there is workplace stress and unrest. We know that the head of the FCA is trying to transform that organisation into what he calls a lean organisation that can respond very quickly to what is going on in the market and in the areas it has to regulate. I am not convinced that it has that balance right yet, and I am not even convinced that that job can sensibly be done without more support.
I want to deal with a couple of areas that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire did not touch on. These are what I would call threats to the reputation of the financial services industry in this country. First, I want to talk about economic crime, which I think poses a threat to the entire sector and its integrity if it is allowed to get out of hand. We know that there are rising levels of economic crime, fraud and scams that have been turbocharged during the lockdown. The sector itself has survived covid and the lockdown pretty well so far, because it could manage remotely—it does a lot of its work remotely in the first place—but one of the things we have all seen, unfortunately, is the rise in fraud and scams. We have also seen, and perhaps it is inevitable when it is one of the biggest global centres of financial services, that London has attracted the attention of international criminals and fraudsters who wish to launder their money through cities like London. We know that, as a major financial centre, it is a target for all of these kinds of people.
The Intelligence and Security Committee, in its Russia report, which was suppressed for far too long and was finally published after the 2019 general election, said that London is considered the “laundromat” for corrupt money. We have seen that kind of magnet effect, which is extremely disturbing, and I do not think that we have yet really got a handle on it. There are regulatory failings, there are legislative failings with the structures we have to try to deal with this, and there are certainly enforcement failings of the laws that we do have.
Sir Robert Neill
The hon. Lady makes some very important points, particularly that last one. Does she agree that now we have left the EU and therefore, regrettably, left some of the justice co-operation measures we had, it is all the more important that we seek, bilaterally and in a broader sphere, to improve and strengthen international judicial and legal co-operation on the admissibility of evidence, rendering of suspects and, above all, dealing with digital evidence being obtained in other jurisdictions and then made available to prosecutors and the courts in the United Kingdom?
Dame Angela Eagle
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished Chair of the Select Committee on Justice. He is also a practitioner himself, so he knows about the practicalities of these issues. It is hard, in contemplating the extra work that has to be done because of Brexit, to know quite where one starts, but if we do not get it right and if we do not get on with it, this terrible reputation of London having become a laundromat for dirty money will only persist and perhaps get stronger, which will do us untold damage. I urge the Minister responding to this debate to give us some words of comfort that he is getting on with the economic crime strategy. We have an economic crime strategy—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I have been very lenient on timekeeping this afternoon because we have plenty of time and not very many speakers, and I have been particularly lenient because she is the only representative of the Opposition Back Benches. However, she is in danger of taking a very large chunk of time: she has spoken for about 20 minutes, which is longer than the person who introduced the debate. I wanted to keep such a balance, so I am not stopping her, but I am hoping, in the interests of being fair to everyone, that she will soon draw her remarks to a close.
Dame Angela Eagle
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to do so. I suppose that, when one gets let off the leash away from debates with three-minute limits, all the words just come tumbling out, but I would not want to take more than my allotted time.
I hope the Minister will be able to give us some words of comfort, particularly that he will be taking fast action to establish a beneficial ownership register and bring some transparency to what is going on in respect of financial crime.
Finally, I want to mention the issue of the model all too often pursued by some of our financial services, and this is a final philosophical point perhaps. All too often, complexity is seen as an end in itself in our financial services, and as a proxy for competition and a proxy for innovation, when in fact it is merely an excuse for opaque pricing. That makes it difficult for average consumers who want to put their money somewhere, make money, protect their money, or get a reasonable return on their money, and who find it too complex to do so. I do not believe that this is serving customers well, catering, as it does increasingly, for just a few at the top of the earnings distribution rather than the many who have smaller pots of money. I hope that the Minister will reflect in his response about what might be done to reverse that trend. With that final observation, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to draw my remarks to a close.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you. I hope that we do not have to have a time limit this afternoon. If everyone takes about eight minutes, there will be no need for one. If that does not happen, I will have to put on a time limit.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
It is an honour and a privilege to follow the two speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). Both of them gave us philosophical, intelligent and really interesting speeches, and I noted that both of them made the point that financial services as an industry perhaps do not get the respect or the renown they probably should have.
I was reflecting on that when I heard the remark my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made about the German who said financial services are not recognised. Why is that? I think it is probably for three particular reasons, yet when we look at the contribution to the UK economy, we should really be shouting out against that. The first point is that, for all too many, when we say financial services, they think of banking. They forget all the related professional services, notwithstanding the subdivisions—indeed, financial services themselves are more tightly defined—and just concentrate on banking. They think back to the financial crisis and all the attendant problems that my hon. Friend so rightly pointed out.
The second point is that, when we say financial services, people may expect the hon. Member for Wimbledon to stand up, but they should expect the hon. Member for Wallasey to stand up as well. Although, understandably, financial services account for 16% of London’s total gross value added, the reality is that in the north-west the industry is 6% of the regional economy, in the south-west it is 6%, in the west midlands it is 6% and in Yorkshire and Humberside it is 6%. The smallest contribution of financial services anywhere in the country is actually the east midlands, and that is 3%, but it is none the less 3% of that regional economy. So we should be standing up and saying that this is a UK-wide industry.
The third point—with complete respect to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, who is establishing his reputation for being perhaps the best City Minister we have ever had—is that there are one or two at the top of this Government who have occasionally thought that fishing was more important than financial services. If one says that the total contribution to the UK economy of financial services was £67.4 billion last year, and for fishing the number is so small it is not worth talking about, correcting that and looking to that in the future would underline the point about the power of financial services. As has already been stated, there is a huge trade surplus.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire talked about the opportunities and the hon. Member for Wallasey talked about the threats from the EU. It is none the less true that during our membership of the EU we established ourselves as the world’s global financial centre, and whether we like it or not 40% of UK financial services exports still go there. So my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will know that in those very complex negotiations—I will not repeat what has already been said about them—we must have a sensible, diplomatic and economically viable dialogue with our nearest and dearest neighbours.
The tax contribution has already been mentioned several times, and the hon. Lady made the point that PwC estimates that £75.5 billion, or 11% of Government receipts, come from the wider financial and associated professional services sector, including insurance and legal. So there cannot be any doubt that this is a hugely important industry and a powerful industry for the UK, and if we want a globally successful Britain we need a globally successful, renowned and well-regulated industry. It is noticeable that in the last few years we have very slightly slipped in the global financial centres index to second place and we must recognise that there are threats as well as opportunities from leaving the EU. It is of significance that on the first trading day of this year we lost £6 billion of activity out of London, and that is a continual threat. So I say yet again not only that we need those important negotiations to be conducted in a manner that is to London’s benefit but that we equally need to recognise of course that the threat is also now once again from New York, Switzerland, Singapore and Hong Kong. In the global alliances that we strike in financial services it is perfectly possible to recognise that, with some economic diplomacy put into deepening regulatory engagement, we could find ourselves in a powerful international regulatory alliance with the Americans, the Swiss and some of the far-east countries. Andrew Bailey some years ago when I was serving on the Treasury Committee raised this as an opportunity we should consider. Building those new trade and investment ties, and underpinning international agreements with financial services, is key to a globally successful Britain.
I want to briefly talk about two other points. First, as has been said, there is a difference between wholesale regulation and retail regulation. The Financial Services Act 2021 says that the Financial Conduct Authority must have regard to the relevant international standards and the effect of the rules on the UK’s international standing. That is hugely important, particularly in wholesale regulation where we hope to ensure that the UK is an international powerhouse. I accept that that will always be a secondary objective of the rules and the obligations on the regulator, but it must not be deviated from. I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will set that in place. In terms of the history of regulation in the UK, a large number of people think the system, while rightly seeking to ensure extensive consumer protection, has come at the cost of overspecification for the wholesale markets to no benefit at all and to the diminution of our standing.
The other point has also been raised, but it is important. The 2021 Act has given a huge increase in power to the regulators in a way that we have seen with very few other regulators, by which I mean the lack of scrutiny in this House. I note that the financial services document “Future Regulatory Framework (FRP) review” has come out and it talks about this, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire referred to evidence to the Treasury Committee. Because of the importance of this industry to the country, I urge the House to consider very carefully establishing a Select Committee of both Houses or indeed a standing sub-committee of the Treasury Committee. I do not accept the argument that several have put that there is not the expertise or capability within this House, or that this House is not able to get the necessary resources and capability brought into it to undertake that proper and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
Finally, in the last minute of my speech I want to talk about two other matters. We have talked a lot about the past and what financial services has done, but it could do a lot more to help in what this Government and this country want to achieve. If levelling up means anything, it means bringing opportunity to the regions of this country. Financial services is already a powerful industry in the regions of this country, and bringing in those high-paid, high-value jobs also brings in skills. We should be doing all sorts of things to encourage that, not necessarily just within Government; universities should specialise in master’s degrees in financial capabilities and regulation. We should be focusing heavily on developing the UK as a centre of financial skills. That way we would not only drive UK levelling up but bring the talent to make London and the other global centres of this country into the powerhouse of financial services.
Finally, the Government have done a huge amount of good work already in delivering the net-zero economy from financial services. Financial services can do much more in that area; all sorts of things, particularly using the tax system, have been done already, but we can do much more, and the financial services sector must play its role to deliver that objective.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond).
I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the three sponsors of today’s debate for bringing this topic to the House for discussion. The UK’s financial services are a huge asset and truly world class. The UK’s sector is the third largest of the OECD countries in terms of its economic output. Recent rankings put London’s financial market as the second most competitive in the world, only narrowly beat out by New York. It is therefore unsurprising that even within the UK London holds the lion’s share of the glory. The city’s contribution to the UK economy for the sector accounts for 50% of the sector’s economic output, but, interestingly, Scotland ranks just behind London and the south-east; it is a very well-established financial centre. So while London might sit firmly centre-stage, contributions from across the UK should also be celebrated.
In fact, Scotland has a rich history as a thriving financial hub, one that spans over 300 years. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland was the world’s first professional accounting body, established in 1854. The Chartered Banker Institute—or as it was originally known the Institute of Bankers in Scotland—was established in 1875, making it the oldest banking institute in the world. Today there are around 84,000 jobs in the sector in Scotland, and around 2,000 businesses. The FinTech industry is growing too, with many firms looking to establish homes in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Many cite the excellent provision of local skill and talent as the reason for wanting to do so. It is attractive to foreign direct investment, too.
Like so many of the UK’s industries, the financial sector has not escaped unscathed from the realities of Brexit. Financial services were largely overlooked in the trade and co-operation agreement, so provisions are relatively sparse. According to the Financial Times, there are 90 mentions of financial services in the agreement, but variations of the word “fish” appear 368 times. In December last year the sector lost passporting rights and we moved into market access determined through equivalence. The deal we came away with was not a good one and, as expected, many businesses moved to other European financial centres where they have access to the single market. Jobs and business have been lost and perhaps still will be, but we will not know the true impact for a long while yet.
The sector’s economic contribution is substantial, as we know. A recent study showed that Scottish businesses had an average profit margin of 7.5%, above the UK average and second only to London. Financial services are a big part of the reason that average is so high. The sector’s profit margin in Scotland is 13.6%. Its tax contribution is impressive too, at £28.8 billion in income tax, national insurance, corporation tax, bank payroll tax and the banking levy last financial year. That is 4.1% of all taxes collected last year.
What is next? How do we build on what we have and mitigate the impact of leaving the single market? The Government’s answer seems to be deregulation, although industry experts seem to be not wholly in agreement about the impact that will have. I would be interested to hear what discussions the Minister has had with the sector about deregulation, and how that has informed the Government’s strategy. Have the Government considered the argument for reregulation—a reshaping of the current framework so that it is more suitable—rather than deregulation?
Financial services policy remains reserved to the UK Government, and I urge them not to overlook the sector’s prominent Scottish presence as they review and reform their policies in a post-Brexit context.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in such a well-informed and thoughtful debate.
First, on the contribution of the financial services sector, I do not want to repeat what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) and others about the tax paid, the growth or the jobs, but I want to bring up something that has not yet been discussed: the contribution during the acute phase of the covid pandemic in 2020, when about £75 billion was facilitated through the UK financial services sector. To illustrate what that means, in my constituency, which does not have a huge number of businesses compared with many other constituencies, over £100 million was facilitated through the financial services sector for businesses. That is a practical demonstration of the positive impact that the financial services sector can have on the lives of our constituents.
Competitiveness has been mentioned by many Members. I support what the Treasury want to do in adding growth and international competitiveness as a secondary obligation for the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority. I support the action in the Budget to reduce the bank surcharge on banks in particular. Had we left the surcharge where it was, from a tax perspective, it would have made the UK one of the most expensive jurisdictions in the world in which to operate a bank, and that is not in the UK’s national interest. I support the work that the Hill review did on listings, the general approach to public markets, the share trading obligation and the double volume cap. On a lot of these technical things, I think the Government are in the right place; we are going in the right direction, we are doing the right things and, as many others have said, the Minister is doing a great job.
On ringfencing, I will make a confession: before I came to this House, I spent some time at HSBC, where I worked in restructuring, and I had a lot to do with ringfencing. I can say from bitter personal experience that it is deeply complicated. It was well intentioned, but a review is overdue. I am glad that the Government are going to look at it. I ask them to look not just at whether ringfencing has done a reasonable job so far, but at the asymmetry of how it is imposed on UK-domiciled banks compared with our competitors, including the sheer complexity and cost associated with it, not just in terms of compliance and what we think of as regulation, but in terms of the IT systems, where people are and how the buildings operate. It costs a considerable amount of money and a huge amount of focus for big banks such as HSBC, Barclays and others. Without prejudging the outcome, I think that review is critically important.
Let me pick up something that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) said about trade deals. The Government, and indeed the country, are right in pursuing our strategy on trade internationally, looking beyond Europe and seeking to strike as many good trade deals as we can across the world. We need to make sure that those trade deals are best in class. What I think of as a best-in-class trade deal today, in the modern world, has to include services, and it has to include financial services and other professional services, not just because that is a good thing for this country but because the nature of modern international trade is increasingly moving towards services rather than goods, particularly for advanced western economies such as our own.
We have a great opportunity to pioneer that at an international level. In particular, our regulators must seek to have many more regulator-to-regulator exchanges across the world as part of those trade deals. A lot of the regulations that are in place for financial services often happen at sub-national level, so it is so important that our regulators do that. I am sure those regulator-to-regulator exchanges will be very good fun indeed for all concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who is very experienced in these matters, talked about levelling up and about the positive regional aspect of the financial services sector and the jobs it creates outside London and the south-east. I completely agree, but I think of levelling up as not so much about levelling up places as about levelling up people. It is about people’s opportunities. Alongside all the technical work that we have already talked about, with regulations, ringfencing, the double volume cap, listing, public markets, prospectus directives and all that stuff, the financial services sector needs to do more—and I think it can do more—on levelling up in the United Kingdom.
What does that look like for the financial services sector? It means the industry doing more on alternative routes into the sector—apprenticeships and others. It also means the industry doing more not so much to provide more jobs outside London and the south-east, although that is always welcome, but to help to develop regional clusters around Edinburgh, Leeds, Bournemouth and various other places. There are significant numbers of financial services jobs in those places, but what more can the industry do to develop those regional clusters to give more opportunities to people from all over the country and from different backgrounds?
Let me briefly mention debt advice for those who have found themselves in problem debt after the covid pandemic. I think we all recognise that, for some people, debt has grown significantly. I think there is more that the industry can do to work with people with problem debt and help them get out of that situation, with the help of the legislation that is already in place.
Finally, if my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) were here, I am sure he would talk about small and medium-sized enterprises and access to finance. I do not want to steal his thunder, but we must think about SMEs getting access not just to debt but to equity finance, and about ensuring that underrepresented groups of entrepreneurs—often ethnic minorities or women—get more and better opportunities to raise funds for their businesses. That is the skillset—the core determinant—of a financial services sector: providing funds for people to realise their aspirations as individuals or as part of a business.
I will be doing some more work on this in the new year, as the Minister knows, but I urge the sector to do more on the levelling up agenda in its broader sense, in addition to working with the Government, with me and with colleagues, including the people here, on the technical regulatory aspects that are critical for our international competitiveness.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
This has been a really valuable debate, and I hope that it gets as much publicity as it ought to get. I hope, too, that the sector gets as much publicity—and as much credit—as it ought to get.
The sector is massively important to my constituents in Bromley and Chislehurst, as it is in much of outer London. In my constituency, financial and professional services together account for over 36% of the workforce. The sector is by far the largest driver of jobs and of prosperity overall in our area. Of course, we must consider not just the jobs in the City or elsewhere in London, but the other jobs that the income from that work supports elsewhere in the employment chain, and the growth of other businesses in the area. The sector is critical.
It is also worth stressing, yet again, the diversity of the sector. We talked in particular about its overall contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) said, we often think of the sector in terms of banking. Distinctions are rightly made, which I know the Minister is well seized of, between wholesale and retail, but other sectors in financial services such as insurance contribute something like £30 billion to the economy on their own. The London insurance market is massive, and has a very high reputation in both insurance itself and in reinsurance. It is vital that we include access to insurance products in any free trade deals, and keep regulation appropriate and proportionate.
London’s other great strength is the nexus of the financial services sector with other supporting professions, including the law. I declare an interest here and refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Legal services are themselves worth some £60 billion to the UK economy and are a net contributor to the UK’s balance of trade. So many of our financial services instruments, from derivatives right the way through to other types of contracts down to trading mechanisms, are underpinned by legal services and by the reputation of the United Kingdom as a jurisdiction of choice, because of its reliability, legal certainty and the expertise of its legal community. That is backed up by the accountancy sector, too.
As we go forward looking at free trade arrangements and regulatory deals, which I think we will have to have for the reasons that have been well set out, it is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that the whole basket comes together and contributes overall to that cluster of excellence and critical mass, which so far has given us a great competitive edge. We cannot take that for granted, and that is why some of us were troubled at the lack of reference to financial and professional services generally in the trade and co-operation agreement. We have to build on what we now have and this is a very good example of that.
Reference was made to regulatory reform. The opportunity, for example, that the insurance industry suggested for two specific reforms to solvency II would be of considerable benefit. I hope the Minister will be able to update us on progress on that. Perhaps, too, we can have an update on where we are with the actual implementation of the outcomes of the Kalifa and Hill reviews, and where we are, for example, on the movements that are freeing up and easing listing, to which I know the Government are already committed, and where we might be on variable classes of shares to encourage different types of listing on London markets.
The other point I want to make on legal services and future co-operation echoes the point made by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). In maintaining London’s reputation as a reliable and honest jurisdiction, it is important that we bear down on the risk of economic crime. That cannot be done in isolation. Sovereignty takes us only so far when it comes to fighting international organised crime, so it is absolutely critical that, having regrettably lost access to some of the European Union justice and policing mechanisms, we find ways to replicate them either bilaterally or perhaps through future agreements as we, I hope, develop a more constructive relationship with our European partners than is perhaps the case at the moment. It is in nobody’s interest that we have a permanent state of tension between two such significant markets on the world stage. Including legal co-operation is massively important, certainly on the justice side and stretching that out into other jurisdictions, too.
As the Minister has heard me say many times, it is regrettable that the European Union is taking a needlessly obstructive approach to the United Kingdom’s application to join the Lugano convention on the enforcement of civil judgments. It wrongly argues that it is a single market mechanism. I think the Government are right in saying that it is not a single market mechanism. It is entirely separate and this is a regrettable product of the tensions we have had. I hope the Government will not give up on that and will also look at workarounds with other, non-EU countries to maintain high levels of recognition. The enforceability of any contract, including a contract for financial services, is absolutely critical to our remaining the jurisdiction of choice.
My final point is on the contribution the City of London Corporation makes in areas such as green finance. A huge amount is being done. The City Corporation, with the Government, provided the seed funding for the first three years of the Green Finance Institute. That, of course, has been involved in building coalitions of private finance actors. The most obvious of those is the Coalition for the Energy Efficiency of Buildings. The work of the City Corporation in such areas, and in bringing forward and helping to promote and organise a bespoke platform, the Green horizons summit at COP26, shows the innovation of the financial services sector and the City as its great champion.
It was a pleasure to welcome the current Lord Mayor and the Remembrancer of the City to this place only last week at the inaugural reception of the all-party parliamentary group for London as a global city. That co-operation is as important as the way the City has sought to champion the bringing together of professional expertise. The Minister will know, and I hope will never cease to value, the work of organisations such as the Financial Markets Law Committee. It probably has more legal and financial expertise brought together in one room than we will find anywhere else in any developed economy and perhaps anywhere on the globe. Its reports are of the highest quality. It is chaired, as we know, by a former Lord Chief Justice and has a range of high-ranking professionals. I hope that the Government will continue to listen carefully to their suggestions on how to keep regulation proportionate and deal with a system that gives us good access to markets across the globe, while at the same time dealing with the necessary prudential measures from the point of view of the UK economy.
On that note, I hope we can recognise the financial services, and their allied and supporting professions, as the jewel in the crown of the British economy and emphasise that repeatedly whenever we get the chance to promote the UK abroad. We should also promote them to our own constituents and fellow citizens because they do not always get the credit that they should.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who speaks with great knowledge on these matters at all times.
Like the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), I started my working life in financial services. I started out working in the small but perfectly formed share registrars department of the Bank of Scotland, which was taken over by Lloyds TSB. I swiftly moved over to work for Scottish Widows, which, a few months later, was also taken over by Lloyds TSB. I decided that, since Lloyds TSB was clearly so keen to have me on its payroll, it would be churlish not to spend at least the next few years working for them, so that is what I did.
I started out in what was called the quality assurance department. We talk about the diversity of jobs in financial services. In plain English, it would have been better described as the complaints department because, if you wrote a letter or phoned up demanding to speak to the chief executive because your pension fund was not performing quite as well as you anticipated, you spoke to me, or somebody like me, in that department. I am not entirely certain whether it was good training or not for being a Member of Parliament and a councillor, but I have never felt the worse for the experience.
Each day, my colleagues and I went in to provide products and services for a wide range of people, at all different ages and stages of life, as they tried their best to prepare, hedge and insure for various happy, not so happy and inevitable events that we all encounter in our lives. We were not alone in that in Edinburgh because Scottish Widows was one of many life insurance and pensions firms in the city, a legacy of the more than 300 years of Scotland being recognised as one of the leading, most innovative financial centres in Europe.
That industry could not, and would not, exist if it was not for the high quality of life that people can enjoy outside work, for the quality of the public services that underpin that quality of life, and, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, for the significance and importance of our professional services that underpin the sector. It could not survive if it was not for the support of Government and the quality, experience and adaptability of the workforce. We should not be in the least bit shy about saying that; we are exceptionally good at this and we should advertise that and remind ourselves of it regularly.
Scotland is the second largest financial services cluster in the UK outside London. Financial services are also one of the largest sectoral contributors to the Scottish economy at 9.4% of gross value added, which is equivalent to £13 billion. It employs more than 160,000 people directly in financial services and the related professional services; that is nearly 6% of Scottish national employment. Financial services also represent a disproportionately high share—25%—of UK employment in the life assurance sector and 13% of all banking employment. Together with the professional services sector, that accounts for 40% of Scotland’s services exports. The industry has disproportionate scale and scope.
Another emerging area is FinTech, in which Scotland is also emerging as a leader second only in scale and scope to London—again, we are the second largest outside London. The Financial Services Advisory Board, chaired by Scotland’s First Minister, established the need for an independent organisation to try to maximise the FinTech potential in Scotland. It provided £250,000 to try to leverage additional business contributions and academic contributions to achieve the goal of having Scotland in the world’s top 10 recognised international FinTech clusters.
FinTech is a tremendously exciting development. It is certainly a disrupter, but it is also an enabler. This is part of a landscape on which we have trodden with confidence for centuries. We have centuries of experience and a reputation in this fast-moving environment for probity, trustworthiness, quality and excellent performance, but it is all founded on people and their skills.
In that regard, Scottish Financial Enterprise’s five-year strategy, launched earlier this year, takes on a particular importance. It has four key objectives, including leading us on a journey to net zero, inspiring global leadership in green finance and supporting the transition to net zero. It sees a role in supporting our financial recovery post pandemic. It is about responding to changing customer needs, delivering innovative and, above all, inclusive products that meet the evolving needs of all customers. And to go back to the point made well by the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, it is also about delivering skills and inclusion, enabling financial services firms to recruit, develop and retain that pipeline of talent and high-performing, diverse skills that we need to continue with a successful industry.
These are challenging times on a number of fronts for the financial services sector, whether on an economic level, a political level or simply a regulatory front. I am reminded, however, of the history of the organisation that I went to work for, Scottish Widows, which was founded out of the tumult of the Napoleonic wars. Although I am sure that we would all very much prefer never to go back to that sort of degree of conflict and tumult, nevertheless, financial services have shown themselves to be remarkably adaptable and able to rise to the challenges that they face, whether that means meeting their customers’ needs and expectations or dealing with the world around them.
We may have a head start in financial services, but there is nothing to guarantee that, unless we continue to invest, innovate, and above all, talk up the provenance and importance of this vital industry.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who is not in her place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) for securing this very important debate. Not for the first time, I agree with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) that this has been a very valuable debate, and I hope that it gets the exposure that he mentioned.
Labour wholeheartedly agrees that our financial services are central to the British economy. Our financial services sector is a major driver of our country’s growth. It contributed an incredible £132 billion to the economy in 2019. Financial services are also the UK’s most successful export and have been for decades, worth £60 billion in 2019 alone.
The contribution of the sector will be vital to the UK’s future prosperity. As the OECD recently warned, the UK’s economic recovery is at risk. Earlier this week, the CBI downgraded growth forecasts to 5% as we are surrounded by inflation and supply shortages, with the CBI director general warning that businesses will face
“a cliff edge in 2023.”
Supporting the financial sector to thrive will be fundamental to our economic growth after covid-19 and to delivering the higher growth, jobs and tax receipts that we need to fund public services. That is why we want the Government to do more to support the sector to retain its competitiveness on the world stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey spoke about how regulatory stability is the foundation for success and innovation in the financial sector. I agree wholeheartedly with that point, which has been made a few times by Members across the Chamber.
We know that the most serious issue threatening stability for financial services today is the post-Brexit regulatory environment. In government, Labour would focus on making Brexit work for the City as well as for the country. I think everyone in this Chamber will be pleased to hear that Labour does not want a rematch—we not do want to reopen negotiations, before any headlines start to fly—but being outside the EU does not change the fact that for many firms in finance it remains an important market. In 2019, an enormous 40% of UK financial exports went to the EU.
We have heard a lot about getting Brexit done, but what we want from the Government now is a proper plan for the aftermath. Regulatory equivalence for the finance sector should have been a priority in talks with the EU, but the Government have failed to achieve that. We feel that the sector is in a state of uncertainty now.
In my role, which I took on recently, I listen to the concerns of our world-class financial and professional service businesses. That is why Labour would seek regulatory equivalence with the EU for financial services and an agreement with the EU on mutual recognition of professional qualifications and conformity assessments across the entire sector. A Labour Government will build on the deal in the national interest through the mutual recognition of professional qualifications for our service sectors. We cannot risk our financial firms losing their competitive edge in the European market.
Labour would protect the UK’s status as one of the most important global financial centres as we shape a new future outside the EU. To achieve that, as Members across the Chamber have recognised, the sector must be ready for the challenges of the future. That will require the Government to provide the space and regulatory landscape for financial services to innovate. That is why Labour wholeheartedly welcomes developments in FinTech, which many hon. Members have mentioned and which will allow companies to experiment with new finance models and create high-skilled jobs for the future across the UK. Deloitte estimates that, with the right support, FinTech could add £3 billion to the economy and create more than 50,000 new high-skilled jobs.
The 21st century requires the Government to play an active role in ensuring that the UK can take advantage of new technologies. Labour would award far more public contracts to British businesses, such as a young entrepreneur who has established a FinTech start-up in Newcastle, as opposed to handing them to overseas firms.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that the biggest challenge facing the UK is the climate crisis and the transition to a green economy. I also agree with him that the Treasury Committee needs proper support, because it is the most important Committee in the House. Labour has committed to £28 billion a year of capital investment every year until 2030 to support the green transition.
We believe that the financial sector has a vital role to play in attracting green investment. Many innovative companies are already recognising their wider responsibilities. For example, Lloyds, which has been mentioned, is providing discounted financial support for investment in dairy farms to reduce their use of energy. This is a welcome step, but the transformation of our economy will require radical action from the Government. We want to see more ambition in the Government’s announcements on green bonds. Labour would seek to make the UK the green finance capital of the world. That is why we have called on financial institutions and FTSE 100 companies to produce credible climate transition plans by 2023.
The financial sector should serve the people of this country wherever they happen to live—a point that has been echoed by Members across the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) both spoke about the importance of recognising the contribution that UK financial services already make beyond the City of London. The sector in Leeds, Birmingham, Edinburgh and everywhere else provides a significant contribution to our national economy.
However, in the past 10 years, regional inequalities have widened. Growth in the financial sector has not been felt equally across the country. In 2019, the financial services sector contributed more than half a million jobs in London and the south-east. That should be celebrated, but there were only 43,000 jobs in the sector in the east midlands and 24,000 in the north-east.
We have heard a great deal about levelling up in recent months, and I think that we can agree with much that has been said about it today. The hon. Member for Wimbledon talked about the UK being a centre of financial services. He also talked about a powerhouse of financial services, and that is what we want to see in this country. The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), who has left the Chamber, talked about levelling up people, and Labour shares that ambition.
Our recovery is fragile following the shocks of the pandemic, and our economy is much in need of a boost after a decade of low growth. The financial sector will be critical in delivering the prosperity that we need. I therefore welcome this important debate about the need for the Government to support financial services to enable them to retain their competitiveness on the world stage. I agreed with the hon. Member for Wimbledon when he said that it should not be just him and me standing up and speaking about this important topic; Members throughout the House should be standing up and speaking about it.
Let me end by asking the Minister a couple of questions. Does he accept that his Government should find an agreement on regulatory equivalence with the EU for financial services, and does he agree that UK financial services should be at the heart of all our future trade negotiations to help build a positive future for this crucial sector?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government. It has been an extremely well-informed debate, and I have enjoyed listening to all the contributions. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for sponsoring the debate. They were absolutely right to point out that the financial services industry is critically important to the United Kingdom’s economy, and to champion the UK as an environment that ensures that the sector is able to retain its competitiveness on the world stage.
I discerned five themes as I listened to the debate: the response to the pandemic, the issue of levelling up, green finance, the context for our international relationships, and regulation, about which there have been a range of comments across the wholesale and retail sector.
I have been the Economic Secretary for nearly four years, and in that time I have come to recognise the vast economic contribution that the financial services industry makes to this country—we have heard a great deal about that today—but I have also observed the many hidden contributions that it has made, which have been particularly clear during the pandemic. On the frontline, bank staff have kept branches open and supported vulnerable customers at times that have been very worrying for them financially. In the back offices, people have rolled up their shirt sleeves and worked all hours with us and the regulators to deliver tens of billions of pounds of emergency loans. I have already thanked the industry publicly for what it has been doing, and I am delighted to do so again today at the Dispatch Box.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) mentioned the £100 million of loans and other support in his constituency, and that has been replicated across the country. The bounce back loans, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and the forbearance measures were critical at what was a critical time for our country.
I recognise and acknowledge the sentiments about the financial services industry not always getting a good press. This is not just about banks, although they are critically important for the underpinning of lending to our economy. However, I think we should also recognise, as the Scottish National party speakers did, that the industry is not just about the square mile but about the whole United Kingdom. I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) a few weeks ago to see the bank hub that is active there and informing the industry’s response to the challenge of access to cash.
In places such as Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Merseyside, this industry is critical. There is not an equitable distribution across every region, but there are hubs of real significance. Two thirds of people employed in the industry work outside London: 37,000 in Northern Ireland, 69,000 in Wales, and 153,000 in Scotland. I am proud that the Government have used that imperative to headquarter our new national infrastructure bank in Leeds and to establish our new economic campus in Darlington.
The sector has also made significant progress on diversity and inclusion, so that the very best people for the job have an equal opportunity to succeed, no matter what their race, gender or background might be. There is a lot more work to be done in that area, and I commend the incoming Lord Mayor of London for his championing of that agenda during his tenure.
I want to address some of the points raised by Members during the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) for his kind words, his focus on the importance of the regional agenda, and his challenge to ensure that we have opportunities across the regions. The opportunity to secure high-paid, high-value jobs beyond Wimbledon and across the United Kingdom is a real imperative. I draw his attention to the Kalifa review into FinTech that was published at the beginning of March, and to the money secured and announced in the Budget for the centre for financial innovation and technology, which will be a key driver of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) mentioned levelling up and also raised some specific concerns about debt advice. I draw his attention to the work we have done with the breathing space scheme, which went live in May. I recognise the uncertainty around the maps and the reprofiling of face-to-face and online debt advice. I am taking a close interest in that. We are also trying to innovate when it comes to no-interest loan schemes, which are at the proof of concept phase and could make a massive contribution to assisting many vulnerable people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) put a stark statistic before us when he said that more than 36% of his constituents worked in financial services and the broader legal and professional services sector. It is a critical sector for our economy. The financial services sector also has a crucial role to play in our response to climate change. The ambition is clear: we want the UK to be the best place in the world for green and sustainable investment. As a Government we have taken bold action in this area to transform the UK financial sector. That has involved introducing new economy-wide sustainability disclosure requirements for businesses, and the kick-starting of a green financing programme with two record-breaking sovereign green bonds: one for around £10 billion on 21 September and a further £6 billion on 21 October, achieving a “greenium”—a premium on what we would have gained from a non-green bond—of around 2.5 base points. We will not be complacent about this. We also need global action on green finance, and the Chancellor recently hosted the COP26 finance day, which saw financial firms with assets of over £130 trillion committing to net zero.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst also drew attention to the role of the City of London Corporation in green finance, and I absolutely endorse his recognition of its contribution and in particular that of Catherine McGuinness, who has been the policy lead through most of my tenure. She has done an excellent job, and her tenure comes to an end next spring. As I have said, the Lord Mayor is also committed to taking on his predecessor’s leadership in that area.
Looking ahead, it is important that we do not rest on our laurels, as the motion recognises. There are obviously strong competitive pressures in the industry, and it is my mission to help to deliver the Chancellor’s vision for an open, green and technologically advanced financial services sector that is globally competitive and acts in the interests of communities and citizens across the UK. In his speech on 1 July, the Chancellor said that we should be proud that people around the world looked to this country for leadership, and we should be. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to lead the world on international standards, FinTech, green finance and much more.
When I took on this role in January 2018, the nature of the international relationship that the UK would have in financial services was uncertain. We have now left the EU institutional framework and, where it makes sense to do so, we are taking advantage of our new freedoms to refresh the UK’s position as the world’s pre-eminent financial centre. We are not deregulating, but we are looking at those international relationships. We have set out a clear, ambitious programme of work to broaden and deepen those relationships. We have signed trade agreements with Japan, Singapore, the European economic area and the European Free Trade Association, and reached agreements in principle on free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand.
I recognise that in many of these free trade agreements, financial services will not be as prominent because the regulator-to-regulator dialogues that exist on an ongoing basis are so instrumental in unblocking opportunities on both sides in financial services. The Swiss mutual recognition agreement, which we are negotiating at the moment, will be the most ambitious financial services agreement globally in both breadth and depth.
I recognise the uncertainty of the EU relationship. We have co-operated fully, and it will be for the EU to determine what sort of dynamic it wishes to have. I was pleased to visit my counterparts in Madrid last week, and I met several bank leaders over there. The warmth that exists towards the UK in financial services is clear, and I have recently had conversations with other bilateral partners.
We need a regulatory framework that is more agile, that avoids politicisation and that gives decision making to the independent and expert regulators. I take the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon on the need to ensure proper scrutiny of that autonomy. I recognise and appreciate the support for the secondary growth and competitiveness objective that we set out in the consultation, and it is now critical that we clarify in legislation how the responsibility of scrutinising those independent regulators will work. It will be for Parliament to determine how to examine the way in which those regulators meet the objectives we will set out in primary regulation.
Members mentioned a number of initiatives concerning the wholesale markets review. I see broad consensus on the vast majority of issues identified in the consultation document. We are talking about incremental changes informed by deep dialogue with industry.
On the prospectus regime review, I am delighted to say there was extensive support for the proposals in our recent consultation, and I look forward to pushing ahead with our reforms. We are taking forward the recommendations of the Kalifa review on FinTech. We must remain at the cutting edge of technology and innovation in financial services. I recognise that its application both to the regulators and to the financial market’s infrastructure will be significant.
We have responded to the call for evidence on insurance and Solvency II, and we are now working closely with the PRA to identify an optimal reform package across both the risk margin and the matching adjustment. This is complex work, but we are taking it forward with enthusiasm.
It seems to me that the House is largely in agreement on two things. The contribution of the financial services sector to the country is critical, but we cannot take it for granted, and I will never do so in my role. I am proud to be delivering on the Government’s vision for an open, green and technologically advanced financial services sector that is globally competitive and acts in the interests of communities and citizens across the United Kingdom.
I welcome the many varied and well-informed contributions this afternoon. I agree with the motion, and I encourage others to do the same. It would be remiss of me not to welcome the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) to her place as my shadow, and I look forward to discussing these matters with her in future.
Anthony Browne
Madam Deputy Speaker, you were in the Chair on Monday night when we had a rather fractious debate on a different subject, and I think we all agree it is a nice contrast to have a debate on which there is such wide agreement.
To the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), you mentioned a couple of times that you agree with me on a couple of things, and you almost sounded surprised. To the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who also sponsored this debate, I agreed with almost everything you said.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Please say “she said”, not “you said.”
Anthony Browne
This has been a well-informed, thoughtful and good-natured debate, and it was great to hear the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) talk about the importance of financial services to Scotland—I also made that point.
Many hon. Members raised points that I did not mention in my opening remarks. The hon. Member for Wallasey mentioned the importance of financial crime, which I thought about mentioning, and she is right that it is a big challenge we need to tackle. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) spoke about the importance of legal services and related financial services, which are all part of a package. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) talked about the importance of getting the right skills and talent, which I did not address but is obviously completely true. And my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) touched on the importance of access to EU markets, which is critical and unknown at this point. It was good to hear the remarks from the Minister in summing up; it is great to hear that the Government are clearly very supportive of the financial services sector, committed to getting international agreements and making incremental changes that we can all agree on.
I have one last observation to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon talked about the Minister being known as the one of the best City Ministers ever. I agree with that, but it is a misnomer calling him a City Minister because, as he said, and as everyone else has said, financial services are important for the entire country. So perhaps we need to change the informal name for that job. This has been an important and thoughtful debate, and it is nice to be part of a debate where there is a large consensus on the way forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the importance of financial services to the UK economy; and calls on the Government to provide adequate support to help create the right regulatory and operational environment for that industry to ensure that the UK is able to retain its competitiveness on the world stage.
Consular Support for British Citizens
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets that the consular services provided by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to bereaved families of people who have been murdered, have died in suspicious circumstances, or have been imprisoned or tortured overseas have fallen short of the standard reasonably expected; notes that access to justice and basic standards of assistance are dependent upon a person’s ability to pay; is concerned that there is no legal right to consular assistance and that support is provided on a discretionary basis, which can lead to unpredictable and inconsistent communications from the FCDO; further regrets that consular services in the UK are below the level of support UK citizens should expect; believes that the FCDO’s focus is on what it cannot do to help, rather than what it can do, which adds to the trauma experienced by victims; calls on the Government to improve and standardise communication processes at the FCDO, to publish consular procedures and policies and to revisit the findings of the Fifth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service, Session 2014-15, HC 516; further calls on the Government to consult with the families affected and to raise the standard of how British citizens are treated by FCDO procedures; and urges the Government to set a world leading example of how a state treats its citizens in their darkest hour of need.
It is a great privilege and pleasure to move this motion on a very serious issue: consular support for British citizens. If the Chair will allow me, I would like to share the experience of someone whose loved one died abroad. You’ve gone to Paris for the weekend. It is your husband’s birthday and you are going to celebrate. You get to Paris and you’re having a lovely time. Your son and daughter and their partners are with you. Between the restaurant and the hotel, your husband is attacked at random. He didn’t see it coming, none of you did, and he was so brutally beaten that he was taken to hospital and put on a life support machine. Your son and son-in-law were also attacked and taken to the hospital. You arrived at the hospital to find you could not understand the language. You were asked to sign a document but it wasn’t in English. You couldn’t read it and you were panicking as it related to your husband’s care. You’re in shock. It’s night time. It’s dark. What do you do? You decide to call the British embassy—they’ll know what to do. But it’s closed because it’s Saturday night and not open again until Monday.
Monday comes and your husband’s life support machine has been turned off. You didn’t get a choice in the matter. The rules are different in France to the UK. You are devastated. Your husband, whose birthday you were coming to celebrate, has been murdered. You manage to contact the embassy on Monday, and they tell you they’re sorry to hear what’s happened but they can’t help you and you’ll need to find a lawyer. They agree to send you a list though, and you get a piece of paper with some names in French and phone numbers. You ring the first one. You try to explain your husband has been murdered, and the lawyer on the other end tells you he is too busy to take the case. Your daughter calls the next one, and they ask for €1,000 up front and all documents in the case. You go to the hospital, where you are handed a report, but you can’t read it because it’s in French. You call the embassy, who say they don’t deal with translation and you’ll need to organise that yourself.
You go to the police station, where no one can tell you what will happen next and whether the criminals who attacked your family will be traced. You tell them what happened, and are asked to sign a document that you can’t read. You ask for a translation, and they cannot help you. You need to get back home because you can’t afford to stay. You don’t want to leave your husband and your son, because he is still in intensive care. Someone pleasant at the embassy agrees to drive you to the airport. They tell you that that’s not part of their job description and they’re doing it as a favour because they feel sorry for you, but please do not mention it to anyone.
You get back to London. Queuing for the flight check-in, you have two suitcases: yours and your husband’s. When you get to the desk, you are told there will be a charge because you have extra luggage. On the flight, someone from the airline announces, “Welcome on board. We hope you enjoyed your trip.” You get home, you call the Foreign Office. Someone asks you to explain what’s happened, and you give them the details and have to re-live it all. They say they aren’t the person who can help but someone will ring you back tomorrow. The next day, no one phones.
You call back and get someone else who asks you to go through the story again. They ask whether you had insurance and whether you plan to get the body home or not. If you do not have insurance, you will have to find the money for repatriation yourself, but you will need to speak to a funeral director about that, and they will send you a bereavement pack—“What’s your email address?” After you have called your insurance company, you call the funeral director to go through organising repatriation. Imagine for just a second that you do not have insurance and instead have to set up a crowdfunding page to ask any generous members of the public for enough to get your partner back so that you can have a funeral.
You were due back to work on Monday. You do not know what your own name is or what day of the week it is, let alone are able to go to work, so you arrange to see your GP, who signs you off sick. You cannot work and your husband was the main source of income in your household. The French lawyer is asking lots of questions and spending a lot of time on your case, and you want justice, so there are legal fees, travel and a lot of stress and trauma ahead. You feel so alone. This cannot be right.
You are at home now and you are watching the news of a young girl who has fallen from a balcony in suspicious circumstances overseas. The news presenter says, “We asked the Foreign Office for comment and they said, ‘We’re assisting the family at this difficult time.’” You wonder what assistance they are getting that you are not. You decide to set up your own charity to ensure that families are supported in future. It is too late for yours, but God forbid some other poor family has to suffer this alone. Let us make sure this does not happen again.
Murdered Abroad was set up in 2001 by Eve Henderson. Death Abroad You’re Not Alone was set up in 2013 by Julie Love, whose son Colin tragically drowned in water that was deemed safe off the coast of a Venezuelan island. The Kirsty Maxwell Charity was set up by my constituents Brian and Denise Curry, Kirsty’s parents, who want to help others who suffer such a traumatic loss of a loved one abroad. The Lucie Blackman Trust was formed after the brutal attack on Lucie Blackman in Japan in 2000. The Jessica Lawson Retreat was set up by her family as a retreat for those bereaved after Jessica tragically drowned on a school trip in France in 2015, and they continue to campaign on water-safety issues. The British Rights Abroad Group was set up by the families of Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe and Matthew Hedges to campaign for and represent the families of those held illegally abroad.
All those are services set up by families who are devastated by the loss or incarceration of a loved one, and they are now plugging the Government’s gaps. They do incredible work, and I pay tribute to them. There will always be a place for such charities and organisations, but they should not have to be picking up the pieces of a Government’s failings.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member’s powerful speech, but I thank her for securing this debate. She knows very well the case of my constituent, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, having spoken in support of her release in several debates. The hon. Lady may be aware that the Government granted Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe diplomatic protection in 2019, but three years on almost nothing has been done to use the protection that was bestowed on her to bring her home. The Government have been unwilling to assert their right to consular access to Nazanin, to challenge Iran’s unlawful behaviour at the International Court of Justice, or to use their right under the Vienna convention to request private consular meetings with the Iranian regime. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government risk undermining the UK’s diplomatic protection by failing to utilise it in my constituent’s case?
Hannah Bardell
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and pay tribute to her work on behalf of Nazanin, Richard and their family. I wholeheartedly agree with her and will address some of those points in my speech.
The experience that I just shared with the Chamber is just one of the many devastating accounts that I have heard since I started to work on this issue. Let me take a moment to thank the Backbench Business Committee and all who will speak today and who have supported this work. I give thanks to Eve Henderson of Murdered Abroad, to Julie Love of Death Abroad You’re Not Alone, to Redress, to Miles Manning, to Stewarts Law, to the British Rights Abroad Group and to all who have contributed to the preparation for today and who, in their own ways, advocate for different parts of the broader issue we are debating.
I also thank, if the House will indulge me for just a moment, my constituency team, who have worked tirelessly on this issue. When we set up the all-party group on deaths abroad, consular services and assistance, we did not deploy an organisation to support us because we felt the issue was too sensitive, so my own team has taken evidence and worked on this issue. I thank Marcus Woods, Sabrina Rossetti, Chloe McLellan and Adam Robinson, and specifically Stephanie McTighe, my chief of staff, and Michelle Rodger, my former comms manager. Michelle passed away from cancer in August this year. She believed passionately in this work and in this issue. She is much missed by all in my team.
When we founded the all-party group and took evidence from more than 60 families and 30 organisations, Michelle was very much at the heart of this work. She sat in on every session, diligently recording and taking note of the devastating experiences and making sure that they were properly reflected in the report that we wrote and published at the end of 2019. Why did we do that? It was because, like all Members across this House, I have constituents who have been left devastated by the murder, suspicious death, incarceration or loss of a family member abroad. In their time of most desperate need, they face a lack of support from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
Julie Pearson was killed in Israel in 2015 and Kirsty Maxwell was killed in Benidorm, Spain, in 2016. They were two devastating constituency cases of young women taken in their prime in the most distressing and violent ways imaginable and the families were left without the support they needed. The families coming forward to get support highlighted the issue to me. I come to this debate and indeed these issues genuinely in the spirit of co-operation, as a critical friend. I genuinely want to work with Government to make the system better for families, consular staff, civil servants and all those whose lives are touched by this issue. It is those families who are really at the heart of the all-party group’s work. I thank all of them for the time that they have spent with my team and me. They have given evidence and shared their traumatic experiences, and they live with a huge gap in their lives.
Family members of those who are killed overseas without travel insurance to cover repatriation are, in many cases, left to crowdfund to repatriate the body of their loved one. Every time I see one of these crowdfunders pop up, my heart sinks because I just know, from having spoken to the families that we have worked with, what they are facing. If a loved one is murdered overseas, it is estimated that it could cost anything up to £60,000. Criminal injuries compensation is available only if the murderer was in the UK, or unless the murder abroad was by means of a terrorist attack. To be clear, there are around only 300 suspicious deaths abroad every year. Obviously, that number has been significantly different recently because of the pandemic, but as things open up—or do not open up, depending on where we will be—we have to recognise the challenges in front of us.
The House and those watching may be interested and glad to know that terror attack victims are given an immediate payment of around £3,000 and then, I believe, more payments further down the line. Repatriation is handled and paid for by the Government. I recognise that we have not taken evidence from victims of terror attacks, and I understand that many have raised concerns with the level of support in what we can only imagine are some of the most devastating of circumstances.
From the many families that we have spoken to, we have heard of spiralling costs because of the need to pay for the translation of documents, the cost of legal representation, accommodation and travel. Dame Vera Baird, in her 2019 report, “Struggling for Justice”, raised many of these issues and the need for financial support for victims’ families.
I ask the Government to please ensure that murder victims overseas get parity with terrorist victims and that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is amended accordingly. If we can provide those services when someone is killed in a terrorist attack, why can we not offer them to those who are killed in suspicious circumstances abroad? Those services are there, let us extend them. I ask the FCDO and the Ministry of Justice, which fund the victim support homicide service, to please make transparent the assessment about who gets help and what that looks like, because, at the moment, families fall down the gaps of eligibility far too often and are re-traumatised by the process of just seeking help. The FCDO states in its guidance:
“There is no legal right to consular assistance. All assistance provided is at our discretion.”
It does prompt the question, given that these are our citizens—our ain folk—why would we not offer that service on a mandatory and consistent basis. What are the arguments for not offering it? The former Minster for Asia, Mark Field, said:
“Consular assistance is central to our work at the FCO.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2018; Vol. 637, c. 306WH.]
Those two things—that consular assistance is central to the FCDO’s work and that it has no obligation to provide it—makes it seem as if the FCDO is somewhat conflicted within itself about what support it offers to its own citizens. I ask the Government whether they will enshrine in law a right to consular assistance, and if not, why not. Our citizens need clarity and they need transparency. After all, the first duty of any Government should be to protect their citizens.
A lot has been made of global Britain and Britain’s greatness. It is not so great, however, when it comes to helping its own citizens. We have evidence that families in their darkest hour are left without the right help, resource or support—as, indeed, are consular staff—to help them to deal with the death or detainment of their loved ones. Only this week, we heard of the gross failings of the FCDO during the evacuation of Afghanistan. In 2019, it was reported that the number of Foreign Office staff had fallen by more than 1,000 in the last 30 years. In a 2015 report, the Foreign Affairs Committee said that budget cuts and low pay at the Foreign Office were endangering the UK’s global role and could have a “disastrous and costly” effect on the Government’s ability to make informed judgments on critical issues, and
“the cuts imposed on the FCO since 2010 have been severe and have gone beyond just trimming fat: capacity now appears to be being damaged.”
Fewer people are under greater pressure and doing more of the work, with less resources; that is terrifying.
The staff need the help and support to do their job properly, Minister, please make these changes, for the families of loved ones, but also for the staff in the Department’s own service. The bereavement pack that the Foreign Office provides does not say that people killed in suspicious circumstances abroad may well fall through a gap because even the murder and manslaughter team at the FCDO will not be able to take the case, so it will be left with a general country casework team that is staffed by junior members of the Foreign Office, who may not have the relevant experience or resources to support a family. It must be incredibly difficult and traumatic for those staff who are dealing with such cases.
In 2014, the Foreign Affairs Committee review recommended that the Foreign Office needed an access to justice unit, but that access to justice unit was renamed and became the murder and manslaughter team, purely because it was deemed too difficult to deal with cases of suspicious death. If it is too difficult for a Government Department that deploys thousands of bright minds, where does that leave an individual family who fall through the cracks? Will the Government revisit this access to justice unit or a similar unit dedicated to cases of suspicious death overseas?
I get how difficult these issues are; I worked for the US Department of State in its Edinburgh consulate, and saw at first hand how hard being a consular officer was. I also saw prisoners being visited regularly and checked on, regardless of their crime—because it was the right thing to do. When a US citizen died, I saw families met at the airport, not as a favour to keep under the radar but because it was the right thing to do. I saw staff co-ordinating with local police and taking a compassionate and trauma-informed approach.
The families we have met and taken evidence from— I would dearly love to name them all individually, but I just do not have time—have touched my team and me for ever. I invite the Minister to spend some time in their company to understand and hear from them, and I suggest that consular staff do the same in the course of their training. My team had vicarious trauma training following the evidence sessions that we held, as that was recommended and necessary. I fear for the consular staff and the staff retention at the FCDO, particularly in the murder and manslaughter team, who are doing the very best they can in some of the most difficult circumstances. Who is looking after them and training them, and does it work for families? Only recently, I heard of a family not being called back. There is clearly a staffing issue and an issue with levels of service.
We have experienced and trained police, senior investigating officers and homicide teams, yet they are not being connected with families who need the benefit of their knowledge. There are lawyers and police officers offering their time, pro bono, to help in these cases. The help is here in the UK and it is possible, but we are not doing more to join these people up. Doing so costs nothing, but makes a huge difference. Will the Government work with the all-party parliamentary group to explore working with professionals in this area across these islands, and join them up with those who need the benefit of their knowledge? Lawyers lists need quality control and people need more support.
For those imprisoned abroad and held illegally, many of these issues are similar and deeply distressing. Many of my colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), have worked on issues and fought hard for their constituents, as has the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who is not in her place now. A legal right to consular assistance is so important to these people.
I want to pay tribute to the founding members of the British Rights Abroad Group, who have experienced their loved ones being held abroad. Richard Ratcliffe and Daniela Tajeda have fought valiantly for their loved one. Nazanin is still, as we have heard, being held in Iran away from her daughter and family. Although Daniela’s husband, Matthew Hedges, is now home from being held in the UAE, his experience of illegal incarceration was horrific. I have spent time with Daniela. I have heard what Matthew went through when he was held in a windowless room and force-fed drugs that have left long-term mental and physical damage. Daniela was left to fight for Matthew alone with very little support from the UK Government. She was advised not to go to the press but then left completely isolated. That was a completely unacceptable situation. I genuinely believe that if she had had the right consular support, she and Matthew would not have been as damaged and as traumatised as they have been.
There are more than 2,000 British prisoners abroad. More than half of them are currently being held without trial, like Jagtar Singh Johal, a constituent of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, who has been held prisoner in India for nearly four years on unfounded terrorism charges, and Billy Irving, who spent four years in an Indian prison after being wrongly accused of carrying unlicensed arms and ammunition while he countered piracy—with the British Government’s authorisation and support.
There is so much to say and so much to do on this issue, with so many lives lost and impacted, and so many still fighting for justice for their loved ones. I want to give others a chance to speak, but I also want to be very clear with the Government and with the families: I, and my team, will continue to fight on this issue, and we want to work with you to make it better. We will not give up the fight on this issue for those families and for those staff.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I start by expressing my gratitude for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and the Backbench Business Committee for bringing such an important issue to the Chamber. It is really important to be able to discuss it and the specific cases that we have probably all come across.
I want to raise the case of one of my constituents, Dr Ding Col Dau Ding, a British citizen who died in South Sudan in 2015. His brother is a doctor working in the NHS. They lived in Cromer on the North Norfolk coast. The circumstances surrounding his death, and possible murder, remain, more than six years later, unclear and unanswered. Dr Ding was a highly qualified medical doctor and brain surgeon also working in the NHS, and was by all accounts an extraordinary man. I know that his passing is felt as strongly today as it was six years ago. His friends and family have, for many years now, sought answers and justice, but they have neither.
The British Embassy in Juba was seemingly making progress, with the former ambassador expressing his own concern over the death of Dr Ding. However, the efforts to ascertain the facts surrounding the death of a British citizen have plateaued since that ambassador’s end of tenure in 2017. I hope that by raising this case today on the Floor of the House, much like other Members, Dr Ding’s case can now be revisited with renewed vigour and a concern to mirror that of his family and friends. I am sure I speak for everybody here when I say that to lose a son, a brother or a loved one is one thing, but to do so in the absence of understanding and justice is a burden that no family should bear.
I therefore ask the Minister to unequivocally assure me that everything possible can be done to help Dr Ding’s family and friends to receive the answers and the justice that they deserve. Will she agree to meet me and the Ding family? I want to ensure that everything possible can be done to support the late Dr Ding’s family and friends and to help bring them very much needed closure.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) for securing this debate. It is a tremendously important issue that we need to discuss. If we can work on a cross-party basis, we need to impress on the Minister, if nothing else, the seriousness of these types of case and how they stand out from the bulk of our casework.
My constituent David Cornock’s son was murdered in Thailand in 2019. He did not commit suicide, as the official police report suggested. The official police report was extremely unconvincing and made no effort to be anything other than that. Much like my hon. Friend’s constituent’s experience, there is an immediate and natural assumption to turn to the Foreign Office, thinking, “They will know what to do. They’ve been here before. How could I understand how to navigate this myself? Who would? Who could?” They turned to the Foreign Office and at every turn, the door was very politely closed, saying, “There is nothing we can do”, “That is not our responsibility”, and, “Here is a list of lawyers.”
When I heard my hon. Friend talk about the list of lawyers, my heart sank, because I have been through the list of lawyers merry-go-round with my constituent. On it were 10 lawyers in Thailand—six did not respond, two claimed they could not speak English, and the other two wanted £25,000 up front. I accept that it is hard for the Foreign Office to find lawyers in every single country around the world, but it should accept that, too, and stop offering the list. Offering false, empty help is worse than no help at all, and that is the message I want to get through to the Minister.
The Minister will take to her feet, and I know what she will say. She will tell us that she understands. She will tell us that these are very trying cases, not just for the families, but for any MP who has to try to support their constituents in these testing matters. If that is what she will say—I am sure it is—she should take a look at the service provided now and change it, because we live in a society where people can travel to all corners of the Earth if they have the means. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office needs to update its systems and processes to make sure that things are realistic.
Just before I came to this debate, I read the guidance for going to Thailand, and I have to say that it is nothing like my constituent’s experience, which frankly is exceptional, but not unheard of on the Thai islands. There is nothing in the guidance about investing in property and being murdered for it so that the property can be embezzled by malign authorities that operate outside the rule of law, such as it is there. There is plenty about someone getting their drinks spiked or their pockets picked, but let us get to the big issues. Those are serious issues, but not as serious as a staged suicide, a completely disregarding police force and an investigation that would not pass muster anywhere in the world.
Hannah Bardell
As if I have not already said enough, I feel compelled to intervene specifically on the issue of Thailand. We took evidence from a number of families whose loved ones died in Thailand. The level of corruption and lack of support were galling. They felt that things had moved on a little bit, because the advice on the Foreign Office website had improved a little, but there is clearly a gulf, I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, between that advice and the real experiences of our families in Thailand.
Dave Doogan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I go back to my insistence that the Foreign Office accept the request to look again at how it seeks to support—that is with a very small “s”—people in these circumstances. It would be far better not to compound people’s distress and devastation at the death of a loved one by giving the impression of being a helpful organisation when in actual fact, I am sorry, it is anything but—certainly not in the experience of my constituent. Honesty needs to be rewoven through the support that the FCDO provides. The trauma of repatriating one’s loved one’s body, the difficulty of death certificates and the impossible merry-go-round of post-mortems—those things are challenging in any respect, but in this context they are utterly horrifying.
I will wrap it up there. I hope I have conveyed the seriousness with which I and other hon. and right hon. Members view this issue. I hope that the Minister can assure us that something can change about this process.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). All hon. Members present bring examples to the Chamber of such things happening to constituents. She has every reason to be proud of her staff, especially that staff member who did much work and gave much commitment. We are all proud of that staff member too because of what she has done.
It is an emotive topic because of the issues that it pertains to, which each of us have as local and elected representatives. I well remember a young constituent, Daniel, coming into my office with the news that his father had been found dead in Spain under suspicious circumstances. He had no idea what to do. That goes back to the point that other hon. Members have made, including the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), that it is about knowing what to do. I felt, as my constituent did, that the British consulate would be able help, but it could not.
Daniel did not know what questions to ask or who to ask them of and, importantly, he had no clue about how to get his dad home. His pain and uncertainty were difficult to see, and harder still because we had no ready-made pathway to access to help him and his family. My office worked with the British consulate, and the people there were absolute professionals, but perhaps they did not have the knowledge or expertise. Such things do not happen all the time, but when they do, we must be able to respond. Undoubtedly, however, their hands were somewhat tied and their roles were ambiguous.
I know what the hon. Member for Livingston wants to do, and what I, other hon. Members and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), want to do through the debate. We look to the Minister for an encouraging response that will give us some support and confidence in how the process will work from now on. We need to improve it. With that in mind, there is a piece of work to be done to define roles and to provide the services that people need in time of trauma.
Let us be honest: my constituent Daniel was in a really dark place and he did not know what to do. The consulate was very helpful but it did not get us out of the situation; the hon. Member for Livingston and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) also referred to that. I am thankful for the work done by the Kevin Bell Repatriation Trust in Newry, which stepped into that breach and got Daniel’s daddy home. It took care of the paperwork. As the MP working on behalf of my constituent, I needed that charity, because it had done that many times. When we were seeking support and reaching out to try to find somewhere, it was there. It liaised with the Spanish authorities and basically handled the case for that terrified mourning young man.
I dread to think where the family would have been without that charity, so I am thankful that it operated in Northern Ireland and helped to do what our consulate was unable to do. It had my thanks then and has them in abundance now for all it does to help people in that way. There have been others who have unfortunately died in suspicious circumstances or as a result of bad health about whom we have needed help from the consulate, and in many cases, it was charities and other people who reached out to help. I am conscious that when it comes to this issue, we see the families first hand and know the pain that is in their heart. We know the anxiety and worry that they experience as they think, “What are we going to do now?”
In her introduction, the hon. Member for Livingston eloquently and powerfully told the story of her constituent and what she was able to do with her staff to try to help. The story I have told about my constituents forms the basis of my plea to Government, and ultimately to the Minister. I understand that the consulate cannot be accountable for the actions of every UK citizen on holiday, and nor could we expect it to be, but there are situations in which we simply cannot abandon our citizens to do it alone. That is the thrust, I believe, of this debate and why we look to the Minister for a response.
Families want to bring the bodies home, to search for answers and to get justice in these horrific, traumatic and very grieving circumstances. They do not have the money, the know-how and often the presence of mind. In all honesty, in Northern Ireland, we have had the disappeared—those who the IRA murdered and buried—and those families looked to have a completion of their grief if at all possible. We do not have the facilities within constituency offices to provide the help that is needed. I believe there is a breach and a gap that need to be filled by the consulate, rather than by charities that may or may not have the scope and capacity to step in.
Families want their loved ones home. They want to be able to lay them to rest, they want to be able to have some sort of a closure, they want to be able to have them buried, and under these incredible circumstances, they are under incredible pressure. In deep grief, they need help, they need compassion and they need tender care. They need help through the process step by step, as they try to deal with something that is incomprehensible and that they never expected on the holiday trip that was taken. Therefore, I believe it is important and central at this time that every effort is made.
I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. I know her to be a compassionate and understanding lady. I also know that she will be anxious, as we all are, to have a response that can give succour and support to our constituents, but also look to the future and to others who might find themselves in this imponderable, incredible and difficult situation.
I understand that there is not a never-ending supply of finance in this case, but I would suggest that qualified embassy staff need to be trained for that effort and to that level. It is a need that we must meet. We must find the finance to train the staff in how to deal with these cases in each embassy, or on a cross-embassy basis if there are others.
In her introduction, the hon. Member for Livingston referred to having a phone number to phone the embassy, but nobody was there. I am not being critical of the embassy, but on a Saturday night and over a weekend—normally, that is when these things happen, unfortunately—I think there has to be some sort of answering machine or something in place so that people can ring the number, ring another embassy or whatever it may be, and just someone can be available to help out. Again, I look to the Minister to see just how that can be done. Perhaps lessons can be learned from dealing with other consulates and embassies of our friends and allies to ensure that there is always the know-how to look into these cases.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) was here earlier, but is not here now. I do not think that any of us in this House are not touched by the story of her constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and how she was given protection, which unfortunately did not continue. It is not the Minister’s fault. It is the Iranians’ fault—let us be honest—but at the end of the day, consular care and protection have to mean something, and we have to have that in place as well.
Can the Minister inform the House how improvement in consular help can be achieved through training and through knowledge in the Department, so that we can learn something from all the grief our constituents have told us about and all the things we feel almost overwhelmed with, and learn how to deal with those things in a way that means we can give support, succour and comfort to those people?
The hon. Member for Livingston made a telling point that I want to reiterate. She referred to her staff. They were handling all these cases for constituents. All those things they were doing had a dramatic effect on the staff too. Who as an MP has not taken a story home from one of their constituents and worried about it for over two days? We have all done it because we want to help people and our staff want to help people. So counselling for the staff, and for consular staff who have to reply and respond, is important. The hon. Lady referred to that and I ask the Minister to deal with that in her response.
I am proud to use a British passport and will be prouder still when I renew my passport and can wave the navy blue British passport which demands entry in the name of Her Majesty. I know I will not be abandoned as long as I have that passport, yet too many of our constituents have felt abandoned and too many families feel that they have to face this alone. That is why we must ask for change and become better at what we do through our Minister and the British consulate. I believe we can and should do more to ensure that help is available in these dire circumstances for all our citizens. It is for our citizens who tomorrow might face this.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is always good to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I hope his new blue passport will open up doors on the issue we are discussing today—even though the passports are made in France.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and their staff—their team; I hate the word “staff”—for the immense work they have done on behalf of the all-party group on deaths abroad, consular services and assistance, of which I am also a member. I also thank the all-party group for coming together in a cross-party sense to discuss an issue that crosses the desks of Members of this House more regularly than ever before. Importantly, I also thank the families that gave evidence to the all-party group. I want to specifically concentrate on the families of my constituents: Lisa Brown, believed murdered in Spain, is still missing and Jagtar Singh Johal is being arbitrarily detained in the Republic of India, now for a fourth year.
Let me take Lisa’s family’s case first. I have been part of it since her sister and brother first came to me and my team. Their experience is in some ways not dissimilar to that of the vast majority of those who seek Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office support for someone believed murdered and missing abroad. There was limited information via a consular office in a location with a high percentage of UK nationals either living there or on holiday. There was scrabbling around for translators and lawyers. All the while the family were dealing with the trauma of a missing sister presumed murdered who has a young son left behind. Sadly, the case of Lisa is still open. During this time Lisa’s mother sadly died without the answers she and the rest of Lisa’s family have required.
Then there is the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, with which I hope the Chamber is well acquainted, who was abducted in the streets of the Republic of India, with an accusation of torture against the state of India, an ally and a member of the Commonwealth. No charges have yet been placed, there is consistent postponement by Indian judicial authorities every time the case comes to court, and there has been the familiar “We can’t do this and we can’t do that” approach over a broad swathe of the period of his detention.
Like many others, I lost count of the number of consular staff who were moved during the last four years of Jagtar’s detention, but let me put on the record once again my thanks to those staff in the FCDO who have gone beyond the call of duty to support my constituent and his family. They are not paid appropriately, they have been moved from pillar to post and—I have to be very clear—there has been a lack of political leadership on this issue. I have also lost count of the number of Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and Under-Secretaries we have had, not only in Jagtar’s case but in every other case that the report mentions. In the last four years, we have seen three Prime Ministers, five Foreign Secretaries and three Under-Secretaries. That demonstrates the issue of political leadership.
I pay tribute to the families: to Lisa’s family and to Jagtar’s family. What all the families in the report understand—my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston alluded to this, and I hope the Minister takes it in a cross-party sense—is the requirement to consider the enshrinement in law of the right to consular assistance. Murder victims and those considered murdered overseas should get parity with victims of terror, and the criminal compensation scheme should be amended accordingly.
The FCDO and the Ministry of Justice here in England—again, my hon. Friend alluded to this—should make targeted assessments of who gets help and what that looks like, to assist the families and, more importantly, to inform the future provision of consular services and plan the delivery of the improved service that Members have alluded to. If we do not gain the facts, we cannot improve the service. We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), talking about their Committee’s report on the treatment of women in the armed forces, that if we do not do the groundwork and understand what is going on, we cannot make change. In addition, the Government should publish an introductory range, but not an exhaustive list, of what basic assistance families and individuals can gain from the FCDO online process—of what basic assistance people should expect.
There must also be timely reviews of local legal representatives and translation services. Members have alluded to people picking up the phone to someone who not only does not speak English but wants €25,000 up front. There need to be consistent reviews, at least twice a year, but we would leave it to the appropriate officials to recognise what needs to be done to improve the basic access to information and legal and translation services.
Fundamentally, we must provide a substantial budgetary increase for consular support teams, not only in Whitehall and in embassies, but in those consular offices where large numbers of UK and Northern Ireland nationals are traditionally found either living or holidaying, such as on the eastern coast of Spain.
Hannah Bardell
My hon. Friend’s point about tourism hotspots, and Spain particularly, is really important. I went to Madrid with my chief of staff, Stephanie, and met the ambassador and the staff in the embassy and the consulate who deliver the services. They could see the value and the opportunity in improving services and communication and in having a proper link-up. That is one of the recommendations that we want to put in place—a protocol to ensure that people travelling from the UK to Spain have a higher level of service, because so many tourists go there from Britain.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which makes my point. If the United Kingdom Government want to be global Britain, they should be the global Britain of the 21st century, not buccaneers going into the Caribbean or the Indo-Pacific. This really is about recognising what is happening to citizens on the ground on a regular basis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) alluded to, it is not irregular to hear of these cases anymore. It is not regular, but it is not irregular and we, as Members, face these tasks on a more regular basis.
Finally, let me pay tribute not only to the family of Lisa Brown and Jagtar Singh Johal, but to all the families mentioned in the report. I hope the Minister will understand that it comes from a place of wanting to work together, so that no other family is left without access to appropriate support, that no other person is left in a hospital dead with their family having to have crowdfunders to bring them home, and that families are met if they are going to visit someone in prison, whether it be in the Republic of India, Iran, Australia or the United States. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston for securing this debate.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a real delight to be here this afternoon contributing to this debate and to hear the way the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) introduced her poignant remarks relating to her constituent. We heard about the important work of the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad, consular services and assistance, and the work the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) has done not just through the APPG but on behalf of his constituent, who is now very well known to those of us who have been here since 2015—I believe the hon. Member was in the same intake as me—listening to Jagtar Singh Johal’s story. I hope the Minister can give us some enlightened news in that regard.
Quite rightly, whenever citizens face difficulty or are caught up in a crisis in any part of the world, they look to the embassy and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for support. We heard from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) about the need we, as Members of Parliament, have for the reassurance that our constituents are being looked after when they are in trouble. We firmly believe that the Government always have a moral duty to support and protect UK citizens abroad, particularly in times of crisis. The hon. Members for Angus (Dave Doogan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke movingly about their constituents and their concern.
For much of the time, the support given by embassies through the FCDO is timely and appropriate. That is due to the commitment and dedication of FCDO and consulate staff. I know all Members will join me in thanking them for their tireless work day in, day out in very stressful circumstances to help our constituents. That said, we know of some cases where we feel even more could be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) has a very well-known case. She and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) still have constituents in prison in Iran. We know well the stories of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori, but there are others. The Minister will be aware of them.
During the pandemic, many of these difficulties were made even worse. I want to refer briefly to some of the findings that came out of the work we did in Parliament. The Minister has changed since the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report was published, so I want to ensure that the current Minister is on top of it. The operation during spring 2020, which we all remember very well as constituency MPs, was considered by the report to be
“too slow and placed too much reliance on commercial providers”.
Other countries appeared to be quicker to respond through their embassies and consular arrangements. They seemed to be more organised and more speedy. The consular service provided little or no financial support to those who were stranded, and many citizens were unable to gain access to the information they needed in a speedy manner. It went on to state that:
“The failure of the FCO to provide clear advice on what would happen on arrival to the UK caused many travellers a great deal of unnecessary anxiety”,
and that:
“The FCO placed too much reliance on this generic advice and this approach disadvantaged those with medical conditions and those stuck in remote areas.”
Finally, the FCDO had not established a system for logging and recording the location and contact details of UK citizens abroad.
It was therefore very troubling to see some familiar themes when British citizens were trapped in Kabul. We must not confuse Afghan applicants who wished to apply to settle in the UK due to the dreadful situation in Kabul with UK citizens who are still finding their way to the UK—I believe there are some. Will the Minister clarify how many she thinks are still making their way to the UK from Kabul and Pakistan? That underlines the importance of good administration and basic organisation.
We do not need to rehearse what we heard in the Foreign Affairs Committee this week, because we can all ascertain it from the transcript, but there are some themes. The whistleblower mentioned that he felt that only 5% of the people who had written to MPs had had any assistance. It was clear, tragically, that some of those left behind had been murdered by the Taliban. It is not clear from his evidence, which is about 40 pages long, whether he was referring specifically to Afghan individuals or UK citizens, but in either case, it shows how important speed and organisation are.
Another important point in the whistleblower’s evidence is that he believes that
“the FCDO’s institutional approach amounted to a failure to abide by the values set out in the Civil Service Code.”
I will say no more about that because, first and foremost, Parliament is about us as Members, rather than the civil service, but I wonder whether the Minister will take that away.
The 25-year-old man who wrote that document appeared to be quite traumatised because he had wanted to reply to thousands of emails from Members of Parliament. There are some echoes of not just the consular cases that Members are raising, but of what was talked about in the Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday afternoon. I hope that the lessons that needed to be learned in spring 2020 following the repatriation of UK nationals to the UK, in which many of our offices were intimately involved, have been learned, but the debate this afternoon suggests that perhaps some of them have not been.
I have another question for the Minister about the legal position. The motion refers to the clarification of what a Britain citizen can expect. Will she outline what she believes the legal position to be? Can a British citizen expect translation, medical services and so on? That may help us as MPs to understand what we can expect from the FCDO. I do not think this is active Government policy at the moment—otherwise, we would not be seeing these cases—but will the Minister outline whether she or the Foreign Secretary are developing a case whereby there is a legal right for our constituents to expect a level of service when they are abroad? How does that compare with other countries? We all want to see an increase in the support available to citizens to ensure that when it is needed, it is appropriate.
In conclusion, I will pick up two points. The first, which all Members have spoken about, is the traumatic nature of this debate, and I want to put on record, as we all have, the importance of our parliamentary staff. I thank your team, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker, because, in this House, every time we have a crisis, he writes to our staff and reaches out. That offer of support for them is really powerful, because so much of what our staff here do is very intense. During the Afghanistan crisis, many of our staff worked day and night and gave so much, so could you pass back to Mr Speaker’s team how much that means to me and to all of us as employers, Madam Deputy Speaker? It was really moving to hear the hon. Member for Livingston mention her member of staff. Could the hon. Member pass on from this House to the family how much we appreciate all the hard work that she did before she tragically passed away? It is not easy working for elected Members, but we all know that it is so important for our leadership role.
My final point relates to a reflection by the commentator Rafael Behr, whom I am sure the Minister reads regularly because he is a foreign policy commentator as well as being a number of other things. He wrote that sometimes he feels, in observing the current Government, that there is
“the thrill of power without…the burden of office.”
I mean this in a spirit not of anger but of thoughtfulness and contemplation: I think we need to turn that on its head so that we put the burden of responsibility first and the thrill of power second.
The Minister for Asia (Amanda Milling)
I thank the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and congratulate her on securing this debate. I pay tribute to her and the all-party group that she chairs for all their work. I also echo the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), about our staff—the staff of the hon. Member for Livingston who work to support the APPG, but also parliamentary staff, who have to deal with some very difficult cases. Cases where people die abroad or are detained abroad are really difficult, as we know from discussions today and on many occasions in this House, so I thank the hon. Member and our staff for all their work.
I am very grateful for colleagues’ contributions to the debate. I hope in my remarks to cover a number of the issues that they have discussed, but I am also happy to follow up on individual cases.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s role supporting British nationals overseas is an essential public service. Over the past decade, we have regularly reviewed and sought to improve the professionalism, scope and form of our services in line with the Vienna convention on consular relations by comparing our consular services with those provided by comparable countries. At the recent spending review, the Foreign Secretary identified consular services as one of our four key priorities. We are committed to providing a modern, round-the-clock service, including a wide choice of digital services, which I will come to later.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I have two constituents who are imprisoned in the UAE. I am in detailed discussions with the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa. I appreciate that there is a limit to what the present Minister can say at the Dispatch Box, but can she reassure me that the FCDO is doing everything in its power to assist my constituents, Mr Albert Douglas and Mr Billy Hood, and is treating the cases as the highest priority?
Amanda Milling
I can obviously provide that reassurance. I know that my hon. Friend has had discussions with my ministerial colleague, but I will happily have further discussions with her after this debate.
Our service will continue to provide empathetic support to meet the needs of vulnerable British people and their families. At the same time, it will help British people living and travelling abroad to take responsibility for their own safety and will strengthen the resilience of our consular network and its ability to respond to global crises. When British nationals need assistance overseas, our highly trained consular staff are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Our staff make an assessment of an individual’s vulnerability in order to tailor the assistance that they receive. We have more than 200 consular posts worldwide, with more than 700 consular staff across the network. We track and review the quality of our services through both qualitative and quantitative measures, and it is testimony to the hard work of our staff that the most recent overall satisfaction score remained at well over 80%.
I am grateful to Members for putting on record their recognition of the hard work of those consular staff. Inevitably, as parliamentarians, we often hear about the most difficult cases, in which constituents may be unhappy with the services that they receive, but I too want to place on record my thanks to the staff, who, in the overwhelming majority of cases, have got it right and have been able to provide the support that an individual needed.
Dave Doogan
The Minister has referred to the most difficult cases, but it is important for the Department to recognise a pattern of events. My constituent was told that he had to petition the Attorney General of Thailand to get the case reopened. When I asked the Department whether it could give me another example of a UK national successfully petitioning the Attorney General of Thailand, it was unable to do so. It is generic; it is not acceptable. Given that the Minister’s predecessor and the former Secretary of State refused to meet me, I wonder whether she would like to meet me and my constituent.
Amanda Milling
I will go on to talk more broadly about the services that we can provide and some of the limitations, but I am happy to follow that up after the debate.
We are able to support more than 20,000 new consular cases, as well as about 8,000 long-running cases. Sadly, that figure includes 4,000 deaths and between 40 and 60 homicides. About 5,000 British nationals are arrested or detained overseas each year, and providing non-judgmental support for prisoners is a large part of our role. Our contact centres receive about 500,000 inquiries each year, and more than 85% are resolved in the first call. Over the last 18 months, fewer British nationals have been travelling overseas because of covid-19. However, British nationals still need our support, and despite the variety of local lockdowns and other measures, we have continued to provide our core services throughout, adapting to reflect the limited ability to hold face-to-face meetings. In 2020 we handled more than 3,000 cases involving deaths abroad, although many of our staff around the world were working through lockdown themselves.
Members have rightly spoken of the impact that a death overseas can have. My thoughts go out to all those mentioned in today’s debate, and all those who have lost loved ones.
Hannah Bardell
The Minister has given statistics, and has talked about the number of cases that have been resolved on first contact. That is welcome, but I think it important for the House and those watching the debate to know that among those cases are cases of lost passports and people needing new passports—administrative details, as opposed to the very difficult casework that we have been discussing. I think that those cases need to be separated in the statistics, not least out of respect for the families of the loved ones we are talking about.
Amanda Milling
That is an important point. When we are talking about deaths abroad, we are talking about incredibly complex cases. I hope that later in my speech I will be able to set out the services that we provide and explain why we provide them in the way that we do—so that we can tailor the service to the situation and the individual’s circumstances.
Any unexpected death is deeply upsetting for the families concerned, let alone a death that takes place in violent or unexplained circumstances. Anyone who has lost a loved one will want to understand what happened and why that person died. I recognise that from my constituency work and the hard work of other Members on behalf of their constituents. My own constituent Robert Spray tragically died in Bulgaria in October 2019 while in police custody. Consular officials have supported the family and continue to request information from the Bulgarian authorities to support the UK coroner, as the family desperately tries to get answers.
Our experienced consular staff have detailed knowledge of their country and region and can provide information and support to help families to navigate the local processes. They do their very best to ensure that the wishes of the bereaved families are followed. This can include providing advice on local burial and cremation options or on transporting the body and personal belongings back to the UK, and providing lists of local and international funeral directors who can assist. We have dedicated teams who provide expertise in particular circumstances, including, since 2015, a murder and manslaughter team.
As much as our staff want to support families seeking to understand how a death has occurred or to secure justice, there are limits to what the FCDO can do in cases abroad. Investigations into deaths, either through natural causes or in suspicious circumstances, remain the responsibility of local authorities. We cannot investigate the cases ourselves, and we cannot direct local authorities on how to do their job.
Hannah Bardell
I understand the point that the Minister is making about foreign jurisdictions. This is something that has been debated widely across British society and, without getting too specific, in a number of very high-profile cases. However, there is a precedent of the British Government—whoever has been in power at the time—putting pressure on foreign authorities, working with them and sending police from the UK to investigate crimes abroad. Families have rightly asked me on numerous occasions what makes their loved one different.
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. I should have said at the start of the debate that I was grateful to have had the opportunity to meet her to discuss a range of issues, and I look forward to working with her and the all-party parliamentary group. As I have said, in this instance, there are things that remain the responsibility of the local authorities, but I am grateful for the opportunity to work with the APPG.
Jim Shannon
The Minister has outlined the position of the Department, but my constituent would have liked, following the death of his father, to have had a contact—someone to give him advice. We could not get that. This is not a criticism, but the advice just was not there. Is it possible to ensure that such advice is available for our constituents?
Amanda Milling
We always seek to hear feedback from those who have to use the FCDO’s services, and I would be more than happy to discuss the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring after the debate at another point.
We have to be clear about what levels of service the FCDO can and cannot provide. We are not funded to pay for legal, medical or translation costs, but the consular staff will signpost sources of help.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
If there were clarity about the basics of what the consular service can do, it would be a start. It could be put online and regularly reviewed.
Amanda Milling
Hopefully some of the improvements that we are continuing to make in the service will address some of the points that have been raised today.
One of the points that was raised earlier related to lawyer lists. Our posts overseas maintain lists of English-speaking lawyers who are qualified to act in an overseas jurisdiction. That is published on gov.uk. We welcome feedback, but we cannot provide specific recommendations. That said, we are considering how we can make these online lists more accessible and easier to navigate.
I mentioned how consular staff can signpost sources of help and, for example, we work closely with and fund specialist organisations that provide assistance we cannot provide, such as counselling, legal advice and support with translation and repatriation. This includes the Victim Support homicide service, Prisoners Abroad, Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis, and travel care providers and chaplaincies at major UK airports. We publish full details online of what the FCDO can and cannot do to support British nationals abroad. We will publish a refreshed and updated version next year.
When British nationals are detained overseas, their health and welfare is our top priority. We make every effort to ensure prisoners receive adequate food, water and medical treatment and that they have access to legal advice. When we hear about a detention or arrest, our consular staff attempt to contact the individual as soon as possible. How frequently we visit will depend on the nature and context of the case, but we are aware that our visits are a lifeline for many detainees, and that our staff are the only visitors that some will receive.
However, we do not and must not interfere in civil and criminal court proceedings. It is right that we respect the legal systems of other countries, just as we expect foreign nationals to respect our laws and legal processes when they are in the UK.
Amanda Milling
I will make progress, if the hon. Lady does not mind.
We can and do intervene on behalf of British nationals where they are not treated in line with internationally accepted standards or if there are unreasonable delays in procedures.
We take allegations of torture or mistreatment incredibly seriously. Although we cannot investigate allegations ourselves, with the consent of the individual we can raise the allegations with local authorities to demand an end to the mistreatment and to demand that the incidents are investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. Our priority is always to serve the best interests of the individual. Any decisions on the action we might take in response to allegations of mistreatment are made on a case-by-case basis and only with the individual’s consent.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Given that there is clear evidence that my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal has been arbitrarily detained, why will the Government not agree that this UK citizen is being arbitrarily detained by the Republic of India?
Amanda Milling
We take all allegations of human rights violations seriously, and the Foreign Secretary, ministerial colleagues and senior officials have raised Mr Johal’s allegations of torture and his right to a fair trial with the Government of India more than 70 times.
There is no legal right to consular assistance. As colleagues will know, the UK is party to the Vienna convention on consular relations, a multilateral agreement setting out how states will co-operate in support of their nationals overseas. Our ability to provide consular assistance remains, at all times, dependent on states respecting the Vienna convention, and it must be done in accordance with the laws of that country. Even if a right to consular assistance were enshrined in domestic law, our ability to provide it overseas would continue to remain wholly dependent on the co-operation of host states. It would not help many of our most complex cases.
As I set out earlier, we continually seek to improve our consular services. We welcome feedback, and we use it to improve our services and to provide the best possible assistance. We have learned lessons during the pandemic about how we can operate remotely. We are not complacent about the overwhelmingly positive feedback we receive, and I acknowledge that there are always areas where we can improve. We have a dedicated learning team, who ensure that our staff have the knowledge and skills they need to support British nationals. We have, for instance, included testimony from bereaved families in our training modules on how to support people bereaved through murder and manslaughter. It helps staff to understand the perspective of somebody needing that assistance. We also have a robust complaints process for those who feel that we have not provided the service that they needed. I want to reiterate our openness to working with others, particularly the all-party group, to ensure that British nationals receive the right support, tailored to their circumstances.
To conclude, our consular staff at home and abroad work extremely hard to support British nationals in distress and their families, often in difficult circumstances. We take every single consular case seriously. Our trained and expert staff work with empathy and aim to offer the help that is needed, be that advice or practical support. They are not lawyers, medics, police detectives or social workers, but what they try to do is ensure that British people have the information and support they need to help them deal with the situation they face.
Hannah Bardell
I am incredibly grateful to all who have spoken, including the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I failed to mention the Kevin Bell Repatriation Trust in my substantive speech, and I apologise for that, because it is an organisation that we hold in great regard and would like to work with more. I will reach out to the hon. Gentleman on that. We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Angus (Dave Doogan) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). They have all spoken passionately about devastating cases in their constituencies.
I have to say to the Minister, gently and kindly, that I know she has come into this role recently, that this is a huge brief and area, and that she has a pre-written speech—we all understand how this works—but there will be families at home watching this who will be furious. That is not in any way to insult her or her staff, but I am concerned that they have not grasped the gravity of this and the gaps, to put it bluntly. She talked of detailed experience of local staff. I am sure that many do have detailed experience, but I am afraid that in many cases, such as those we have heard about today, they fail to share that experience or they fail to have the support and resource to share that experience. She spoke of a service that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but many, many families we have met and dealt with would beg to differ on that. That may be the definition of what a service is, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus said, an offer of false, empty hope is worse than no hope at all—I would agree with that. I know that the level of service and support is aspirational, and staff want to give the very best service, but there is a long way to go. I am glad that the Minister does want to work with us, because we want that too; as I said, I want to be a critical friend. However, fundamentally, when we talk about the Vienna convention, we have to remember that the UK has an opportunity to lead the way on this, but it is falling far behind. As we well know, diplomatic and trade relations play a serious role, and post Brexit we are in a dangerous and difficult place. We need to do much, much better for the families of these islands.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House regrets that the consular services provided by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to bereaved families of people who have been murdered, have died in suspicious circumstances, or have been imprisoned or tortured overseas have fallen short of the standard reasonably expected; notes that access to justice and basic standards of assistance are dependent upon a person’s ability to pay; is concerned that there is no legal right to consular assistance and that support is provided on a discretionary basis, which can lead to unpredictable and inconsistent communications from the FCDO; further regrets that consular services in the UK are below the level of support UK citizens should expect; believes that the FCDO’s focus is on what it cannot do to help, rather than what it can do, which adds to the trauma experienced by victims; calls on the Government to improve and standardise communication processes at the FCDO, to publish consular procedures and policies and to revisit the findings of the Fifth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service, Session 2014-15, HC 516; further calls on the Government to consult with the families affected and to raise the standard of how British citizens are treated by FCDO procedures; and urges the Government to set a world leading example of how a state treats its citizens in their darkest hour of need.
Vulnerable Asylum Seeker Services: Stockton
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. Before I start I would like to put on the record my thanks to local organisations Asylum Matter North East and Justice First for the vital work they do supporting asylum seekers in our area, and for the constructive and helpful engagement we have had over the years, which has ensured that problems such as the one I am about to discuss with the Minister are brought to my attention.
The asylum accommodation system has been run by the Home Office through private contractors for the past 20 years, without enough investment in local communities or adequate consultation with them. The outsourcing of these contracts with little oversight from or accountability to the Home Office, coupled with poor planning and ever-lengthier delays in decision making, has meant the accommodation system has lurched from crisis to crisis. The backlog of asylum claims waiting to be dealt with is at a record high, with 67,547 people waiting for even an initial decision and more than 125,000 either waiting for a further decision or due to be removed from the UK. A total of 37,562 applications were made in the year to September, which is more than were made in any 12-month period since the year to June 2004.
As a result of the Government’s failure to deal with processing in a timely fashion, on multiple occasions the Home Office has had to rely on contingency accommodation which, as the Minister knows, means the use of hotels, hostels or other institutional settings on an emergency basis. There are currently around 6,000 asylum seekers in hotels but, contrary to the views of some, they are not living in five-star accommodation.
Stockton’s experience of hosting supposedly “short-term” contingency hotel accommodation over the past two years has demonstrated how unsuitable this institutionalised accommodation is for people seeking sanctuary. Despite the huge efforts of people and organisations across Stockton to welcome and support the women and children accommodated, I have no doubt that they have suffered both physical and mental health harm.
I wish to paint a picture for the Minister of the current circumstances of some of the most vulnerable women in the country, who we as a nation are forcing to live in appalling conditions. I will focus in particular on certain asylum accommodation in my hometown of Stockton. Because of the vulnerabilities of many of the women who find their way to Stockton, I will not closely identify where they are accommodated, although I expect the Minister will be aware of the one establishment that I am going to discuss more fully.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
For the benefit of the House, I confirm that I am aware of the place to which the hon. Gentleman refers but, like him, I think that in this forum it is best not to specifically identify the property.
Alex Cunningham
That is very helpful.
Some of the women housed in so-called hotel accommodation in Stockton are pregnant and some have their young children with them. I am told that many of these women are particularly vulnerable because they are victims of human trafficking, brought here by the very worst of people and exposed to sexual exploitation. They are modern-day slaves, abused, beaten and controlled, with little hope of the kind of life we would want for ourselves or our children. It is important, then, that when they escape their abusers and are able to claim asylum, we honour our duty of care to them—a duty to protect them and keep them safe, to provide somewhere for them to live while their asylum applications are being considered, to ensure they are able to eat, and to give them access to the healthcare that many of them so desperately need.
Let me return to the image I was illustrating. The place in which these women are being accommodated is totally unsuitable and is the subject of much concern among those who work with asylum seekers in our area. I remember that, before it was used as asylum accommodation, it was a low-budget hotel, part of a large chain that has long since abandoned it as few people wanted to spend the night there. I dropped by again on Friday and saw the security man guarding the door at the front and the tatty grounds that double as an outside and play space for the residents and their children.
I confess that I have not been inside the building, but for years I have heard at first hand from those who have. The rooms offer only a very few square metres of accommodation and do not even have a private toilet, never mind a shower or proper washing facilities. The shared facilities have become a particular source of concern during the pandemic as, realistically, no person in the accommodation is able to self-isolate. There is nowhere to cook and no proper place to do the washing. The residents have to rely on the food provided, which they often find they are unable to eat, whether for cultural or dietary reasons. I have heard there are frequent complaints about the inability to access nutritional food, which is important for all but especially vital for pregnant women.
In addition, as the Minister will know, pregnant women deal with all manner of difficulties throughout their pregnancy and can experience nausea and problems with certain foods, which makes the lack of cooking facilities even more problematic. Indeed, there have been reports of pregnant women suffering from malnutrition in the accommodation and of women with babies having to use the communal toilet areas to sterilise their babies’ bottles. I have been told about rubbish piling up without being regularly cleared, which means flies and other pests are attracted to the complex. This particular accommodation is also especially poorly situated. It is a mile or more from the nearest homes, nearly two miles from the nearest school, and half a mile from the nearest shop. It is in the middle of an industrial estate, which means that any kind of integration into a wider community is extremely difficult.
In a recent submission on asylum service providers in the pandemic, Tees Valley City of Sanctuary said:
“The size of rooms vary, and double rooms can be so small as to have bunk beds. There are bathrooms shared by around 10 women, no communal areas, just two small rooms where meals are served and a small reception foyer. There is a car park with a few picnic tables outside. This means that during the pandemic there is virtually nowhere for the women to meet with each other or anyone else if they are to keep to rules about social distancing.”
Organisations in Stockton report that the women in the hotel are at serious risk of deteriorating mental health. People do not know how long they will be there, and where they will be sent next. Many women, once they have spent months in Stockton and managed to make some contacts and friends in the town, are then sent elsewhere in the country with very little notice.
Does the Minister agree that this is no place for vulnerable women to be placed—a slum hotel in the middle of an industrial estate with food that they cannot eat and completely shut off from the rest of society? Is he content that vulnerable women who have been abused are even safe in the accommodation that I have described? The fact that anyone has been housed in such a place is truly disgraceful, let alone the vulnerable victims of heinous organised criminals.
This experience mirrors that of communities across the UK. We have seen clearly over past years that putting people in institutionalised accommodation—be that hotels or barracks—causes them harm. People seeking asylum belong in our communities, where they can rebuild their lives. They should not be warehoused and isolated.
Before I discuss my further concerns about what is happening to young women and their children in our asylum system, I am pleased to say that, after much haranguing of Mears, which provides this particular accommodation on behalf of the Home Office, it has finally served notice on the owners of the so-called hotel and will quit using it by the end of next month. I received news of this development just after Mr Speaker granted me this Adjournment debate.
We have been in a similar place previously. I met people from Mears many months ago and they agreed with me then that the accommodation was not fit for purpose—accommodation that had been approved by the Home Office for housing extremely vulnerable women, as I have described. They said that they would stop using it within three months, but, nine months later, not only was it still in use, but more vulnerable young women had been accommodated there. That is certainly a failure on its part, but it is also a failure on the part of the Government who authorised the use of such a building in the first place.
Can the Minister explain to the House what criteria the Home Office uses when approving a hotel for this sort of use? Does anyone ever attend and check these places to see whether they are fit for purpose? It is deeply concerning and upsetting that the Government have overseen such schemes. I could go on for some time about the issues with this specific accommodation, but what I really want are solutions for these young women, who deserve so much from the country in which they have found themselves stranded. To anyone out there who would suggest that these vulnerable women and children should be removed from the country, I say that they need to understand that that would be all but impossible. Indeed, many of these women would find themselves back in the hands of the very gangs that forced them to travel here in the first place. The Minister knows that and so do I.
I recognise and understand that any Government need to get value for money for the public services that they provide and that of course includes asylum seekers’ accommodation. It is true that providers can only work within the budget provided, but what checks are in place to ensure that they are delivering on what they have promised? What checks does the Home Office do when agreeing a contract with a new provider to ensure that they have enough capacity to fulfil it?
I was not the only person who celebrated when G4S and its subcontractors, Jomast, lost the contract to provide accommodation and other services across the north of England, including in Stockton. I well remember the plastic plates provided to people, and will never ever forget the bed quilts that were so thin that a whole one could be stuffed into a pillowcase with plenty of room left. It was left to charities, such as Justice First, to provide people with quilts to keep them warm at night. I pay tribute again to the amazing work of all those who work to support asylum seekers in the Tees valley, such as Justice First, but it is not right that such basic provision has to come from charitable donations rather than the Government.
I remember the awful scandal, when Jomast painted all the doors of houses with asylum seekers in residence the same colour, with a job lot of paint. On the face of it, that was a simple oversight, but the trouble and abuse that those people got as a result was horrendous. Even when the issue was pointed out, Jomast would not change the doors, and we had to push and push and push until it eventually agreed to repaint them.
Along with people across the sector, I was keen to hear how Mears would handle and fulfil the new contract. I always remember one of its executives telling me how the company differed from those it was taking over from, and that it ran housing services, not prisons. I understood exactly what was meant by that and I shared the high hopes of many that things would get better, and they did—to a point. But Mears appeared to have overstretched itself. It did not have sufficient accommodation to fulfil the need and could not reach agreement with a third party that had the required supply. I know that that was about quality rather than price; I understand that Mears wanted to do better, and to end the need for people who were often from different countries and cultures to share bedrooms. I am pleased that over time good progress has been made, but more needs to be done, particularly for the group of people I have been talking about this evening.
Another concern that is regularly raised with me is that there is a lack of transparency and accountability in these accommodation centres. Some organisations in Stockton have flagged that they are aware of people living in deeply inappropriate accommodation, such as the type that I have described. They report that the systems by which people living in asylum accommodation can complain and resolve issues is via Migrant Help, and that the Home Office is opaque and difficult to access and navigate.
People have to log an issue or the need for a repair with Migrant Help. However, organisations and people seeking safety in Stockton report that the current waiting times for Migrant Help to answer the phone are far beyond contractual requirements, and that some requests for repairs are not recorded or passed on to the accommodation provider. Too often, this translates into people being left in limbo, unsure how to resolve urgent issues, and being forced to continue living in inappropriate or even unsafe accommodation.
Despite these clear issues, information about how the providers are performing and meeting the terms of the contracts in Stockton, regionally and nationally remains closely guarded by the Home Office. Only three key performance indicators are published for each provider, making scrutiny and accountability almost impossible. Some contracts are run by multi-billion-pound companies, and while they make a profit, people in the asylum system are left in severely substandard accommodation. Will the Minister commit to the regular publication of detailed performance management information on both the asylum accommodation and support services contract, and the advice, issue reporting and eligibility contract? This should ensure that the performance management regime is open and accountable, and designed to assess whether services are genuinely meeting the needs of people in the asylum system.
I am pleased to tell the Minister and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the borough of Stockton-on-Tees is welcoming to refugees and asylum seekers, and I am proud that it is. Our churches run drop-ins, organisations such as Justice First provide all manner of support, and our schools and health services have done a grand job in giving education and support to many. Although there is a small number of people who take issue with our area’s refugees and asylum seekers, generally our people want fairness and justice. They want to see individuals, families, women and children treated with compassion, to be given a chance and to be safe.
As the welcoming and dedicated people of Stockton have shown, local communities, charities and faith groups often step in to support people seeking asylum when Home Office provision falls short. Again, as we have seen in Stockton, statutory duties and safeguarding obligations mean that at times local authorities are obliged to step in, and many have dedicated staff in their teams to support and welcome people seeking asylum. Despite this, no funding is allocated to dispersal areas to support them and their communities.
The Home Affairs Committee has on multiple occasions recommended that the Home Office must give due regard to the financial and capacity constraints placed on dispersal authorities and provide dedicated funding—in part to give non-participating local authorities the confidence that they would be supported if they opted to become a dispersal local authority. Will the Minister consider the costs and impact of local dispersal with a view to directly funding areas that take in new arrivals in order to support them and their communities? The experience of women and children asylum seekers in Stockton brings into sharp focus the cruelty of the Government’s plans in the Nationality and Borders Bill to massively expand the use of institutionalised accommodation by setting up “accommodation centres”. I worry that these centres will enact more harm on people seeking sanctuary on an unprecedented scale.
While I recognise that Mears has said that it will deliver on its promise to me and cease to use the accommodation I have described, I ask the Minister for some help to ensure that this time Mears does deliver and that this dreadful accommodation in Stockton is taken out of use by asylum seekers once and for all. I ask him to mount a review of the quality and delivery of accommodation and services to the vulnerable women and children I have spoken about, not just in Stockton but across the country; to reassess the criteria for approving accommodation for use by Home Office contractors with a view to improving standards so that accommodation as poor as this cannot be approved again; to urgently address the long-standing structural issues in the management and monitoring of contracted provision, and significantly invest in improvements to the current stock of dispersal housing; and, finally, to give hope to these women and children that while we may not be able to provide all that they want, we will make sure that they are safe, secure, fed and healthy for as long as we need to fulfil that duty of care to them. It is what we would do for our own.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this debate on services for asylum seekers in his community. As he has demonstrated, he is a passionate advocate on this issue and the work being done by his local community to support those who we, as the Home Office, look to support. I welcome any opportunity to hear the views of the House on this important subject, not least given the vulnerability of those involved. I will come on to talk about the specific issue he raised but, like him, I will not reference the exact locations, given the vulnerable nature of these service users. I am sure that he appreciates that that is not about me not wanting to be open with the House, but because it is not appropriate in a public forum to confirm those types of details.
Before I turn to some of the specific points raised, I want to emphasise that the United Kingdom has a proud record of helping people facing persecution, oppression and tyranny, and we stand by our obligations to help those fleeing persecution. Support is provided to destitute asylum seekers until their claims are finally determined, and to failed asylum seekers if they are destitute and unable to leave the UK immediately due to circumstances beyond their control. The support provided includes accommodation, an asylum support allowance, and access to our advice, issue reporting and eligibility provider, Migrant Help. Many local authorities play an important role in supporting asylum seekers, including, as has been well outlined, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, through participation in the asylum dispersal scheme and provision of key support services. I gratefully acknowledge all the Members of this House who represent their local communities and actively work with their local councils in this area of work, not just by talking in the House about supporting those seeking asylum but by actually doing it in their own area and local community.
The asylum system does face some challenges, and the pandemic, combined with the arrival of a significant number of small boats, has increased the numbers of people within the system. That has meant that, in addition to delays in the time it takes to consider a claim for asylum, the demand for support has increased at a time when local authority housing services are already stretched. To put this in context, published data in September 2021 showed that there had been a 35% increase in demand for accommodation since the start of the pandemic, resulting in more than 68,000 service users being provided with accommodation while their claims are considered.
We cannot let this go on. Therefore, through our new plan for immigration, we will seek to increase the fairness and efficacy of our system so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum while deterring illegal entry. It is particularly vital that we put an end to dangerous and unnecessary sea crossings from safe and democratic countries with functioning asylum systems. As the tragic loss of life in the channel last month has underlined, we need to do everything we can to stop people making perilous journeys with sometimes tragic consequences.
As I touched on, the demand on the asylum accommodation estate has meant that we have had to secure contingency hotel accommodation across the United Kingdom, including in Stockton, as has been highlighted in this debate. Hotel accommodation should only ever be a short-term measure to meet our immediate statutory need and not part of our long-term plan for accommodating service users. We are therefore working closely with our accommodation providers to increase the amount of dispersed accommodation available to us to allow us to exit the hotels we are using as a contingency for this purpose.
Kevin Foster
Recent conversations have been positive, and we are exploring all the options to ensure that people are moved on from hotels as quickly as possible, including through the very welcome conversations we have had with our local partners in Stockton. We have also been working collaboratively with colleagues across Government, particularly in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to identify empty homes across the UK that could be utilised for this purpose now and potentially as affordable accommodation more widely in future.
Furthermore, we are taking a number of steps to increase the part local authorities play in helping us meet our statutory obligations towards asylum seekers of all ages. I make clear from this Dispatch Box that it is only right that we all do our bit, and not just a small number of areas. We have therefore recently issued the relevant notice to mandate all local authorities to participate in the national transfer scheme, to ensure that the responsibility for caring for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is shared fairly across the entire United Kingdom. I am grateful for the continued and invaluable support of local authorities across the country, which continue to provide crucial placements to vulnerable young asylum seekers. It is right we do all we can to protect unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, many of whom have been exploited by people smugglers during their journey.
The high number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children over recent months, alongside limited local authority participation in some cases, has placed unprecedented pressure on the national transfer scheme. Out of necessity, and with the children’s best interests in mind, we accommodated these children on an emergency and temporary basis in hotels while placements with local authorities were vigorously pursued. Intake remains very high and the situation remains extremely challenging. Hence, as I have already outlined, the Government have now taken the decision to mandate local authority participation in the scheme, although we are still in the period when local authorities can make representations about their individual circumstances.
Alex Cunningham
I place on record that coming from an area where we have almost the maximum recommended number of people, in Middlesbrough and Stockton, we very much welcome the fact that the Government have taken the step to mandate all other areas, because we are at saturation point, as I think they say. It is only right and proper that other communities also welcome refugees.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. There are other parts of this policy area where we will not agree, so it is pleasing to hear that this is one where we do. My own local authority has participated in the voluntary rota and is taking its share. As he touches on, it is only right that all local councils are doing their fair share unless there are circumstances that mitigate against their being part of it, and are not, for example, not taking part and therefore requiring others to do even more than their fair share of this work.
We have not taken this step lightly, but we believe it acts in the best interests of the children concerned. The main focus of the mandating is to end the use of hotels for accommodating unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. For clarity, we aim to return to a voluntary scheme in future, but only when the use of hotels is ended and the system is on a sustainable basis in terms of capacity and likely participation in a voluntary rota.
Alongside the moves to increase participation in the national transfer scheme, we are also working to increase participation in the asylum dispersal scheme to ensure that the local authorities working with us, including Stockton, are not unduly pressured as the high demand continues. We continue to work with local authorities to identify opportunities to increase the number of areas that accommodate asylum seekers across the UK, and we have produced a change plan designed in conjunction with local councils and the local government associations across the UK to achieve a more equitable distribution of service users across the UK.
We are in the process of reviewing the change plan through a number of dedicated forums, and I look forward to confirming more details of the changes we plan to make shortly. Those changes will recognise the points made by local authorities that have been part of the system for a long time—in many cases, they first volunteered to be part of it in 1999 or 2000—about funding and the wider impact of having larger numbers in certain communities. As I say, we are very much engaging with them and look forward to confirming some changes that we believe will address many of the points that have been raised and will actively encourage other authorities to take part.
Despite the challenges that we have faced, we have consistently met our statutory obligations towards destitute asylum seekers. We expect the highest standards from our service providers, including while utilising hotels, and we monitor them closely to ensure that they meet those standards. Where essential living needs are not already provided for in hotels, a cash allowance is provided. Extra assistance is provided for those who can show that they have exceptional needs, and additional support is also available for special cases—for example, further top-ups are available for families with pregnant mothers or very young children.
All asylum seekers have access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to the advice, issue reporting and eligibility service provided for the Home Office by Migrant Help, through which they can raise any concerns regarding accommodation or support services and get information about how to obtain further support.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister heard my concerns about the level of service provided by Migrant Help, including the time it takes to answer the phone and that it often does not even pass on particular complaints. Will he review what is happening there to ensure that it delivers the standards that he expects?
Kevin Foster
I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman again on those points, and I am happy to review that. We welcome feedback about how the service is performing, particularly from Members of Parliament who represent constituencies where a larger number of service users are likely to be accessing it. We certainly encourage hon. Members to come forward if there are particular problems or issues. I appreciate that some service users may not necessarily want to approach the Home Office directly, but we welcome it when they make representations to alert us to issues via a local Member of Parliament.
I turn to the specific situation in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. While I am at the Dispatch Box I take the opportunity to thank Julie Danks, the managing director of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, for the progressive and collaborative approach taken in working with us to help to understand the local issues and to raise the standard of services delivered.
I will not name it, but one of the hotels that we have been using in Stockton has been used exclusively for women and women with children, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. We have agreed to move away from that hotel and to move women with children as a priority to our community-based dispersal accommodation. Single women will also be moved to an alternative location within the community. I thank the council again for the constructive engagement that we have had about providing an alternative to the use of that particular hotel.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands why, for obvious reasons, given the vulnerability of those people, I will not go into the details of those arrangements on the Floor of the House. I would be happy to brief him separately about the arrangements being made, if he is not already aware of them. I hope that that is acceptable to other hon. Members present and that they understand why I make that offer separately rather than detailing them in this speech at the Dispatch Box.
We believe the changes we are putting in place will significantly improve access to the specialist support services available for all those in need. As background, our standard services include health and wellbeing screenings, an on-site resident welfare manager during business hours, appropriate contacts available outside business hours to ensure any urgent issues are resolved, and an induction pack in a number of languages that is made available on arrival. Alongside our standard support services, a range of on-site activities has also been available in the facilities we have used, and these include classes for mothers and babies, playgroups for toddlers, language lessons and careers support, recreational activities and wellbeing classes. Pregnant women have been supported and then, where possible, moved into mother and baby units close to the hotels we have been using. However, as I have touched on, we do want to move away from the hotel to which the hon. Gentleman referred in particular.
While I am at the Dispatch Box, I would really like to highlight the community and charity organisations in the area that have been helping to support us. One of them, working in collaboration with our contractor, has provided additional items for service users and a range of activities and classes to help women access services and support. We will continue to work with all partners to ensure that mothers with young children are supported locally and are able to access local networks and services. We do not underestimate the importance of these services and the value they provide, especially to women with babies, who may find the first few months of motherhood challenging, and those with young children trying to adjust to life here in the UK. In all cases, we will seek to ensure that relocation of any individual is appropriate, and decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis.
Let me conclude by again expressing my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue in the House. Again, I really want to thank all in Stockton—MPs, councillors and the wider community—for the commitment they are showing. I do encourage more local authorities from across the UK to engage with the Home Office, through the strategic migration partnership, to increase dispersal and relieve overall pressures on the system and the need to use hotels as contingency accommodation.
As I said earlier, the United Kingdom has a proud record of giving refuge, sanctuary and support to some of the world’s most vulnerable and oppressed people, and the communities of Stockton North have provided us with invaluable support in doing just that. However, we cannot do this without the support—the active, engaged support—of local communities, and I believe the hon. Gentleman can be proud that this is something his community has provided for many years, is continuing to provide to this day and will I am sure go on providing for many years to come. With that, and having paid tribute to those who are doing their bit, we would now encourage others to step forward in this way and do theirs as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Thursday 9th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 View all Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 December 2021 - (9 Dec 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 26, page 15, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment aims to ensure that the provisions apply to retirement properties from the time at which they come into force for other types of property, whereas at present the Bill will prevent those provisions coming into force for retirement properties before April 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Ms Elliott. With my final amendment—not including new clauses—I want to raise something that was raised repeatedly in the other place: the question of retirement properties. I understand that, after a review, the Government have dropped their plans to exclude retirement homes and they will be included after a period of transition. I am glad to see that the Government and Ministers have moved forward on this. However, like Members of the Lords, I see no reason why those living in retirement properties should not be given the same rights as those in other types of leasehold property, at the same time. In the spirit in which we have tabled other amendments, this amendment’s aim is to ensure that all leaseholders are treated equally and that the 50,000 or so leasehold owners of retirement properties are not subject to unjust costs while other leaseholders are free from them. That is something that Members from across the Committee have raised.
Should the Minister not want to accept the amendment, I would be grateful if he outlined why exactly retirement property has been given this longer transition period. Given that this is a growing market and we should certainly be encouraging our senior citizens who want to rightsize—freeing up family homes for those who need the space, while living somewhere that suits their needs—what assessment has the Minister made of the number of leaseholders who will fail to benefit from the new system should they purchase somewhere before 1 April 2023? What will he say to them? The stories about retirement housing and fees are some of the worst in the housing market. They have been very well documented, and I know that the Minister is familiar with them. Can the Minister outline what he intends to do about that in the transition period right up until April 2023?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Ms Elliott.
As hon. Members will know, it is our intention to protect leaseholders from unfair practices through the Bill by ensuring that future regulated leases are restricted to a peppercorn rent, unless excepted. The Government believe that those who purchase retirement homes should benefit from the same reform as other future leaseholders. Although we would like the provisions of the Bill to come into effect as soon as possible, we have decided to give the retirement sector additional time to prepare for these changes. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale has tabled amendment 10 to remove this provision and do away with the transition period entirely. I am grateful for his consideration of this point and would like to explain the reasoning for including a transition period for retirement properties, and why I believe that that is the right thing to do.
The plan for peppercorn ground rent was announced in 2019, following the Government consultation entitled “Implementing reforms to the leasehold system”. At the time, we also announced that we would proceed with the proposal to exempt retirement properties from the peppercorn ground rents policy. That decision was made on the basis that developers of retirement properties incur additional costs as a result of the communal spaces that are characteristic of these kinds of development. However, having reviewed this in further detail, we concluded that the argument in favour of an exemption did not outweigh the benefits of ensuring that those purchasing retirement homes can take advantage of reform in the same way as any other leaseholder could.
The Government believe that it is a matter of fairness that those buying retirement properties should be able to realise the benefits of this legislation. It was therefore announced in January 2021 that the exemption for retirement property would no longer apply, and we have offered the transition in recognition of that change of policy. As such, the Bill will come into force no earlier than 1 April 2023 for retirement homes. This transition period will allow developers of retirement properties time to adapt to the forthcoming changes. We believe the transition period in the Bill has been fairly granted in balancing the needs of developers and fairness to leaseholders.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I have some sympathy with the amendment, but I absolutely hear what the Minister says about what he is trying to achieve. Many house builders we have heard from over the last few weeks have decided not to continue charging ground rent, because it is not a good idea. If I may be so bold, perhaps the retirement development industry might like to stop charging such exorbitant fees for ground rent, without the need for legislation.
Eddie Hughes
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will no doubt refer later to meetings I have had, including as recently as yesterday, with representatives from the sector. It is not necessarily for us to prescribe how they might change their business models, but different developers in the sector certainly take different approaches. Given that we signalled one intention and subsequently changed to another, I think we are striking the right balance in allowing a transition period.
In the other place, arguments were raised on both sides; there were those who wished to extend the transition period and those who wished to remove it. As I said, conversations are ongoing, including as recently as yesterday, and hon. Members including my right hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) have been in favour of amending the transition period for the sector.
We acknowledge that the retirement sector has had less time to prepare than the rest of the development industry. However, we have given the matter careful consideration, and we believe the transition period in the Bill strikes the right balance between protecting retirement property consumers and providing a fair period of adjustment for developers. In my conversation with representatives yesterday, it was clear that prospective purchasers are already aware of the planned legislation—they seem to be a well-informed group—and I guess they will be mindful of that when deciding when to complete their purchase.
With regard to hon. Members’ concerns about the impact, I think it will be minimal for two reasons. First, the people who buy this type of property seem to take longer to make the purchase than would perhaps otherwise be the case; in fact, the sell-out rate for such properties is considerably slower than for normal residential properties. Buyers have a greater period over which to consider the purchase, and they frequently visit several times—first by themselves, and subsequently with members of their family—so this is a very considered purchase. Secondly, they seem to be well-informed about the changes to legislation. For those reasons, I feel they will be protected.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Subsection (4) states:
“The day appointed for the coming into force of this Act in relation to leases of retirement homes must be no earlier than 1 April 2023.”
However, it does not say when the Act will come into force. Could the Minister clarify that point?
Eddie Hughes
It is based on when we expect the Bill to come into force in its standard form, and then allowing a subsequent transition period. Assuming that the Bill comes into force quickly after Royal Assent—we have committed to that happening within six months—with the transition period following on from that, we anticipate the provisions coming into force in April 2023. On that point, I ask the hon. Member for Weaver Vale to withdraw the amendment.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank other Members for their contributions. This measure would be a step forward. Martin Boyd of Leasehold Knowledge Partnership has consistently expressed concerns about the matter in the past. I know that Members and stakeholders have lobbied for these properties to be exempted completely, which would have been the wrong course of action. I concur with the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster in hoping that the market responds positively to the changes. In the interests of minimalist legislation and in the spirit of co-operation as we march towards Christmas, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Eddie Hughes
The clause makes provision for the commencement of the Bill. The substantive provisions of the Bill will come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State in regulations, but Members can rest assured that we intend there to be no unnecessary delay in implementation. I thank the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, who is not in her place, for her question on Tuesday regarding the commencement of the Bill following Royal Assent. We understand her concerns about the commencement date, but setting a hard date right now would mean no flexibility should other issues arise making it difficult to achieve.
I assure the Committee that we will press ahead at full steam to bring the legislation into force, but we must also be practical and allow for contingencies, should they arise. That is why we think it is right to have a contingency period for us to implement the provisions within six months of Royal Assent. For completeness, I reiterate what I said in relation to amendment 10: the clause also provides that the Bill cannot be brought into force any earlier than 1 April 2023 with regard to retirement property. We are keen that leaseholders of retirement properties get the same benefits from the legislation as other leaseholders, but we also want to ensure that the sector has time to prepare for the change.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Short title
Amendment made: 8, in clause 27, page 15, line 25, leave out subsection (2).—(Eddie Hughes.)
This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted in the Lords.
Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Ground rent for existing long leases
“Within 30 days of the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation to restrict ground rents on all existing long residential leases to a peppercorn.”—(Mike Amesbury.)
This new clause aims to ensure that the Government introduces further legislation to remove ground rent for all leaseholders, whereas the Act currently only applies to newly established leases.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Today is the last day of the Committee—I know people will be disappointed about that—and my last day sitting opposite the Minister. Indeed, it is my last day shadowing the housing brief, a role I have thoroughly enjoyed. I hope that I have made some difference with challenge and scrutiny in the building safety crisis and on leasehold reform. I wish the Minister and his departmental team well, and I urge them to be bolder in their response to the crisis. Ultimately, of course, Opposition Members and I want to secure a Labour Government in the not-too-distant future, although I know that not everyone in Committee shares that objective.
Eddie Hughes
The hon. Gentleman said that I would respond by saying there will be more reforms in due course, and I think this should be something to be welcomed. What is sad, following what he said, is that he will not necessarily be part of the discussions, because I have found it incredibly helpful to work with somebody who is pragmatic, challenging and reasonable—it has been a real privilege.
New clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Gentleman, would require the Government to produce draft legislation within 30 days of the Bill coming into force to restrict ground rents on all existing residential leases to a peppercorn. He will know that that is beyond the scope of the Bill. The Government share his concerns about the substantial difficulties that some existing leaseholders face, including burdensome lease terms and high premiums to extend their lease and buy the freehold.
The scandal of high and escalating ground rents is a serious concern, too. Indeed, that is a big part of why we are here today to debate the Bill. Some existing leaseholders are faced with high charges, which is why we asked the Competition and Markets Authority to carry out an investigation. As hon. Members will know, the investigation of potential unfair terms and mis-selling is ongoing, and my Department follows it closely. Indeed, I met the CMA last month to receive a progress update. It might benefit the Committee if I expand on the investigation and the progress we have seen so far.
In early 2020, the CMA’s report identified a number of serious concerns, including high and increasing ground rents. Following that report, it opened enforcement action involving four leading housing developers. I know that hon. Members will join me in welcoming the progress that the CMA has made since then. The CMA’s work is not to be underestimated. It has secured settlements with two leading housing developers and an investor in the leasehold sector, which have committed those parties to changes that will benefit thousands of existing leaseholders. The developers have agreed to refund homeowners who saw their ground rents double, and to allow leaseholders to buy the freehold of their property at a discount. Those landmark commitments will ensure greater transparency for the affected leaseholders, helping future buyers to make informed decisions without feeling pressured by time constraints. The CMA has made excellent progress, and that is just the start. We support the ongoing investigation and believe it will send a clear signal to others in the sector to follow this lead.
I referred earlier to the problem that some leaseholders face: a very high premium to buy their freehold—a process known as enfranchisement—or simply to extend their lease. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale will be aware that, earlier this year, we announced a package of reforms of the valuation process that is used to calculate those premiums. Our changes to the enfranchisement valuation process, including abolishing marriage value and prescribing calculation rates, will result in substantial savings for some leaseholders, particularly those with less than 80 years left on their lease. In fact, existing leaseholders can already buy out their ground rent when they extend their lease.
Importantly, we have announced that we will cap the treatment of ground rent in the premium calculation. This means that, in effect, the cost of buying out the ground rent will be reduced for many leaseholders, particularly those with onerous ground rents. We have also committed ourselves to enabling all leaseholders to buy out the ground rent without needing to extend their lease. That will be the case for houses and for flats.
I appreciate the urgency in wanting to address issues faced by existing leaseholders—indeed, I campaigned on that as a Back Bencher—and I reassure hon. Members that the Government are working at pace to bring forward wider leasehold reforms. However, I must once again state that I do not think that the arbitrary deadline in new clause 1 would be useful in that context. As members of the Committee will know, and indeed as, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, who is not in her place, said this earlier this week, leasehold law is extremely complex.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I echo the Minister’s comments and thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for his service in his Front-Bench role. I also thank Opposition Members for the constructive approach they have taken to looking at the Bill; we have moved together positively. I also echo the Minister’s comments in saying that this tightly worded Bill is an attempt to address future wrongs, but I am encouraged to hear that the Government will take comments on board and look at existing wrongs as they move forward with leasehold reform.
Eddie Hughes
I thank my hon. Friend for his endorsement and will turn to him for advice and support as we formulate that policy. However, we do need to take time to get the reforms right. Hon. Members can rest assured, though, that reforming the leasehold system is a high priority for the Government. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Weaver Vale to withdraw the motion.
Mike Amesbury
In this case, I am going to agree to disagree. The measures in the new clause are a fundamental aspect of legislation. We have spoken about how all leaseholders should be equal, and indeed collectively we want to ensure that the feudal leasehold system is left in the history books once and for all.
On Second Reading, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), said that the Bill was
“the appetiser for the main course”
while I referred to the desire of Opposition Members and, importantly, the desire of the constituents we represent, for an
“all-you-can-eat buffet of reform.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2021; Vol. 704, c. 714-33.]
We have waited long enough. Indeed, we have had this nonsensical, unjust system for hundreds of years in England and Wales, and I know that none of us is proud of it, so I will not withdraw the motion. The Minister has examples on his patch where existing leaseholders will be trapped in the current system, but over the road or in another phase of a development, properties will be ground rent free. That is wholly unjust and has real consequences. I encourage all members of the Committee to support the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Our system of leasehold is unfair, unfit for purpose and a hangover from a time that should be consigned to history, as I have stated throughout the Committee and throughout the journey of the Bill. The best answer to fixing the issues with leasehold is to move to a system that most of the world moved to a long time ago. That system is commonhold.
Current levels of commonhold are very low, so the new clauses asks the Government to understand the impact the Bill will have on levels of commonhold. In the other place, the Minister claimed the Bill would level the playing field, and it would be useful to have that information once the Bill comes into force. This Minister will be aware, I hope, that the Mayor of London has committed to furthering commonhold and pledged in his manifesto to start further trials in our capital. Will the Minister tell us how much longer the rest of the country has to wait to learn what is the Government’s policy on increasing commonhold uptake beyond the claim made in the narrative about the Bill?
Will the Minister update the Committee on how the Commonhold Council is coming along, what progress is being made and when we can begin to expect concrete change to take place? Commonhold should be the default tenure; that is something hon. Members across the House have spoken about for a number of years, and this is a real opportunity to turbo-charge that change. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Eddie Hughes
The hon. Gentleman’s new clause 2 would require the Government to produce an assessment of the legislation’s impact on the level of commonhold ownership. The impact assessment would have to be published within 60 days of the Act’s passage. However, as he said himself, the problem with commonhold in this country is that, despite its name, it is not a common tenure at all. Fewer than 20 developments have been created since the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Act came into force.
We want that to change. We want to see the benefits of freehold ownership extended to more homeowners. The change brought about through this legislation will help to create the conditions for more commonholds. It will level the playing field, as it will remove an incentive for developers to build leasehold rather than commonhold homes. However, we also need further to lay the groundwork for greater use of commonhold, which is why we have established the Commonhold Council—a partnership of industry, leaseholders and Government—to prepare consumers and the market for the widespread take-up of commonhold. It is also why we asked the Law Commission to recommend reforms to reinvigorate commonhold as a workable alternative to leasehold, for existing and for new homes. We are reviewing those proposals and will respond in due course.
The new clause looks at the interaction between the Bill and commonhold. We have of course considered that interplay, and believe that the Bill and our work to increase uptake of commonhold are consistent with our aim of more fairness and transparency for homeowners. The Bill and our commonhold reform programme are complementary and we do not believe it necessary to conduct a specific impact assessment as the new clause demands. As hon. Members will know, such exercises also take up considerable resources. I think we are all agreed that we should avoid delaying further leasehold reform, and I am afraid that would be the effect of the new clause.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asks about progress on the Commonhold Council. All I can say is that work is ongoing. I am sure the chair of the council, Lord Greenhalgh, will continue to push forward, and we will be publishing more information on its work early in the new year.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to table the new clause, but I hope he will consider withdrawing it.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for his detailed response. It would be useful to have an update from the chair of the Commonhold Council for shadow Ministers, and to all members of the Committee. That would be appreciated. In the spirit of co-operation, it was important to table the new clause as part of the narrative and to get the detail on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Service charges
“Within 2 years of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the Act on the level of service charges and other costs charged to holders of long residential leases.”—(Mike Amesbury.)
This new clause aims to ensure that the Government publishes a report on the impact of reducing new ground rents on other costs incurred by leaseholders.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This final new clause addresses a point made to me by a number of stakeholders and members of the Committee over the past few weeks. It would ensure that the Secretary of State published an assessment of the impact of the Act on the level of service charges and other costs charged to leaseholders.
Ground rents have been a convenient way of pushing up the costs of leasehold, and an easy way of making more money off leaseholders, but they are not the only way. As we have said, new ground rents are tapering off in number, but other charges have begun to crop up and are starting to take their place—ground rents for parking spaces, rather than residential units, is one example. We are already beginning to see a number of these charges emerge. The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership gives several examples on its website. I encourage Members to look at them.
In an earlier debate, I raised the point that service charges are increasing as freeholders exploit other income streams. Those freeholders do not seem to care about the financial pressure they are putting on leaseholders, or that these are people’s homes, where they deserve to live without being exploited by whatever organisation has bought the freehold or chosen to manage their property.
The clause would require details of charges to be published within two years of Royal Assent. That, frankly, is because we face greater reform, and so I expect that we might see these trends emerging before the Government introduce more legislation. Developers looking to explore other avenues of income will bide their time until they feel the coast is clear.
I tabled the new clause in the hope of raising with the Minister again that we risk playing Whac-a-Mole with leaseholder costs; we could ban one stream of income only to find that freeholders have discovered another. I ask the Minister to outline exactly how he expects to prevent that.
Eddie Hughes
As we draw towards the end of the Bill Committee, I thank Members on both sides of the room for their considered input. We work best when we work collaboratively. As I have said a few times, this is an issue I started to champion as a Back Bencher, so it is an incredible privilege to be the Minister leading the discussions. I thank everyone for their time.
New clause 3 brings us back to the issue of service charges, and to concerns about freeholders using such charges to charge ground rent by another name. The Government believe that all fees and charges should be justifiable, transparent and communicated effectively. Service charges that have been artificially inflated to make up for lost ground rent income would not meet those requirements. If any landlord seeks to recoup what they consider to be lost ground rent or other funds through service charges or any other charge, the wide definition of the term “rent” in the Bill will allow a tribunal to take the charge into account when deciding if it is actually prohibited rent. That is why the Bill has been drafted as it has, and why we have adopted a flexible definition of rent. As I explained in a previous sitting on Tuesday, the definition relies on its naturally understood meaning and includes anything in the nature of rent, whatever it is called. Where a freeholder has attempted to get around these provisions, the definition allows the tribunal to consider, in each case, whether such a charge actually represents a prohibited rent, even if it is not explicitly called a ground rent.
As was discussed earlier in the week, the penalties for landlords who charge a prohibited rent are significant —a maximum of £30,000 per lease. If a landlord had a block of 10 flats, then the penalty they would be risking would reach a significant amount.
We have provided a robust system with not only a serious deterrent, but a route for challenging freeholders who act this way. That is all relevant to the new clause, which asks for an impact assessment. I understand the concerns that motivated the new clause, but hopefully the hon. Member for Weaver Vale can appreciate that the drafting of the Bill is intended to specifically guard against service charges being used in the way that he mentions.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott. Surely the new clause would make the Minister’s job easier, because after two years we would have an assessment of how successful the legislation has been. I am at a loss for a reason why the new clause should not be accepted; it would make it easier for the Minister, his Department and the Government to tighten legislation, if that was required. It asks for an assessment of the issue that we are speaking about. Could the Minister respond to that?
Eddie Hughes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It seems perceptive, given that the paragraph that I was about to move on to says: hon. Members will know that further leasehold reform will follow later in the Parliament, so the efficacy of an impact assessment of this kind, during a period of wider reform, would be questionable. It is difficult to carry out an impact assessment when many moving parts are changing simultaneously; this is not a laboratory experiment in which we can control just one element. As the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, I can say that I look forward to working with him in the future. Should any concerns arise, my door is always open.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the definition of rent in the legislation, and the way that it could be used to cover other ways in which some freeholders may act. How confident is he that leaseholders will be aware of that provision? If freeholders seek to increase other costs and charges, will leaseholders be sufficiently aware that they can exercise the rights set out in this Bill?
Eddie Hughes
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. There are two sides to that story. The fact that this legislation is being enacted, and the attention that will be drawn to that, will hopefully inform a good number of leaseholders. Also, the possible financial penalty—up to £30,000—should act as a significant deterrent for the freeholders, who are much more likely to be well informed and will hopefully be severely deterred by that. As the description of rent is so wide-ranging—it includes anything in the nature of rent—they will well understand that, should they be challenged at tribunal, they would likely be found out.
Given the two sides of that equation, there is good reason for us to be confident that nobody will try to introduce rents through the back door. On that note, I once again ask the hon. Member for Weaver Vale to withdraw the new clause.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for his detailed response, and all those Members who made powerful and informative interventions. Undoubtedly this is a live issue. I said, in relation to an earlier clause of the Bill, that any one of us could set up as a management agent and apply some interesting service charges. We have seen evidence of that weekly—daily. I urge the Minister, and certainly the Department—he spoke about keeping a serious watching brief—to respond to the problem. This Bill is the appetiser, we are told, but they should certainly respond to it in the main course. Opposition Members and, indeed, Government Back Benchers will rightly hold their feet to the fire.
In the spirit of co-operation, and given that this will be my last input today, we will withdraw the new clause. I genuinely thank everybody for giving their valuable time to consideration of the Bill so far. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 9th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill 2021-22 View all Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 December 2021 - (9 Dec 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee except for the water provided. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. Please also 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. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates, and decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking about it that they wish to do so.
Clause 1
Overview
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.
Many businesses are still on the long road to recovery following the pandemic, particularly in the sectors that have been hit hardest, such as hospitality and retail. The most recent data indicates that rent collections for this year’s third quarter are much higher than they were for last year’s third quarter, but they are still not at pre-pandemic levels. An estimated total of just under £7 billion of rent was deferred over the pandemic.
Although we have provided an unprecedented package of support to businesses, we have also been clear that we expect landlords and tenants to come together and negotiate. Agreements have been reached for many businesses, but for others negotiations have stalled, leaving rent arrears to build up, which could threaten many of the valued jobs that those businesses provide.
The statutory arbitration process that the Bill introduces should be used as a last resort, where landlords and tenants have been unable to reach their own agreements. For those tenancies, the Bill will ring-fence rent debt accrued during the pandemic by businesses required to close, and set out a process of binding arbitration that will resolve rent disputes and help the market return to business as usual. The Bill will temporarily restrict remedies available to landlords in relation to rent debt built up during the pandemic. To respect the primacy of the landlord-tenant relationship wherever possible, the arbitration process will not be available where legal agreements are reached between landlords and tenants over the payment of a protected rent debt.
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mrs Murray.
I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks, in which he set out why the Bill is needed. Indeed, some of the estimates of the deferred rent debt that has been built up are around £7 billion, with some as high as £9 billion. That is why we called for action earlier this year, so that there was clarity about how some rent disputes would be resolved, and resolved fairly, because we know that the impact of the pandemic is ongoing.
I have concerns that may be outside the scope of the Bill, unless we decide to accept some amendments on Tuesday. In the light of the announcements yesterday and the guidance coming out today, there may need to be a review if there is a risk of further rent arrears if income drops for businesses in the period ahead. So I hope that there will be ways in which we can keep matters under review, in the light of recent developments.
Clause 1 indeed provides an overview of the Bill, and it is in part 1 of the first three short parts. Part 1 is about “Introductory Provisions”, including important definitions; part 2 provides the framework for statutory arbitration between landlords and tenants; and part 3 provides for the ongoing restrictions on “Certain remedies and insolvency arrangements” in relation to protected rent debt.
Importantly, clause 1 also confirms that nothing in the legislation affects the ability of parties to a business tenancy to reach a negotiated settlement outside the arbitration process. That is important because the arbitration process is a backstop; it is a last resort. It is preferable—in terms of time, cost and the relationship between the parties—that they can be supported to reach a negotiated settlement without the need to resort to arbitration.
Labour will continue to encourage landlords and tenants to negotiate settlements, and it is good to see that most of them have already done so; indeed, that was an important part of the feedback from witnesses this week. It is a sign that most commercial landlords and tenants have worked closely together to get through the crisis, and I pay tribute to them for doing that, because it is a recognition that we have all been in this together and that everybody needs to play their part in bringing flexibility where it is needed.
UK Hospitality estimated that around 60% of its members reached agreement with their landlords on any outstanding debt, but there is an estimate that around one in five have yet to reach a negotiated settlement. Perhaps some settlement discussions are still in progress.
We support clause 1 and we will vote for it to stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
“Rent” and “business tenancy”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause provides clarity with regard to which payments owed by a business tenant to their landlord under their tenancy contract will be considered to be rent for the purpose of the Bill. Rent includes contractual payments owed by the tenant to the landlord for occupation and use of the property, as well as payments collectively described as service charges and interest on any unpaid amount. Including both service charges and interest on any unpaid amount within the definition of rent will allow the arbitrator to consider a broad range of arrears that may be owed by the tenant to the landlord, rather than only the payments for occupation and use. The arbitrator will then consider whether relief should be awarded in respect of some or all of the amount owed.
The definition of business tenancy in the Bill is broadly consistent with the definition of business tenancy under section 82 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which served to temporarily prevent landlords from evicting tenants. However, the Bill focuses on business tenants and their immediate landlords.
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his opening comments on the clause.
Clause 2 defines the key terms that are central to the operation of this legislation, notably rent and business tenancy. Rent is stated to include the cost of using the premises and service charges, as well as interest on unpaid amounts relating to either, with VAT included. We have no concerns about this definition; it seems sensible and we hope that it is widely accepted.
Business tenancy means a tenancy to which part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies. That Act applies to any tenancy where property is or includes premises that are occupied for the purposes of business. The Minister will have heard the concerns of the British Retail Consortium, raised on Tuesday, about the definition of the business tenancy. It has concerns that any tenancy contracted out of the 1954 Act would fall outside the scope of these protections. Will the Minister confirm the assurances that he gave the British Retail Consortium on that point?
As Kate Nicholls of UK Hospitality said in her evidence, also on Tuesday:
“It is important that this piece of legislation sits within the existing canon of property law”––[Official Report, Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Public Bill Committee, 7 December 2021; c. 5, Q3.]
and that definitions are consistent with that existing canon. Subject to meeting the BRC’s concern about business tenancies, the definitions in clause 2 would in our view meet that test. I look forward to the Minister’s response. We support the definitions and will support the clause.
Paul Scully
Yes, I can confirm that tenancies to which part 2 of the 1954 Act applies are covered by the Bill, including where parties have agreed to exclude certain provisions of part 2 of that Act. I should also say, in reply to the hon. Lady’s earlier comments about future powers and what would happen in another coronavirus situation. The Bill does indeed contain a power that allows the provisions to be applied again in the event of future closure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
“Protected rent debt”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause defines “protected rent debt”, a key concept of the Bill, so that landlords and tenants have certainty about what is in the scope of arbitration. The definition for protected rent includes rent that is owed to the landlord under the tenancy if the tenancy was adversely affected by coronavirus, and excludes rent that the tenant owed to the landlord either before the pandemic or after businesses were allowed to open for business. That is in line with the Government’s expectation that the market should now return to normal, with the contractual arrangements once again adhered to.
The clause also states that if all or part of the protected rent debt was satisfied by the landlord by drawing down from the tenancy deposit, the sum that was paid for the deposit should be considered protected rent debt and should still be considered unpaid.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his opening comments on clause 3, which defines “protected rent debt”. Rent is protected if the tenant was adversely affected by coronavirus within the meaning of clause 4 and the rent is attributable to a period that is protected within the meaning of clause 5.
Subsection (3) states that rent consisting of interest due on an unpaid amount is
“attributable to the same period of occupation…as that unpaid amount.”
That means that if a tenant is paying interest on rent due, the interest is also considered to be from the same period of occupancy as the rent. Subsection (5) sets out that if rent due is only partly attributable to a period of occupation, only the rent due that is attributable to that period qualifies as protected rent. That means that if there is rent due that is attributable to occupation by the tenant both outside and within the protected rent period, only that which was within the protected period is regarded as protected rent. It is likely there will be some confusion around that. Perhaps the Minister intends to have clear examples and guidance so that those who use the legislation will be clear about how they need to do their calculations.
Clause 3 does clarify what is meant by protected rent debt. We support the definition and will vote for the clause.
Paul Scully
Indeed, guidance will be really important to ensure that arbitral services and bodies have all the information that they need to make a correct definition. As the hon. Lady says, including interest is important, otherwise the burden of meeting interest under punitive contractual rates would defeat the object of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
“Adversely affected by coronavirus”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 4 is essential. It establishes which businesses can access arbitration and the Bill’s temporary moratorium on other measures. We appreciate that the pandemic has been difficult across the economy, but we are seeking to target this measure at those businesses most directly affected so that we can resolve cases quickly, providing businesses with certainty while protecting jobs in our most vulnerable sectors, such as hospitality, retail and leisure. That is important not only for eligible businesses, but for the individuals who contribute to them.
Clause 4 provides that a business was adversely affected by coronavirus, and therefore its rent may be in scope, if it was required by regulations to close all or part of its business or premises for any of the time while closure requirements were in place: from 21 March 2020 until 18 July 2021 for England, or until 7 August 2021 for Wales. If a business was subject to a closure requirement for any period within those times, it meets the test, regardless of whether it was allowed to carry out other limited activities such as takeaways. Without that targeted approach, we could see rent issues from the pandemic unresolved for a significant amount of time, so I urge the Committee to support the clause.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. As he described, clause 4 clarifies what is meant by businesses “adversely affected by coronavirus”. It states that a business can be categorised as adversely affected if part or all of it was obliged to close due to coronavirus restrictions during the relevant period. It also states that any specific limited activities that the business was able to take part in during its forced closure can be disregarded as immaterial for the purposes of the Bill. We think that is very important, otherwise we will have situations in which one side or the other says that a business is not eligible for the scheme for the purposes of arbitration, so we support having that clarity in the Bill.
The clause also defines the relevant period as 21 March 2020 to 18 July 2021 for businesses in England, and 21 March 2020 to 7 August 2021 for businesses in Wales. We do not object to those dates—there are clear reasons why they have been chosen, given that Government policy changed around those times. My only concern is that the tail end of recovery has been slower in some sectors, such as aviation, travel and tourism, than in others. The dates on which some businesses were able to reopen and start to do much better did not apply in the same way to all businesses in all sectors.
Although we have not tabled any amendments to those dates and we support clause 4, it will be important for the Minister to keep this Bill under review, bearing in mind that there has not been an equal recovery for businesses. If concerns are raised with him about businesses that may or may not be eligible, but have been impacted by coronavirus closures or consequences, it is important that some amendments could be made in due course, should they be required.
Paul Scully
I think we all acknowledge the fact that this is not a perfect science: some businesses that were suffering through the lockdown will continue to have a slow recovery. This is a focused Bill dealing with a particular kind of ring-fenced debt, and we want to make sure that we encapsulate this issue, so that we do not make the Bill and the process of arbitration too big in a way that benefits nobody. I think the Bill is proportionate, and will have the right effect.
In terms of a long tail of recovery, we obviously need to look at the support from a holistic point of view, and at the additional measures that we have put in place to support businesses, including the sectors that the hon. Lady mentioned. Importantly, we will continue to flex. I have been on calls today, and over the past few days—especially with plan B being announced—with representative organisations, and people from hospitality in particular, which is hard pressed. We will continue to listen and respond.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
“Protected period”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 5 sets out the protected period from which rent can be referred to arbitration. The Government are committed to supporting landlords and tenants to resolve rent that has built up. For the arbitration scheme to do so, the parties and the arbitrator must be clear on from which periods rent can be referred to arbitration. Closure requirements and other restrictions were lifted at different times for different types of businesses as part of the appropriate road map out of restrictions, and the reducing of alert levels. That is why the protected period runs from the start of closure requirements until the last day that a business was either required to close or subject to another specific restriction on how it could operate or use its premises.
The period is not affected by general restrictions that applied to all businesses and requirements to give or display information, such as requirements to display information about the wearing of face masks, but where particular types of businesses were subject to a restriction under coronavirus regulations, the period takes account of that restriction. It is intended to take a clear and appropriate approach to the rent debt that may be referred to the arbitrator. The arbitrator will not necessarily award relief in respect of all debt relating to the period, as the appropriate relief will depend on the circumstances, but I urge the Committee to support the clause.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. Clause 5 defines what is meant by the protected period and specific coronavirus restrictions for the purposes of the Bill. He has outlined the dates for the protected period, and that a specific coronavirus restriction means any requirement other than a closure requirement that regulated any aspect of the way that a business was to be carried on. Requirements to provide information on premises, or requirements that applied more generally to businesses, are not included under the specific coronavirus restrictions.
Clearly, as we have discussed, many businesses continued to experience significant covid impacts beyond the end of the protected period. However, we recognise the need to strike the right balance between the interests of landlords and tenants, and therefore the need to limit the protected period to one that is clear about how arbitrators will look at and assess claims and that is clearly aligned with policy. I hope that the Minister will have heard the reflections of stakeholders, including Andrew Goodacre from the British Independent Retailers Association, that businesses that were not forced to close—essential businesses—may still have suffered significant economic consequences.
We want to ensure that there is fairness, and that all viable businesses that suffered an impact will be supported to continue through the ongoing recovery. Overall, we support the measures and definitions in clause 5, and will support it standing part.
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady is right: this is a focused Bill, looking at the first period of the pandemic. However, as I have said, we will continue to listen to various sectors and work with them to ensure that we can recover equally.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
“The matter of relief from payment”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause sets out the two questions that the arbitrator must decide before considering what, if any, relief should be given to the tenant. That is important because it ensures that arbitration capacity and relief are targeted at those who need it most, namely those whose rent has been impacted by closures and restrictions within the ring-fenced period. The first question is whether there is any protected rent debt. The second is whether the tenant should be given any relief in respect of the payment of that debt and, if so, what type of relief.
The clause also sets out clearly the types of relief that an arbitrator can award in respect of protected rent debt: writing off part of or all of the debt; giving more time to repay the debt; or reducing or writing off any interest on the debt. Setting those clear boundaries will help arbitrators to reach awards quickly and provide adversely impacted businesses with the certainty they need to recover from the pandemic.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. Clause 6 clarifies references to the matter of relief from payment—that is, the subject to be dealt with by an arbitrator under the legislation. It relates to whether there is protected rent debt and, if so, whether the tenant should be given relief from the payment of that debt. The Minister has outlined what that means but, to summarise again, it is the writing off of the whole or part of the debt, giving time to pay the whole or part of the debt, and reducing any interest payable on the debt. It is right that arbitrators are given the flexibility to provide for a form of relief that is appropriate for the specific circumstances of a case. Indeed, one or more forms of the relief may be appropriate depending on the circumstances of the landlord and the tenant. We support these measures and clause 6 standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Approval of arbitration bodies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The arbitration scheme will be delivered by independent arbitration bodies. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to approve arbitration bodies for that purpose. Arbitration bodies will have to demonstrate that they are suitable before being approved. Further information on what constitutes “suitable” and how to become an approved body will be published on gov.uk.
The Secretary of State can also withdraw approval status if the body is no longer suitable to deliver arbitration services. The Secretary of State must notify the body if that is the case, and the body will have an opportunity to make representations. Under the clause, a list of approved arbitration bodies must be maintained and published by the Secretary of State, enabling parties to a dispute to know to whom an application for an arbitration may be made. The clause is therefore crucial to enable a high-quality, independent and accessible service to be delivered to landlords and tenants.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray. When the Government create a dispute resolution process, as the Bill does, it goes without saying that there needs to be arbitration bodies. We naturally support the clause—although we have a couple of amendments coming up—as it is inevitable and clear. However, I want to address a point in subsection (7), which states:
“The Secretary of State must maintain and publish a list of approved arbitration bodies.”
We hope that the list will be easily discoverable and regularly updated. On subsection (6), we hope that the Government will ensure that the process of removing arbitration bodies that are not up to scratch is done transparently and speedily. It is absolutely essential that both parties to arbitration—landlords and businesses—have confidence, that the process is fair, and that arbitrators are trusted and appropriately experienced. Although we seek Government reassurance on that, we will support clause 7.
Paul Scully
I reassure the hon. Lady that we want to ensure that everything is transparent and easy to find. People are hard pressed and have to contend with the survival of their businesses, so it is really important that we give them as much information as possible. Indeed, we want to ensure that, should we be required to remove any arbitration services from the list, we do so in an open and speedy way, not least because we want to get through the process as quickly as possible—there is no point in dragging it out—for the benefit of landlords and tenants.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Functions of approved arbitration bodies
Ruth Cadbury
I rise to speak to the amendment, which seeks to clarify the definition of “debt claims”, including claims against guarantors. Currently, “debt claim” has the same meaning as in paragraph (2) of schedule 2, and “tenant” includes a person who guarantees the obligations of the tenant under a business tenancy.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide extra clarity on whether the protections given against county court action are also given to the guarantors of tenancies. We do not want to create a back door by which tenants are protected from enforcement but the guarantors are still liable. It is crucial that the Government ensure that guarantors of tenants are also protected against debt claims during the prescribed six-month period. We do not want a common-sense measure to be circumvented by landlords going after guarantors with no limit.
Ruth Cadbury
I was speaking to the wrong amendment, Mrs Murray. I apologise to Committee members and staff.
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must by regulation specify the meaning of ‘qualifications’ and ‘experience’ for the purpose of this section.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to specify by regulation to meaning of qualifications and experience in section 8.
Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to specify by regulation the meaning of “qualifications” and “experience”. A fair arbitration process is crucial for businesses, landlords and all involved to have faith in the new system. The Bill states that there is a list of approved arbitrators who are appointed
“by virtue of their qualifications or experience”.
Our straightforward amendment would require the Secretary of State to specify just what those qualifications and experience should be.
During the Committee’s first oral evidence session, we had witnesses who focused on the importance of financial qualifications for the arbitration, because most cases will focus on the financial situation for the parties. One witness had an alternative view, however, and suggested in their written evidence that arbitrators should be legally qualified due to the complex nature of some cases and the need for a fair, transparent process.
When the Bill was introduced, we said that it was crucial that businesses have faith in the whole of the arbitration process. Equally, we said that it was important that the process is transparent and fair. That is why our amendment would require the Secretary of State to outline just what the necessary qualifications and experience should be. That would reassure all those involved in the process that it is being overseen by trusted and qualified individuals and groups.
Paul Scully
I think that we all agree about the importance of having the right arbitrators in place to carry out this important work. The Bill already contains steps to ensure that arbitrators will have the necessary qualifications and experience. First, the Secretary of State may approve an arbitration body only if it is considered suitable to carry out its required functions. If the Secretary of State considers an arbitration body not to be properly carrying out its functions, including those relating to the assessment of qualifications and experience, the Secretary of State can withdraw approval.
Secondly, the arbitration bodies themselves are required to maintain a list of arbitrators that are suitable to work on cases that fall under the Bill by virtue of their qualifications or experience. It is right for the arbitration bodies, as the experts on this matter, to determine which arbitrators are suitable given their qualifications and experience. Arbitration bodies that have demonstrated an interest in becoming approved bodies are widely recognised and respected in the field of arbitration, and they are experienced in assessing arbitrators through their accreditation services. That will ensure that we do not unfairly exclude arbitrators by setting in legislation definitions that are too narrow.
However, we recognise that we should not take a one-size-fits-all approach to arbitration, so the Bill provides that arbitration bodies have the flexibility to appoint arbitrators to cases that match their specific qualifications and experience. Furthermore, if an arbitrator does not possess the qualifications required for a particular case, the arbitration body is required to remove them from that case.
The Bill already ensures that arbitration is carried out by suitably qualified and experienced arbitrators. I hope that hon. Members agree that the arbitration bodies are best placed to make this judgment, notwithstanding the clear evidence that we heard of the kind of experiences that we, landlords and tenants expect of arbitrators. I therefore request that the amendment be withdrawn.
Ruth Cadbury
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 8 sets out the statutory functions of arbitration bodies approved by the Secretary of State to carry out arbitration services. It is key to enabling the arbitration market to deliver the system that is required to efficiently resolve outstanding rent disputes. The arbitration bodies will be given powers to appoint arbitrators to a case, as well as to remove them if they are deemed unsuitable on certain grounds. The clause also provides that arbitration bodies will oversee cases and set fees for arbitration services, subject to any cap on fees that may be imposed by the Secretary of State under clause 19, as well as dealing with financial arrangements.
If grounds for removal exist, an arbitration body must remove the arbitrator from the case—for example if an arbitrator does not possess the qualifications required for the arbitration. That is integral to the delivery of the arbitration process. It also provides for reporting, to enable the Secretary of State to have clear sight of the progress of the arbitration process.
Ruth Cadbury
We have no further amendments to the clause, and we have no further comments to make at this point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Period for making a reference to arbitration
Ruth Cadbury
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 9, page 7, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require regulations made under this section to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 3, in clause 9, page 7, line 12, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report giving reasons for any extension of the period mentioned in subsection (2) and must lay a copy before Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report giving reasons for any extension to the period for making a reference to arbitration.
Ruth Cadbury
Amendment 2 covers a much wider issue around trust and transparency: the way in which Parliament has full, open access to decision making. The amendment is similar to amendments that Labour colleagues have introduced before in other pieces of legislation that we have otherwise been supportive of on the whole, as we are of this Bill.
Amendment 2 would require regulations to be made according to the affirmative procedure. It would ensure that Parliament can fully scrutinise the extension of the existing six-month period in which businesses can go through the arbitration process. The Bill requires regulations to go through the negative procedure, which means that they would be discussed or stopped only if there was an objection. Our amendment would make the procedure affirmative, meaning that Parliament would have to approve them.
In recent days, we have seen that the Government’s approach to public health issues and, indeed, to the wider impacts of coronavirus can change rapidly, and it is crucial that MPs and parliamentarians are able to debate, scrutinise and assess such changes. Our amendment therefore calls for both Houses to approve any extension to the arbitration process, to ensure that it works for businesses and landlords across the country.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for her summary of the amendments. The Bill aims to resolve protected rent debt quickly and support commercial tenants and landlords to return to normal operations as soon as possible. We encourage landlords and tenants to resolve unpaid debt between themselves. The arbitration process is designed to allow for negotiation and for the parties to make considered proposals to lead to appropriate outcomes.
The timeframe for making references to arbitration will encourage a speedy resolution of the disputes in scope, and is meant to deal with a particular set of circumstances at a critical time. We believe that six months is enough time to allow eligible tenants and landlords to apply for the arbitration process. However, if there is evidence that the six-month period is not enough, the Secretary of State can, using the power in clause 9, extend it to allow more time for the eligible parties to apply. Any evidence that the power is needed is unlikely to become available until well after the Bill comes into force; it may not become apparent that such an extension is necessary until close to the expiry of the six-month period. The length of an extension would depend on the circumstances, but would be based on feedback from stakeholders. It would be only for as long as is absolutely necessary.
I appreciate the interest in transparency shown by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, and I reassure her that the decision to extend would be based solely on evidence from tenants, landlords and arbitrators. Officials will continue to monitor the process if issues with the time period arise.
Regulations to extend the application period may need to be made relatively quickly in order to react, so it is important that the Bill remains flexible in case more time is needed. It remains important for the Government to work with Parliament. None the less, we want to make sure that the process can be resolved as quickly as possible, without any undue delay or concern that landlords and tenants will not have their case heard as quickly as possible. We therefore consider the negative procedure to be appropriate in the circumstances. I welcome the hon. Lady’s contribution, but I hope in this instance that she will withdraw the amendments.
Ruth Cadbury
If the two amendments are being considered together, I would also like to speak specifically to the other one.
The Chair
I said at the beginning that we had come to amendment 2, with which it would be convenient to debate amendment 3. If the hon. Lady would like to include her remarks on amendment 3 when summing up, I am happy to allow that.
Ruth Cadbury
Thank you, Mrs Murray, that is very helpful. Amendment 3 would require the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report giving reasons for any extension to the period for making a reference to arbitration. Like amendment 2, amendment 3 is crucial in improving and expanding the scope of parliamentary scrutiny. It calls for the Government to publish a report setting out the reasons given for any extension of the existing six-month arbitration process.
As we said on Second Reading, it is crucial that the Bill has the support of businesses and that the arbitration process is transparent and open, which should include any extension of the period in which rent arrears can be brought into arbitration. Our amendment therefore calls for the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament the reasons for extending the arbitration process.
Paul Scully
I hope that, in my opening remarks, I made clear our reasons for asking the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Cadbury
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The purpose of the clause is to specify the time limit for which arbitration under the Bill will be available. It will encourage landlords and tenants to engage and attempt to resolve in-scope disputes in a timely manner. There is a power for the Secretary of State to extend the time limit if it is required. The arbitration process should be seen as a last resort and our strong preference is for landlords and tenants to negotiate using the updated code of practice.
Before either party can make a reference to arbitration, on notification by the applicant that they intend to make a reference, the parties are expected to offer solutions with supporting evidence to try and resolve the matter, meaning arbitration should be a last resort. Under the Bill, parties will have six months to make a reference to arbitration to give them time to go through those steps. The Secretary of State has the power to request reports from approved arbitration bodies to enable him to monitor their progress and also has a delegated power in the clause to extend the six-month period, should monitoring suggest that it is necessary to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Requirements for making a reference to arbitration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
A party that wants to take their dispute to arbitration must first go through a process of notifying the other party and allowing the other party to respond. The clause sets out the timings and the steps to take. The intent is to give both parties enough time through a period of up to at least 28 days from the date of initial notification to try and reach an agreement pre-arbitration.
Arbitration provided by the Bill cannot be used where tenants are subject to, or are debtors under, certain legal compromises or arrangements for debt recovery. That is because the Bill aims to focus specifically on unagreed rent arrears and to encourage negotiations where possible.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the Minister. Again, we do not propose to amend or oppose the clause. I appreciate that the Government have put these measures in place for a reason and we welcome them. I would like to know whether the Government have made any assessment of how many businesses would be unable to go to arbitration on the basis of these limits.
Paul Scully
I am not aware that we have made a specific assessment. We have made assessments on the businesses that come within scope and would otherwise go to arbitration because they have not been able to have a satisfactory discussion beforehand. These positions allow parties time to reflect on whether they can reach that settlement in a fair and open process.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Proposals for resolving the matter of relief from payment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause requires the party making a reference to arbitration to include with that reference a formal proposal and supporting evidence. The other party may respond with their own proposal, accompanied by supporting evidence, within 14 days of receiving the applicant’s. The process therefore gives each party the opportunity to review the other’s proposals. The parties then have 28 days from their initial formal proposal to submit a revised proposal accompanied by further supporting evidence—or longer if both parties or the arbitrator agree to allow more time, giving each party time to reflect and respond. That is important, because it facilitates the possibility of a settlement occurring early on in the arbitration process once a reference to arbitration is made. It supports our aim of giving businesses certainty as soon as possible. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the Minister. Again, we do not intend to amend or oppose the clause at this point. We support the proposals for resolving the matter of relief, because, as the Minister has said, it allows tenants and landlords to reach an agreement. We know from stakeholder feedback that this process is welcomed by businesses. It will provide relief, especially because of the block on any court action that it provides. We also welcome it because it allows both parties to make proposals to tackle debt relief. Equally, we want to make sure that there is a level playing field in the arbitration process. We do not want larger companies to be able to muscle through the arbitration process because they have greater levels of resources—both financial and in levels of expertise and so on.
Although we welcome the fact that the process can be extended with agreement, there is an equal chance that, if the process extends and extends even further, it could act as an extra burden on smaller businesses. That is why we hope the Government will look into the accessibility and ease with which small businesses, in particular, can engage in the arbitration process.
Paul Scully
We will continue to work with the arbitration services that have expertise in this area, especially as the measure is based on systems specifically targeted at smaller businesses and smaller disputes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Written statements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Statements of truth confirm the veracity of written statements submitted to the arbitrator, and they will be required to verify any written statements provided to the arbitrator—whether by one of the parties or another person—that relate to a matter relevant to the arbitration. An unverified written statement can be disregarded by the arbitrator. It is standard practice in arbitration processes to require a written statement to be verified by a statement of truth. That ensures that parties only make written statements that they believe to be true, ensuring that arbitral awards have a sound basis. I urge the Committee to support the clause.
Ruth Cadbury
This is a welcome clause and one that we support. It is vital that statements given to the arbitrator are truthful. That will be crucial when viability is being assessed. Although we have expressed the importance of viable businesses being supported, we appreciate that this is a two-way street, and that businesses need to provide truthful and full information to the arbitrators, as, of course, do landlords. We support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Order of the Committee of Tuesday 7 December be amended, in paragraph 1(b), by leaving out “and 2 pm”.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)
Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (Third sitting)
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee except for the water provided. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. Please also 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. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates, and decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking about it that they wish to do so.
Clause 1
Overview
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.
Many businesses are still on the long road to recovery following the pandemic, particularly in the sectors that have been hit hardest, such as hospitality and retail. The most recent data indicates that rent collections for this year’s third quarter are much higher than they were for last year’s third quarter, but they are still not at pre-pandemic levels. An estimated total of just under £7 billion of rent was deferred over the pandemic.
Although we have provided an unprecedented package of support to businesses, we have also been clear that we expect landlords and tenants to come together and negotiate. Agreements have been reached for many businesses, but for others negotiations have stalled, leaving rent arrears to build up, which could threaten many of the valued jobs that those businesses provide.
The statutory arbitration process that the Bill introduces should be used as a last resort, where landlords and tenants have been unable to reach their own agreements. For those tenancies, the Bill will ring-fence rent debt accrued during the pandemic by businesses required to close, and set out a process of binding arbitration that will resolve rent disputes and help the market return to business as usual. The Bill will temporarily restrict remedies available to landlords in relation to rent debt built up during the pandemic. To respect the primacy of the landlord-tenant relationship wherever possible, the arbitration process will not be available where legal agreements are reached between landlords and tenants over the payment of a protected rent debt.
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mrs Murray.
I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks, in which he set out why the Bill is needed. Indeed, some of the estimates of the deferred rent debt that has been built up are around £7 billion, with some as high as £9 billion. That is why we called for action earlier this year, so that there was clarity about how some rent disputes would be resolved, and resolved fairly, because we know that the impact of the pandemic is ongoing.
I have concerns that may be outside the scope of the Bill, unless we decide to accept some amendments on Tuesday. In the light of the announcements yesterday and the guidance coming out today, there may need to be a review if there is a risk of further rent arrears if income drops for businesses in the period ahead. So I hope that there will be ways in which we can keep matters under review, in the light of recent developments.
Clause 1 indeed provides an overview of the Bill, and it is in part 1 of the first three short parts. Part 1 is about “Introductory Provisions”, including important definitions; part 2 provides the framework for statutory arbitration between landlords and tenants; and part 3 provides for the ongoing restrictions on “Certain remedies and insolvency arrangements” in relation to protected rent debt.
Importantly, clause 1 also confirms that nothing in the legislation affects the ability of parties to a business tenancy to reach a negotiated settlement outside the arbitration process. That is important because the arbitration process is a backstop; it is a last resort. It is preferable—in terms of time, cost and the relationship between the parties—that they can be supported to reach a negotiated settlement without the need to resort to arbitration.
Labour will continue to encourage landlords and tenants to negotiate settlements, and it is good to see that most of them have already done so; indeed, that was an important part of the feedback from witnesses this week. It is a sign that most commercial landlords and tenants have worked closely together to get through the crisis, and I pay tribute to them for doing that, because it is a recognition that we have all been in this together and that everybody needs to play their part in bringing flexibility where it is needed.
UK Hospitality estimated that around 60% of its members reached agreement with their landlords on any outstanding debt, but there is an estimate that around one in five have yet to reach a negotiated settlement. Perhaps some settlement discussions are still in progress.
We support clause 1 and we will vote for it to stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
“Rent” and “business tenancy”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause provides clarity with regard to which payments owed by a business tenant to their landlord under their tenancy contract will be considered to be rent for the purpose of the Bill. Rent includes contractual payments owed by the tenant to the landlord for occupation and use of the property, as well as payments collectively described as service charges and interest on any unpaid amount. Including both service charges and interest on any unpaid amount within the definition of rent will allow the arbitrator to consider a broad range of arrears that may be owed by the tenant to the landlord, rather than only the payments for occupation and use. The arbitrator will then consider whether relief should be awarded in respect of some or all of the amount owed.
The definition of business tenancy in the Bill is broadly consistent with the definition of business tenancy under section 82 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which served to temporarily prevent landlords from evicting tenants. However, the Bill focuses on business tenants and their immediate landlords.
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his opening comments on the clause.
Clause 2 defines the key terms that are central to the operation of this legislation, notably rent and business tenancy. Rent is stated to include the cost of using the premises and service charges, as well as interest on unpaid amounts relating to either, with VAT included. We have no concerns about this definition; it seems sensible and we hope that it is widely accepted.
Business tenancy means a tenancy to which part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies. That Act applies to any tenancy where property is or includes premises that are occupied for the purposes of business. The Minister will have heard the concerns of the British Retail Consortium, raised on Tuesday, about the definition of the business tenancy. It has concerns that any tenancy contracted out of the 1954 Act would fall outside the scope of these protections. Will the Minister confirm the assurances that he gave the British Retail Consortium on that point?
As Kate Nicholls of UK Hospitality said in her evidence, also on Tuesday:
“It is important that this piece of legislation sits within the existing canon of property law”––[Official Report, Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Public Bill Committee, 7 December 2021; c. 5, Q3.]
and that definitions are consistent with that existing canon. Subject to meeting the BRC’s concern about business tenancies, the definitions in clause 2 would in our view meet that test. I look forward to the Minister’s response. We support the definitions and will support the clause.
Paul Scully
Yes, I can confirm that tenancies to which part 2 of the 1954 Act applies are covered by the Bill, including where parties have agreed to exclude certain provisions of part 2 of that Act. I should also say, in reply to the hon. Lady’s earlier comments about future powers and what would happen in another coronavirus situation. The Bill does indeed contain a power that allows the provisions to be applied again in the event of future closure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
“Protected rent debt”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause defines “protected rent debt”, a key concept of the Bill, so that landlords and tenants have certainty about what is in the scope of arbitration. The definition for protected rent includes rent that is owed to the landlord under the tenancy if the tenancy was adversely affected by coronavirus, and excludes rent that the tenant owed to the landlord either before the pandemic or after businesses were allowed to open for business. That is in line with the Government’s expectation that the market should now return to normal, with the contractual arrangements once again adhered to.
The clause also states that if all or part of the protected rent debt was satisfied by the landlord by drawing down from the tenancy deposit, the sum that was paid for the deposit should be considered protected rent debt and should still be considered unpaid.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his opening comments on clause 3, which defines “protected rent debt”. Rent is protected if the tenant was adversely affected by coronavirus within the meaning of clause 4 and the rent is attributable to a period that is protected within the meaning of clause 5.
Subsection (3) states that rent consisting of interest due on an unpaid amount is
“attributable to the same period of occupation…as that unpaid amount.”
That means that if a tenant is paying interest on rent due, the interest is also considered to be from the same period of occupancy as the rent. Subsection (5) sets out that if rent due is only partly attributable to a period of occupation, only the rent due that is attributable to that period qualifies as protected rent. That means that if there is rent due that is attributable to occupation by the tenant both outside and within the protected rent period, only that which was within the protected period is regarded as protected rent. It is likely there will be some confusion around that. Perhaps the Minister intends to have clear examples and guidance so that those who use the legislation will be clear about how they need to do their calculations.
Clause 3 does clarify what is meant by protected rent debt. We support the definition and will vote for the clause.
Paul Scully
Indeed, guidance will be really important to ensure that arbitral services and bodies have all the information that they need to make a correct definition. As the hon. Lady says, including interest is important, otherwise the burden of meeting interest under punitive contractual rates would defeat the object of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
“Adversely affected by coronavirus”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 4 is essential. It establishes which businesses can access arbitration, the Bill’s temporary moratorium, and other measures. We appreciate that the pandemic has been difficult across the economy, but we are seeking to target this measure at those businesses most directly affected so that we can resolve cases quickly, providing businesses with certainty while protecting jobs in our most vulnerable sectors, such as hospitality, retail and leisure. That is important not only for eligible businesses, but for the individuals who contribute to them.
Clause 4 provides that a business that was adversely affected by coronavirus and its rent may be in scope if it was required by regulations to close all or part of its business or premises for any of the time while closure requirements were in place: from 21 March 2020 until 18 July 2021 for England, or until 7 August 2021 for Wales. If a business was subject to a closure requirement for any period within those times, it meets the test, regardless of whether it was allowed to carry out other limited activities such as takeaways. Without that targeted approach, we could see rent issues from the pandemic unresolved for a significant amount of time, so I urge the Committee to support the clause.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. As he described, clause 4 clarifies what is meant by businesses “adversely affected by coronavirus”. It states that a business can be categorised as adversely affected if part or all of it was obliged to close due to coronavirus restrictions during the relevant period. It also states that any specific limited activities that the business was able to take part in during its forced closure can be disregarded as immaterial for the purposes of the Bill. We think that is very important, otherwise we will have situations in which one side or the other says that a business is not eligible for the scheme for the purposes of arbitration, so we support having that clarity in the Bill.
The clause also defines the relevant period as 21 March 2020 to 18 July 2021 for businesses in England, and 21 March 2020 to 7 August 2021 for businesses in Wales. We do not object to those dates—there are clear reasons why they have been chosen, given that Government policy changed around those times. My only concern is that the tail end of recovery has been slower in some sectors, such as aviation, travel and tourism, than in others. The dates on which some businesses were able to reopen and start to do much better did not apply in the same way to all businesses in all sectors.
Although we have not tabled any amendments to those dates and we support clause 4, it will be important for the Minister to keep this Bill under review, bearing in mind that there has not been an equal recovery for businesses. If concerns are raised with him about businesses that may or may not be eligible, but have been impacted by coronavirus closures or consequences, it is important that some amendments could be made in due course, should they be required.
Paul Scully
I think we all acknowledge the fact that this is not a perfect science: some businesses that were suffering through the lockdown will continue to have a slow recovery. This is a focused Bill dealing with a particular kind of ring-fenced debt, and we want to make sure that we encapsulate this issue, so that we do not make the Bill and the process of arbitration too big in a way that benefits nobody. I think the Bill is proportionate, and will have the right effect.
In terms of a long tail of recovery, we obviously need to look at the support from a holistic point of view, and at the additional measures that we have put in place to support businesses, including the sectors that the hon. Lady mentioned. Importantly, we will continue to flex. I have been on calls today, and over the past few days—especially with plan B being announced—with representative organisations, and people from hospitality in particular, which is hard pressed. We will continue to listen and respond.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
“Protected period”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 5 sets out the protected period from which rent can be referred to arbitration. The Government are committed to supporting landlords and tenants to resolve rent that has built up. For the arbitration scheme to do so, the parties and the arbitrator must be clear on from which periods rent can be referred to arbitration. Closure requirements and other restrictions were lifted at different times for different types of businesses as part of the appropriate road map out of restrictions, and the reducing of alert levels. That is why the protected period runs from the start of closure requirements until the last day that a business was either required to close or subject to another specific restriction on how it could operate or use its premises.
The period is not affected by general restrictions that applied to all businesses and requirements to give or display information, such as requirements to display information about the wearing of face masks, but where particular types of businesses were subject to a restriction under coronavirus regulations, the period takes account of that restriction. It is intended to take a clear and appropriate approach to the rent debt that may be referred to the arbitrator. The arbitrator will not necessarily award relief in respect of all debt relating to the period, as the appropriate relief will depend on the circumstances, but I urge the Committee to support the clause.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. Clause 5 defines what is meant by the protected period and specific coronavirus restrictions for the purposes of the Bill. He has outlined the dates for the protected period, and that a specific coronavirus restriction means any requirement other than a closure requirement that regulated any aspect of the way that a business was to be carried on. Requirements to provide information on premises, or requirements that applied more generally to businesses, are not included under the specific coronavirus restrictions.
Clearly, as we have discussed, many businesses continued to experience significant covid impacts beyond the end of the protected period. However, we recognise the need to strike the right balance between the interests of landlords and tenants, and therefore the need to limit the protected period to one that is clear about how arbitrators will look at and assess claims and that is clearly aligned with policy. I hope that the Minister will have heard the reflections of stakeholders, including Andrew Goodacre from the British Independent Retailers Association, that businesses that were not forced to close—essential businesses—may still have suffered significant economic consequences.
We want to ensure that there is fairness, and that all viable businesses that suffered an impact will be supported to continue through the ongoing recovery. Overall, we support the measures and definitions in clause 5, and will support it standing part.
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady is right: this is a focused Bill, looking at the first period of the pandemic. However, as I have said, we will continue to listen to various sectors and work with them to ensure that we can recover equally.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
“The matter of relief from payment”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause sets out the two questions that the arbitrator must decide before considering what, if any, relief should be given to the tenant. That is important because it ensures that arbitration capacity and relief are targeted at those who need it most, namely those whose rent has been impacted by closures and restrictions within the ring-fenced period. The first question is whether there is any protected rent debt. The second is whether the tenant should be given any relief in respect of the payment of that debt and, if so, what type of relief.
The clause also sets out clearly the types of relief that an arbitrator can award in respect of protected rent debt: writing off part of or all of the debt; giving more time to repay the debt; or reducing or writing off any interest on the debt. Setting those clear boundaries will help arbitrators to reach awards quickly and provide adversely impacted businesses with the certainty they need to recover from the pandemic.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. Clause 6 clarifies references to the matter of relief from payment—that is, the subject to be dealt with by an arbitrator under the legislation. It relates to whether there is protected rent debt and, if so, whether the tenant should be given relief from the payment of that debt. The Minister has outlined what that means but, to summarise again, it is the writing off of the whole or part of the debt, giving time to pay the whole or part of the debt, and reducing any interest payable on the debt. It is right that arbitrators are given the flexibility to provide for a form of relief that is appropriate for the specific circumstances of a case. Indeed, one or more forms of the relief may be appropriate depending on the circumstances of the landlord and the tenant. We support these measures and clause 6 standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Approval of arbitration bodies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The arbitration scheme will be delivered by independent arbitration bodies. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to approve arbitration bodies for that purpose. Arbitration bodies will have to demonstrate that they are suitable before being approved. Further information on what constitutes “suitable” and how to become an approved body will be published on gov.uk.
The Secretary of State can also withdraw approval status if the body is no longer suitable to deliver arbitration services. The Secretary of State must notify the body if that is the case, and the body will have an opportunity to make representations. Under the clause, a list of approved arbitration bodies must be maintained and published by the Secretary of State, enabling parties to a dispute to know to whom an application for an arbitration may be made. The clause is therefore crucial to enable a high-quality, independent and accessible service to be delivered to landlords and tenants.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray. When the Government create a dispute resolution process, as the Bill does, it goes without saying that there needs to be arbitration bodies. We naturally support the clause—although we have a couple of amendments coming up—as it is inevitable and clear. However, I want to address a point in subsection (7), which states:
“The Secretary of State must maintain and publish a list of approved arbitration bodies.”
We hope that the list will be easily discoverable and regularly updated. On subsection (6), we hope that the Government will ensure that the process of removing arbitration bodies that are not up to scratch is done transparently and speedily. It is absolutely essential that both parties to arbitration—landlords and businesses—have confidence, that the process is fair, and that arbitrators are trusted and appropriately experienced. Although we seek Government reassurance on that, we will support clause 7.
Paul Scully
I reassure the hon. Lady that we want to ensure that everything is transparent and easy to find. People are hard pressed and have to contend with the survival of their businesses, so it is really important that we give them as much information as possible. Indeed, we want to ensure that, should we be required to remove any arbitration services from the list, we do so in an open and speedy way, not least because we want to get through the process as quickly as possible—there is no point in dragging it out—for the benefit of landlords and tenants.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Functions of approved arbitration bodies
Ruth Cadbury
I rise to speak to the amendment, which seeks to clarify the definition of “debt claims”, including claims against guarantors. Currently, “debt claim” has the same meaning as in paragraph (2) of schedule 2, and “tenant” includes a person who guarantees the obligations of the tenant under a business tenancy.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide extra clarity on whether the protections given against county court action are also given to the guarantors of tenancies. We do not want to create a back door by which tenants are protected from enforcement but the guarantors are still liable. It is crucial that the Government ensure that guarantors of tenants are also protected against debt claims during the prescribed six-month period. We do not want a common-sense measure to be circumvented by landlords going after guarantors with no limit.
Ruth Cadbury
I was speaking to the wrong amendment, Mrs Murray. I apologise to Committee members and staff.
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must by regulation specify the meaning of ‘qualifications’ and ‘experience’ for the purpose of this section.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to specify by regulation to meaning of qualifications and experience in section 8.
Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to specify by regulation the meaning of “qualifications” and “experience”. A fair arbitration process is crucial for businesses, landlords and all involved to have faith in the new system. The Bill states that there is a list of approved arbitrators who are appointed
“by virtue of their qualifications or experience”.
Our straightforward amendment would require the Secretary of State to specify just what those qualifications and experience should be.
During the Committee’s first oral evidence session, we had witnesses who focused on the importance of financial qualifications for the arbitration, because most cases will focus on the financial situation for the parties. One witness had an alternative view, however, and suggested in their written evidence that arbitrators should be legally qualified due to the complex nature of some cases and the need for a fair, transparent process.
When the Bill was introduced, we said that it was crucial that businesses have faith in the whole of the arbitration process. Equally, we said that it was important that the process is transparent and fair. That is why our amendment would require the Secretary of State to outline just what the necessary qualifications and experience should be. That would reassure all those involved in the process that it is being overseen by trusted and qualified individuals and groups.
Paul Scully
I think that we all agree about the importance of having the right arbitrators in place to carry out this important work. The Bill already contains steps to ensure that arbitrators will have the necessary qualifications and experience. First, the Secretary of State may approve an arbitration body only if it is considered suitable to carry out its required functions. If the Secretary of State considers an arbitration body not to be properly carrying out its functions, including those relating to the assessment of qualifications and experience, the Secretary of State can withdraw approval.
Secondly, the arbitration bodies themselves are required to maintain a list of arbitrators that are suitable to work on cases that fall under the Bill by virtue of their qualifications or experience. It is right for the arbitration bodies, as the experts on this matter, to determine which arbitrators are suitable given their qualifications and experience. Arbitration bodies that have demonstrated an interest in becoming approved bodies are widely recognised and respected in the field of arbitration, and they are experienced in assessing arbitrators through their accreditation services. That will ensure that we do not unfairly exclude arbitrators by setting in legislation definitions that are too narrow.
However, we recognise that we should not take a one-size-fits-all approach to arbitration, so the Bill provides that arbitration bodies have the flexibility to appoint arbitrators to cases that match their specific qualifications and experience. Furthermore, if an arbitrator does not possess the qualifications required for a particular case, the arbitration body is required to remove them from that case.
The Bill already ensures that arbitration is carried out by suitably qualified and experienced arbitrators. I hope that hon. Members agree that the arbitration bodies are best placed to make this judgment, notwithstanding the clear evidence that we heard of the kind of experiences that we, landlords and tenants expect of arbitrators. I therefore request that the amendment be withdrawn.
Ruth Cadbury
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 8 sets out the statutory functions of arbitration bodies approved by the Secretary of State to carry out arbitration services. It is key to enabling the arbitration market to deliver the system that is required to efficiently resolve outstanding rent disputes. The arbitration bodies will be given powers to appoint arbitrators to a case, as well as to remove them if they are deemed unsuitable on certain grounds. The clause also provides that arbitration bodies will oversee cases and set fees for arbitration services, subject to any cap on fees that may be imposed by the Secretary of State under clause 19, as well as dealing with financial arrangements.
If grounds for removal exist, an arbitration body must remove the arbitrator from the case—for example if an arbitrator does not possess the qualifications required for the arbitration. That is integral to the delivery of the arbitration process. It also provides for reporting, to enable the Secretary of State to have clear sight of the progress of the arbitration process.
Ruth Cadbury
We have no further amendments to the clause, and we have no further comments to make at this point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Period for making a reference to arbitration
Ruth Cadbury
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 9, page 7, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require regulations made under this section to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 3, in clause 9, page 7, line 12, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report giving reasons for any extension of the period mentioned in subsection (2) and must lay a copy before Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report giving reasons for any extension to the period for making a reference to arbitration.
Ruth Cadbury
Amendment 2 covers a much wider issue around trust and transparency: the way in which Parliament has full, open access to decision making. The amendment is similar to amendments that Labour colleagues have introduced before in other pieces of legislation that we have otherwise been supportive of on the whole, as we are of this Bill.
Amendment 2 would require regulations to be made according to the affirmative procedure. It would ensure that Parliament can fully scrutinise the extension of the existing six-month period in which businesses can go through the arbitration process. The Bill requires regulations to go through the negative procedure, which means that they would be discussed or stopped only if there was an objection. Our amendment would make the procedure affirmative, meaning that Parliament would have to approve them.
In recent days, we have seen that the Government’s approach to public health issues and, indeed, to the wider impacts of coronavirus can change rapidly, and it is crucial that MPs and parliamentarians are able to debate, scrutinise and assess such changes. Our amendment therefore calls for both Houses to approve any extension to the arbitration process, to ensure that it works for businesses and landlords across the country.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for her summary of the amendments. The Bill aims to resolve protected rent debt quickly and support commercial tenants and landlords to return to normal operations as soon as possible. We encourage landlords and tenants to resolve unpaid debt between themselves. The arbitration process is designed to allow for negotiation and for the parties to make considered proposals to lead to appropriate outcomes.
The timeframe for making references to arbitration will encourage a speedy resolution of the disputes in scope, and is meant to deal with a particular set of circumstances at a critical time. We believe that six months is enough time to allow eligible tenants and landlords to apply for the arbitration process. However, if there is evidence that the six-month period is not enough, the Secretary of State can, using the power in clause 9, extend it to allow more time for the eligible parties to apply. Any evidence that the power is needed is unlikely to become available until well after the Bill comes into force; it may not become apparent that such an extension is necessary until close to the expiry of the six-month period. The length of an extension would depend on the circumstances, but would be based on feedback from stakeholders. It would be only for as long as is absolutely necessary.
I appreciate the interest in transparency shown by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, and I reassure her that the decision to extend would be based solely on evidence from tenants, landlords and arbitrators. Officials will continue to monitor the process if issues with the time period arise.
Regulations to extend the application period may need to be made relatively quickly in order to react, so it is important that the Bill remains flexible in case more time is needed. It remains important for the Government to work with Parliament. None the less, we want to make sure that the process can be resolved as quickly as possible, without any undue delay or concern that landlords and tenants will not have their case heard as quickly as possible. We therefore consider the negative procedure to be appropriate in the circumstances. I welcome the hon. Lady’s contribution, but I hope in this instance that she will withdraw the amendments.
Ruth Cadbury
If the two amendments are being considered together, I would also like to speak specifically to the other one.
The Chair
I said at the beginning that we had come to amendment 2, with which it would be convenient to debate amendment 3. If the hon. Lady would like to include her remarks on amendment 3 when summing up, I am happy to allow that.
Ruth Cadbury
Thank you, Mrs Murray, that is very helpful. Amendment 3 would require the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report giving reasons for any extension to the period for making a reference to arbitration. Like amendment 2, amendment 3 is crucial in improving and expanding the scope of parliamentary scrutiny. It calls for the Government to publish a report setting out the reasons given for any extension of the existing six-month arbitration process.
As we said on Second Reading, it is crucial that the Bill has the support of businesses and that the arbitration process is transparent and open, which should include any extension of the period in which rent arrears can be brought into arbitration. Our amendment therefore calls for the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament the reasons for extending the arbitration process.
Paul Scully
I hope that, in my opening remarks, I made clear our reasons for asking the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Cadbury
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The purpose of the clause is to specify the time limit for which arbitration under the Bill will be available. It will encourage landlords and tenants to engage and attempt to resolve in-scope disputes in a timely manner. There is a power for the Secretary of State to extend the time limit if it is required. The arbitration process should be seen as a last resort and our strong preference is for landlords and tenants to negotiate using the updated code of practice.
Before either party can make a reference to arbitration, on notification by the applicant that they intend to make a reference, the parties are expected to offer solutions with supporting evidence to try and resolve the matter, meaning arbitration should be a last resort. Under the Bill, parties will have six months to make a reference to arbitration to give them time to go through those steps. The Secretary of State has the power to request reports from approved arbitration bodies to enable him to monitor their progress and also has a delegated power in the clause to extend the six-month period, should monitoring suggest that it is necessary to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Requirements for making a reference to arbitration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
A party that wants to take their dispute to arbitration must first go through a process of notifying the other party and allowing the other party to respond. The clause sets out the timings and the steps to take. The intent is to give both parties enough time through a period of up to at least 28 days from the date of initial notification to try and reach an agreement pre-arbitration.
Arbitration provided by the Bill cannot be used where tenants are subject to or debt is under certain legal compromises or arrangements for debt recovery. That is because the Bill aims to focus specifically on unagreed rent arrears and to encourage negotiations where possible.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the Minister. Again, we do not propose to amend or oppose the clause. I appreciate that the Government have put these measures in place for a reason and we welcome them. I would like to know whether the Government have made any assessment of how many businesses would be unable to go to arbitration on the basis of these limits.
Paul Scully
I am not aware that we have made a specific assessment. We have made assessments on the businesses that come within scope and would otherwise go to arbitration because they have not been able to have a satisfactory discussion beforehand. These positions allow parties time to reflect on whether they can reach that settlement in a fair and open process.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Proposals for resolving the matter of relief from payment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause requires the party making a reference to arbitration to include with that reference a formal proposal and supporting evidence. The other party may respond with their own proposal, accompanied by supporting evidence, within 14 days of receiving the applicant’s. The process therefore gives each party the opportunity to review the other’s proposals. The parties then have 28 days from their initial formal proposal to submit a revised proposal accompanied by further supporting evidence—or longer if both parties or the arbitrator agree to allow more time, giving each party time to reflect and respond. That is important, because it facilitates the possibility of a settlement occurring early on in the arbitration process once a reference to arbitration is made. It supports our aim of giving businesses certainty as soon as possible. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the Minister. Again, we do not intend to amend or oppose the clause at this point. We support the proposals for resolving the matter of relief, because, as the Minister has said, it allows tenants and landlords to reach an agreement. We know from stakeholder feedback that this process is welcomed by businesses. It will provide relief, especially because of the block on any court action that it provides. We also welcome it because it allows both parties to make proposals to tackle debt relief. Equally, we want to make sure that there is a level playing field in the arbitration process. We do not want larger companies to be able to muscle through the arbitration process because they have greater levels of resources—both financial and in levels of expertise and so on.
Although we welcome the fact that the process can be extended with agreement, there is an equal chance that, if the process extends and extends even further, it could act as an extra burden on smaller businesses. That is why we hope the Government will look into the accessibility and ease with which small businesses, in particular, can engage in the arbitration process.
Paul Scully
We will continue to work with the arbitration services that have expertise in this area, especially as the measure is based on systems specifically targeted at smaller businesses and smaller disputes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Written statements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Statements of truth confirm the veracity of written statements submitted to the arbitrator, and they will be required to verify any written statements provided to the arbitrator—whether by one of the parties or another person—that relate to a matter relevant to the arbitration. An unverified written statement can be disregarded by the arbitrator. It is standard practice in arbitration processes to require a written statement to be verified by a statement of truth. That ensures that parties only make written statements that they believe to be true, ensuring that arbitral awards have a sound basis. I urge the Committee to support the clause.
Ruth Cadbury
This is a welcome clause and one that we support. It is vital that statements given to the arbitrator are truthful. That will be crucial when viability is being assessed. Although we have expressed the importance of viable businesses being supported, we appreciate that this is a two-way street, and that businesses need to provide truthful and full information to the arbitrators, as, of course, do landlords. We support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Order of the Committee of Tuesday 7 December be amended, in paragraph 1(b), by leaving out “and 2 pm”.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)
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
backbench business
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
Electric Vehicles: Transition by 2030
(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
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate. That is in line with 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. That can be done either at the testing centre on the estate or at home. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of support for the UK’s transition to electric vehicles by 2030.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate and all those colleagues across the House who supported the application for it. The topic has attracted a lot of interest, as demonstrated by the many emails I have received from a wide range of organisations, including the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, Imperial College London, UKHospitality, Energy UK and the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. I also place on the record the report of the Select Committee on Transport, “Zero emission vehicles”, from July this year, and the Government’s response to it.
I welcome the Government’s deadline for the end of selling new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and she is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that, since battery production is limited by the availability of lithium, the switch to electric vehicles will not be accessible or affordable to everyone who owns a petrol or diesel car, and that consequently the Government need to invest much more in alternatives to private car use? Does she further agree that, as a start, the Department for Transport should swiftly agree terms with Transport for London for a medium to long-term funding solution that will allow it to be financially self-sufficient?
Wera Hobhouse
Today, we are talking about electric vehicles as part of the transition to net zero, but I totally agree that modal shift to other and alternative forms of transport is required, including for public health reasons. During lockdown, many people found that walking or cycling, if they could, was a far more pleasant experience than sitting in a car, yet the large number of cars on our roads makes such modes of transport unsafe and keeps many people from looking into alternatives.
Imperial College got in touch with me, as I mentioned, to tell me that it is leading research into alternatives to lithium use in batteries. I cannot remember what it was—perhaps something like sodium. I encourage my hon. Friend and any Member interested in the subject to get in touch with the research team at Imperial College to find out more.
The cut-off point of 2030 in the UK and countries across Europe sends an unambiguous signal of change. Petrol and diesel, made from fossil fuel, are on the way out, for the simple reason that we must limit global warming to 1.5° C as soon as possible and by 2050 at the latest. There is no plan B. The transition from petrol and diesel-powered vehicles to vehicles powered by electricity is already happening. We are here today to raise the main issues we need to deal with to ensure the success of the transition. We have nine years from today to complete the transition—only a short time.
Like other Members present in the Chamber, I have made that leap and got my first EV. Like others, I believe that I am in a good place to contribute to the debate and to steer Government into making good policy choices for the next nine years, rather than not so good ones. To get the transition right, parliamentarians and Ministers must make informed choices, anticipating the consequences of our choices and welcoming scrutiny from outside and inside Parliament.
In the big debate on how to get to net zero, the Government have too often defended their inaction by saying that it is for the markets to make the transition work. I agree that Government do not have to deliver all the changes and investment, but they do have a crucial role to play in setting the right policy frameworks, from which the market and the private sector will take their cues.
While there is progress in EV uptake, substantial barriers remain, many of which have already been raised in Parliament. They include the high purchase price of EVs, the lack of charging points, and the fear of being caught short while travelling. They all act as a constraint and delay on the transition, with many people continuing with petrol and diesel vehicles. However, time is short, so today I want to dig down to address the structural problems that result in those barriers and delays.
The UK is actually in a good place to make the transition to net zero, and the transition to EVs makes sense only if they use zero-carbon electricity. As long as half of our electricity is made by burning gas, why should consumers switch to something that, from their point of view, is expensive, complicated and full of uncertainties? The consumer association Which? has found that just two in five drivers currently signal some intent to buy an EV. That must change. The first principle must be that all our electric power is made from renewables. That would be a big incentive to consumers to make the switch and take on the inconvenience, because they want to know that they are doing the right thing. It would be a terrible failing of Government if the people who commit to going electric find that their carbon footprint is nearly as bad as it was with their petrol or diesel vehicle.
Compared with many EU countries, Britain is wonderfully placed to produce power from wind and waves, but we need to upscale those technologies considerably. In 20 years, all our power—in fact, more than we need—could and should come from renewable energy. The Government must make that their first priority—no ifs, no buts. Renewable energy, and wind power in particular, needs to be 10 times larger by 2030. Will we be able to power all our EVs from renewables in 2030? The answer is a resounding yes.
Let me move to the challenges. Upscaling renewables has challenges, not least in upskilling the workforce to take up the new net zero jobs while those in the fossil fuel industries are going. That needs forward planning and co-operation with our higher and further education sectors. The upskilling of the workforce will include new jobs in the automotive industry and battery gigafactories. Further education colleges are open to and ready for the challenge, but the Government need to invest in vocational training courses at all levels.
The next challenge—it is a big one—is the national electricity grid. Increased production of electricity—probably at least threefold—will require power cables big enough to take the increased load. Our national grid was built decades ago for much lower electricity usage. Obviously, that problem is now owned by a private company. I leave solving that problem to the governing party that privatised it.
The national grid is a strategic network of cables bringing enough electricity to the edges of cities and towns, and then to the array of substations that feed streets in each community. A threefold increase in electricity usage is anticipated, with domestic demand increasing as gas is replaced by electric heating and cooking as well as EV charging, if that is done from home. In most cases, the existing 63 amps and 100 amps ratings should be sufficient; the real problem is in the grid. Every home will be using more electricity, but the grid will overload if too many homes are taking close to the maximum power. There is no hiding from the reality of the big investment needed in our national grid for the laying of big, new cables, building new substations and upgrading existing substations for the increased load.
The wait for grid investment is the single biggest delay factor in rolling out EV charging. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has undertaken analysis showing that between 689,000 and 2.3 million public chargers are required. I will go further. The Transport Committee has recommended that the planning Bill should
“make public charge point provision a requirement of local plans”
and that the electricity network must be assessed for weak spots. In 10 years, most vehicles on the roads will be EVs, and in 20 years nearly all of them will be, so when we put in new grid infrastructure, it needs to be enough for every car in the future, not just for those that are on the road now. It is disappointing that the Government have only partially accepted the recommendations of the Transport Committee, meaning that we will have to fight for every penny, that investment in the grid will come later rather than sooner, and that we are always going to be behind the curve. We need to plan ahead.
The biggest concern for current EV owners, some of whom are in this room, and future owners is how to charge their vehicles. Let me deal with home or near-home charging first. Imagine two different homes: the first is a home with its own off-street parking, and the second is a home with a pavement or more between it and its parking space, especially terraced housing or flats. In the first example, the charging can be done by the owner from their own electric supply; in the second example, the owner needs to use a supply offered by the local council, which in most cases owns the pavement and the road. We need a complete solution for both. It is obvious that for the home with its own off-street parking, the charging solution is in the hands of the owner: the Government do not need to get involved unless they want to subsidise the equipment. However, homes without off-street parking require Government and especially local government to play a key role.
As has been said by the Transport Committee and many others, the variation in EV charging prices is a problem. The price of electricity is about 20p per kilowatt for charging from the home. I believe that the price for the second group of owners who need on-street charging should be almost the same, but the current prices usually range from 30p to 40p per kilowatt. That is not acceptable: it is discriminatory against many of the people who need the most help and encouragement to move to electric vehicles. For us to achieve 20p per kilowatt for street or car parking charging, it will need to be run as a not-for-profit public service. That is the role of the local authority, but it will need funding, investment, and the full co-operation of National Grid.
On a positive note, providing that service will bring out the best in local government through decisions and actions taken in close consultation with, and with the assent of, the local communities that they serve. Councils up and down the country have declared a climate emergency and have committed to net zero by 2030. My own council of Bath and North East Somerset is fully committed to deliver a big roll-out of EV charging, but it cannot because the grid capacity is not there. I am delighted that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders agrees that we need
“A national strategic plan delivered locally to uplift the number of chargepoints and ensure the right type of chargers are in the right places.”
In my own city of Bath, there are cars parked bumper to bumper on residential streets. In 10 years, every single parking space should have a charge point, a little bit like the old car parking meters we once had. There should still be some connections there. Let us put in this infrastructure all at the same time, at much better value for the taxpayer, rather than doing it piecemeal.
The final piece of the jigsaw for EV charging is away-from-home charging. How easy could it be to convert the current network of petrol stations to fast-charging hubs? Yes, it takes an hour or even a bit more to charge fast, but combined with a meal or a snack, it could be perfect. Once again, there will be the need for substantial investment in the grid, as fast charging uses a lot of electricity very quickly. I had a meeting with representatives of the Highways Agency a couple of years ago when they were planning for a new highways network. I asked them about planning for the laying of big cables, but they said that that was not the Highways Agency’s responsibility. I could not believe it: if we are planning to build new roads, we should surely bear in mind the fact that the cars on those roads will be electric and will need charging. If everyone knew that they could pull up into what used to be a petrol station and is now a fast EV charging station, the fear of being on the side of the motorway with a dead battery would disappear.
The Transport Committee has already begun scrutiny of the Government’s Project Rapid, their £950 million charging fund for strategic sites. It is clear that the levels of ambition and funding are well below what is needed. To use a driving metaphor, we need to be driving this transition at 70 mph and not going along at a pedestrian pace. The Liberal Democrats pledged a financial investment of £100 billion during this Parliament for the transition to net zero. We are way off that mark.
In conclusion, by 2030 we can become a country where fossil fuels are no longer used for private transport. To do that requires political leadership. That we need alternatives to car use, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) points out, and to bring in modal shifts and societal change away from our dependency on cars in addition to the EV transition, goes without saying. There is no planet B. Let us speed up and deliver the change.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate.
I am pleased to be here today to speak on such a crucial and exciting topic and to see so many other hon. Members here to do the same. The UK Government have already pledged to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 and hybrids by 2035—a fantastic commitment that will ensure we are striding towards our net zero targets. It is clear that carbon emissions must fall by 100% by 2050 to meet those targets.
The target for electric vehicles set out by the Government is ambitious, but ambitious targets will not be achieved without equally ambitious policies for our infrastructure, green economy and environment. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity but right now we are moving too slowly. At the moment, less than one in every 100 vehicles is an electric vehicle.
I am co-chair of the midlands engine all-party parliamentary group. In the midlands, where my Broxtowe constituency is, 39,410 new public electric vehicle charging points must be installed by the end of the decade. Urgent action is needed to speed up the installation of electric vehicle charging points across the midlands. Midlands Connect’s report, “Supercharging the Midlands”, suggests that electric vehicle use will increase by more than 3,000% by the end of the decade and that the installation of public electric vehicle charging points must be six times as fast to support the growing demand.
At present, 93% of electric vehicle owners have access to off-street parking and can install an at-home electric charger. However, one third of midlands households do not have off-street parking, so would rely solely on public chargers to power their electric vehicle. At the moment, less than one in every 100 vehicles is an electric vehicle. The action we need to take is to help local authorities to identify the best place to install new electric vehicle charging points and work alongside my colleagues in the Department for Transport to position the midlands as the best test bed for the accelerated delivery of charging points.
For constituents, the benefits of purchasing an EV are numerous. Unlike conventional vehicles, they have no exhaust pipe and emit no dangerous gases such as carbon dioxide or nitrous oxides, reducing pollution and improving air quality for local communities. They are also considerably cheaper to power: charging an EV in public costs approximately 58% less than filling a car with petrol, while at-home charging is even more cost-effective. It is important that those benefits are clear and are shouted about.
Given the midlands’ reliance on the automotive sector, securing a successful green transition in the sector is critical to the region. Electric vehicles represent a significant opportunity across the supply chain, led by original equipment manufacturers but supported by the expertise and engineering quality of our small and medium-sized enterprises. Success could be harnessed by exploiting the emerging resetting of international supply chains and encouraging substantial re-shoring. Bringing the manufacture of batteries firmly to the UK and specifically to the midlands would also be advantageous in the context of the UK-European Union rules of origin from 2027.
An integrated supply of battery-electric vehicles, supported by a gigafactory and local supply chain, would create the most value. Proposed initiatives include the west midlands gigafactory site in Coventry and Britishvolt’s facility at MIRA technology park in Nuneaton. Loughborough University Science and Enterprise Park also has plans for a gigafactory to be sited in the east midlands, but much work is still to be done to secure a green automotive future for the midlands.
Electric battery manufacturing could be worth up to £916 million gross value added in the midlands, reflecting a £24 billion electrification opportunity across the UK, and automotive opportunities across the midlands could be worth £2 billion GVA. We have significant automotive manufacturing facilities in the region, including Toyota, Jaguar Land Rover, Aston Martin, BMW and Tata Motors. The region is home to significant academic research and innovation in electric vehicles and batteries, and that includes the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre.
Batteries represent around 40% of an electric vehicle’s value and half the opportunity value of battery-powered electric vehicles. Opportunities are available in the components used to make a battery cell, such as the cathode, anode, electrolyte supply and final assembly, as well as in the supply of components such as cases, coves, bracketry and cabling.
It is clear that the potential benefits that lie with the increase in electric vehicles is huge. The Government have a fantastic opportunity not just to level up but to clean up by creating industries and opportunities around the manufacturing of electric vehicles, as well as ensuring that we reach our net zero targets.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next Member to speak, could I ask hon. Members to keep their speeches to around six minutes so that everyone will get a chance to have their say? The clock is working, to help you with that.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this important and timely debate.
If the UK is going to meet our legally binding pledge to meet net zero by 2050, we need to step up the transition to a green economy and deliver more sustainable transport options. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Bath mentioned the importance of the national grid to EV charging. I was reflecting that we were the victims of the most appalling storm—storm Arwen—two weeks ago. It showed up a systematic lack of investment in the power grid system in the north-east, as many thousands of my constituents were left without the most basic of utilities—power—for over 10 days. I am trying to understand how my communities would have survived if we were solely dependent on electric vehicles. If we are going to facilitate the transition to a green economy, the Government need to get the basics right and climate-proof our power grid.
The basic infrastructure required to facilitate electric vehicles does not exist in communities such as mine in Easington, County Durham. There is a massive disparity between the capital and the rest of the country in terms of accessing charging points, with more public charging points in London and the south-east than in the rest of England and Wales combined. We also need to advance technology, because until we have wireless, accessible, on-street parking charging points, replacing conventional vehicles with EV vehicles is not a viable option for people living in built-up areas—in my case, in former colliery terraces or blocks of flats.
We are potentially falling into a trap when it comes to infrastructure, so the Government need to change their mindset and, rather than focusing on the one-to-one replacement of vehicles, create an affordable, frequent and reliable public transport network. That should be the foundation for creating a sustainable green economy.
I frequently complain about the Northern Rail failure on the Durham coastline that serves my constituency. The service is unreliable and dangerous, and I can see the potential of improved public transport. You might be wondering, Mr Twigg, what that has to do with electric cars, but the subject of the debate is electric vehicles, and it is important that we consider what the options are.
Despite often-repeated Government rhetoric about levelling up, the transport infrastructure gap in the UK is widening. Improved public transport can deliver employment opportunities. My constituency is very close to Nissan in Sunderland, and I accept that there are many jobs in the automotive manufacturing sector and in the manufacture of EV battery technology. Indeed, Nissan in Sunderland is Europe’s biggest and most efficient car plant. I should declare an interest as a member and chair of the Unite group in Parliament. Nissan provides employment for many thousands of people, including many in the supply chain in my constituency.
However, there are other businesses that could benefit from this technological revolution. Vivarail, for example, is the only domestically based manufacturer of battery-powered trains in the UK. It has a production site in my constituency. Its cutting-edge green technology and innovative, fast-charging battery-electric train has enormous domestic and, indeed, export potential. Vivarail showcased its clean, green and reliable service in Glasgow at COP26, hosting my colleague, the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who saw the fast-charging battery-powered train that was on show.
Many people want affordable and reliable green options, but making the switch to electric vehicles is difficult because of the up-front cost. We know that the long-term financial benefits of electric vehicles, which have been pointed out in the debate, include lower running and servicing costs, but there is an up-front barrier in making the transition. We need greater Government incentives until such time as entry costs for new and used vehicles fall.
One issue, which was highlighted by the Transport Committee, on which I have the honour to serve, is the cost of VAT. I raised that with the Minister in the Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday, and I am afraid that I did not get an answer. The current policy on VAT on charging points penalises electric vehicle owners who do not have access to private parking and their own charging points. Those without access are forced to use public charging points and pay four times the VAT. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs says:
“Supplies of electric vehicle charging through charging points in public places are charged at the standard rate of VAT”,
which is 20%. It goes on:
“There is no exemption or relief that reduces the rate of VAT charged.”
I know that the Minister is not responsible for tax policy, but will she raise that issue with Treasury colleagues?
This debate is far from simple, and a comprehensive approach is required. The transition to electric vehicles is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform public transport and create a cleaner, greener and stronger economy in places such as east Durham. If only we had an ambitious Government willing to seize the opportunity and spread the benefits more equally.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I again remind hon. Members that they should keep to around six minutes. I will call the Front-Bench spokesperson and the Minister no later than 2.30 pm.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate on such an incredibly important topic. I have to declare an interest: I am the owner of an electric car. I also called for the Government to move their target for phasing out petrol and diesel vehicles forward to 2030, so I was absolutely delighted to see that in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan.
As an early voice in favour of bringing the target forward, I heard many reasons why it would be absolutely impossible to do so. They ranged from the availability of minerals to the higher cost of electric cars, the strain on the electricity supply, range anxiety and the lack of a public charging network. None of those challenges is insurmountable, although they are certainly big challenges, as the hon. Members for Bath and for Easington (Grahame Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) have set out. We have innovation in battery technology, and the hon. Member for Bath mentioned advances using silicon. Different models of car ownership, the Government’s plug-in car grant and smart charging regulations such as the ones currently before the House will all help to support the transition.
Today I want to focus on range anxiety and the public charging network. We trade a lot of facts and figures in this place, but I will focus on my own experiences as an electric car driver. I know that the Minister is an advocate of rolling out our EV infrastructure as fast as we possibly can, and I might have some ammunition to help her with that mission. I thought I would illustrate the issue using the experience of taking our electric car on holiday to Northumberland in the summer.
The first bit of advice I have for fellow Members, which is actually nothing to do with the public charging network, is do not go on holiday in a new car that has only just been delivered on the morning of your holiday, especially if you are used to driving a clunky old petrol-powered Land Rover and you have switched to an automatic electric MG. It does not do wonders for marital harmony, and nor does it make for a relaxing, stress-free break.
There were a worrying few moments when we thought we were going to have to reverse the entire way to Northumberland, which with a journey time of three and a half hours would have been quite a feat, but after a few minutes poking around with the controls, we did actually manage to start going in a forward direction, and we were off up the A1.
We pulled in at Ferrybridge services, plugged in and went for lunch feeling smug. This is easy! We can do this! We returned to find that absolutely no charge had been transferred to the car. Oh dear! Were we being silly, as the electric car newbies? No, the gentleman next to us—a veteran electric car user—was also having difficulty. The chargers were clearly out of order. “Never mind,” we thought. “Can’t work every time.”
So off we went to the next services at Wetherby. We plugged in to one of the chargers, and that charger seemed to be broken too. We phoned the charge point operator’s 24-hour hotline and they reset the entire system for us. They said, “It should be working now.” The only problem was that it was not. They said, “There must be a problem with the car.” Panic! We do not have enough charge to go forward, we do not have enough charge to go back and, lovely as Wetherby services is, I did not really want to spend my holiday there. So we phoned the car dealership, and lots of people were running round in the dealership in Portsmouth freaking out that the car they had sold us, which could be charged, now suddenly could not be charged.
Twenty minutes later, when one of the other chargers came free, I said to my husband, “Let’s have one more go.” We plugged in and it worked. So it was not us and it was not the car, but two out of three electric chargers at motorway service stations did not work. I just could not believe it—imagine if two thirds of the petrol pumps we tried to use at a petrol station were not working.
So off we went. There was not a charger at our hotel, so we tried to use the one in the local village next morning, except someone was using it. Our Zap-Map showed that there were three chargers in Hexham, so off we pootled. We found two charging points, both of them wrapped in thick black shrink plastic. Had they just arrived? Were they leaving? Who could tell? But we certainly could not use them to charge our car. We finally tracked down another one outside Waitrose, but that was not working either. So there were three chargers, and not one of them was working. We managed to find one in the end—the one in the village became free.
The next day we went up to Hareshaw Linn, with its beautiful waterfall. We had a lovely walk—I thoroughly recommend it. Waves of joy and relief broke over us as we arrived in the car park to find a charger that was free and that appeared to be working—but how did it work? It looked like a bollard. There were no instructions on it. I could not work out how to get the plug out or anything. All that was written on it was, “Please present a tag to charge.” Hmm, where was I going to find a tag, even if I had a description of what one was, in the middle of Northumberland national park?
The name Electro was emblazoned on the side, so we looked it up and called it on our phone. We gave it the number of the machine, but the company could not find it on its system, and neither could the app, so we could not use that one either. We then found a sticker—maybe it was BP Pulse—but the app would not take our debit cards so, again, that was a complete write-off. We did manage to find some charging points throughout Northumberland that did actually work on our holiday, so we did get around.
Then, on our way back, we stopped off again at Wetherby services—that place where we nearly spent the entire week. There was a queue of six cars to use the chargers. Assuming an average charge time of 20 minutes, we would have had to wait two hours just to charge the car, so we would have been there for two hours and 20 minutes or two and a half hours. That is almost as long as the entire journey, so off we went to the lovely village of Boston Spa, which I thoroughly recommend, and there we were confronted with an Engie EV charger. Again, to charge, we had to give our names, our address and our contact details before we could register to pay and charge. Can you imagine the chaos if that happened at the petrol pumps, Mr Twigg?
I do not want to give the impression that the unfortunate set of circumstances that I have described happens to us every day. We do manage to get around in the car. We normally charge at home and we do not have any issues, but as has been pointed out—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Can I ask the hon. Member to wind up, please?
Ruth Edwards
As has been pointed out, lots of people do not have the option of charging at home, so I have three asks: first, more chargers at key points, such as motorway service stations; secondly, a ban on using apps to pay for charging—people should be able to pay with debit cards; and thirdly, on service expectations around reliability, if people are taking their car out, they have to be able to have a reasonable level of confidence that they will be able to drive it home again. Those are my three asks for the Minister.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for calling this important debate. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) for outlining her experience and for her tenacity and determination to keep going. As a driver, and given some of the days of driving I have had with my four-year-old and six-year-old, I would have given up, so all credit to her.
My constituency of Vauxhall, just across the bridge here, contains some of the busiest and most polluted roads in the country. That has a massive and devastating impact on our fight to tackle the climate emergency, but also on the immediate health of my constituents. Air pollution has been linked to a litany of health problems, such as asthma and heart disease. Just last year, air pollution was ruled to be the tragic factor in the death of nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah. She tragically lost her life after two years of severe asthma attacks.
Electric vehicles will not eliminate pollution entirely, but they do have the potential to bring about a sea change in levels of pollution caused by cars and to make our roads quieter and healthier. Unfortunately, many of my constituents who are looking to get an electric car face so many barriers—a significant roadblock —in their desire to become greener and reduce emissions. Aside from the high costs associated with electric vehicles, people looking to switch are definitely let down by the infrastructure. As the hon. Member for Rushcliffe highlighted, the standards are simply not up to scratch. One of my constituents who wants to get an electric car told me that she fears that travelling a long distance and visiting family would be nearly impossible because of the current infrastructure. She told me about a motorway journey that she made and the fact that the charging points were out of service and she did not have the right socket for her vehicle.
People who live in a flat, as many of my constituents do, have concerns about safety and the reliability of charging their car overnight. Making travelling to and from the car a necessity excludes so many people who want to switch, such as the elderly, carers and so many others who would like to make the transition to cleaner cars. This would also have a big impact on our ability to meet our targets by 2030. It might be hoped that supply will meet demand when it comes to the infrastructure, but it is clear that demand has been hampered by the current unavailability of electric cars, so many people are not considering switching. If we are truly to see an electric vehicle revolution among car owners, we must build that infrastructure to the same standards that we expect for petrol vehicles, and drive up demand across the country.
We know that switching to an electric vehicle is not the panacea for transport’s contribution to the climate emergency or pollution. Like me, many of my constituents in Vauxhall make journeys by foot, active travel, bus and local transport. We are blessed to live in an inner-London constituency where we have eight tube stations and fantastic bus networks. Transport provision is not the same for many constituents up and down the country in rural areas. If we are to see them using public transport and not relying on petrol cars, we need to ensure that our public transport is properly funded.
That is the ongoing debate we are having about London’s public transport, which the hon. Members for Bath and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) highlighted was about ensuring that we have secure funding for Transport for London. We must continue to encourage people to use public transport and those who rely on petrol cars to use cleaner, greener vehicles, such as electric cars.
We must enable those who use cars to be at the forefront of a green transport revolution. So I have just one ask for the Minister this afternoon: how can she address the concerns of my constituents and outline measures to ensure that electric vehicles are more reliable, viable and cheaper, and that the infrastructure for them is available?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, may I say how pleased I am to speak in this debate? I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing it. I often take part in her Westminster Hall debates and I congratulate her on always setting the scene for them so very well. We do not agree on everything, but we agree on this and other issues. I am very pleased to participate in the debate.
Many of us are much more aware of our carbon footprint today and have come to realise that there are steps we can take to lessen the damage to our environment. One of the most prominent ways in which we can do this is by using electric vehicles.
My youngest son, Luke, bought a hybrid vehicle. He did not experience the problems that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) has. Thank the Lord for that; such problems would be entirely depressing. His buying that hybrid tells me that the next generation are ready to get ahead. They are thinking ahead about how they can reduce their carbon footprint and improve their quality of life. I am very pleased to see that he and many others have grasped that. I think that more electric cars were sold in Northern Ireland in the last year than have ever been sold in the past.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate. I know that in the past the Government have set some funds aside for electric charging points and I know that local councils in Northern Ireland now have the responsibility for such charging points. That being the case, perhaps the Minister can give me some idea of how that system will work.
As I am sure all Members are aware, the UK has committed to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Transport is currently the largest emitting sector in the UK economy, responsible for some 27% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions, with cars in particular being responsible for 55% of transport emissions. However, I do not believe that there is any logical way that we can expect people to travel in a greener manner if we do not provide them with the means to do so. I think that we are all committed to the net zero target, but we have to make sure that it is achievable, and we must reduce the angst that many people have—I probably have it myself, to be fair—that the charging points are in place.
Infrastructure is the key to getting this greener engine going. For example, in Northern Ireland there are currently 4,000 electric vehicles on the road, but only 337 public charge points. Some of the shopping centres back home have introduced electric charging points, but I would like to see charging points in the centre of towns, because that is where a lot of the vehicular traffic is. Also, the charging points must work, because that has been a problem in the past for many of my constituents.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that ultimately local councils are best placed to provide that infrastructure and to ensure that it actually works, because they are the ones who are accountable, whereas any private companies can just do their own thing? Does he agree that local authorities should run these charging points?
Jim Shannon
I thank her hon. Lady for her intervention and she is absolutely right. That is what I say when I talk about councils back home. The responsibility should lie with them, because they can specifically monitor their own towns and villages, not only across my constituency of Strangford, but across the whole of Northern Ireland.
In my constituency, there are only two electric charging points shown on the charge point map for a constituency of approximately 60,000 people, which is shocking. I know that the Minister back home, Nichola Mallon, has committed her Department to improving that situation greatly, and the quicker that happens the better. If it was not the responsibility of her Department but of the council, and there was some money for that, we could achieve some of our goals on electric charging points.
A report undertaken in 2020 by the Department for Infrastructure back home came to some interesting conclusions regarding people’s attitudes towards electric vehicles. Of those surveyed, 33% said they were unlikely to make an electric vehicle their next car buy and 42% would not even consider it. We have to address these attitudes. Why are those figures so high? Indeed, 64% of those surveyed said that they would be discouraged from buying electric vehicles due to the price and—guess what?—the need to charge them.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe told a story about a nightmare journey from her home to her holiday destination, stopping on numerous occasions along the way. I agree that the education must be there for the UK to fully transition to electric vehicles by 2030, especially for the younger generations. Thousands of young adults and teenagers are doing driving tests and getting their first vehicle. We want to encourage the new generation to buy the cars; we have to enable them to feel confident to do so. That is why I encourage the Minister to engage with the Department for Education to ensure that the benefits of using electric cars are taught to young people. I think we can also address the generational mindset.
I referred to Minister Mallon, the Minister for Infrastructure back home. She has announced a new electric vehicle infrastructure taskforce for Northern Ireland. That is a good step. I welcome it and congratulate the Minister on that. It was announced at COP26—COP26 achieved many things outside the headlines. I encourage the Government to follow suit, and put more responsibility on local councils, as the hon. Member for Bath said, to be accountable for e-charging in their areas. That is the secret. That is the key. That is what we need to do. Having the necessary charging is absolutely essential to progress in our battle with climate change.
I recently made contact with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on a new-start logistics business in Newtownards, which is seeking funding to ensure that its entire fleet is made up of electric vehicles. I welcome that initiative, interest and commitment. We need to find funding for future-looking companies such as that one, and we also need electric charge points throughout the constituency to charge the fleets. It is as simple as that. Let us do it.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this important debate in our transition to net zero.
I want to start by talking about a significant zero-emissions capability. When defining that capability, the Government must look to the spirit of their decision to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030. Any vehicle that does not have the ability to run continuously, creating zero emissions, for a meaningful range is predominantly an internal combustion engine vehicle. To continue to allow the sale of such vehicles after 2030 is contrary to the Government’s own decision. Therefore, only vehicles with a chargeable battery and a plug should be included, not mild hybrids.
The only suitable metric to measure that is miles of continuous zero-emission range, which should be set at a minimum of 100 miles, to ensure that consumers realistically make journeys on electric miles. There is no fundamental technological barrier that impedes plug-in hybrids from delivering higher ranges today. It is merely how to optimise the battery size of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle—or PHEV—to comply with today’s CO2 regulations.
We also need a zero-emission vehicle mandate, which is a target placed on car manufacturers to ensure a certain percentage of vehicles are zero-emission vehicles. Of course, the definition of that mandate is extremely important. California has had a working version of such a mandate and has in fact had a ratchet mechanism to get more lower carbon vehicles on to the road since 1990.
In the pure form of a ZEV, only vehicles capable of zero-tailpipe emissions should be included, so battery electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, but, from a more pragmatic standpoint, plug-in hybrid vehicles could be included, but given a value reflective of how far they can drive on zero emissions. California includes BEVs—battery electric vehicles—PHEVs and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. If 20% of a vehicle’s stated range is electric, it should be a awarded a 20% value. That would be a reasonable level in the mandate.
How should that work in the UK? In simple terms, there is a crediting system within a ZEV mandate that attributes different credit values to different types of vehicles and, for the longest range vehicles, a super credit. The California mandate and the China mandate offer four times and six times for the longest range electric vehicles. As the UK looks at the design, we should learn from the others and not use super credits, as large super credits just lead to a surplus of credits and a dilution of the targets and therefore vehicles on the road.
There should, of course, be a reward for innovation that drives longer range and more efficient vehicles—the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) explained that better than I could—and we need to ensure that vehicles produced have a meaningful range so people will want to replace their diesel or petrol cars with an electric one. However, we should cap the maximum credit value at more than one credit but not as high as two credits. The average EV should receive one credit, which today is around 250 miles. That average can be recalculated annually, to reflect the state of the market and to manage credits.
The Government have announced that the ZEV mandate will start in 2024. Any target will need to be ambitious, yet achievable. Looking at the industry’s own projections, SMMT figures for its high uptake scenario for 2024 are around 35% of zero-emissions vehicle sales in that year. The industry could meet that target, but it needs incentives. Funnily enough, it happens to roughly correlate to the Climate Change Committee’s figure for 2024. That Committee recommends that 50% of new sales should be zero-emissions vehicles in 2025, meaning a steep gradient in the Government’s mandate.
A zero-emissions vehicle mandate is a supply-side tool, but a fleet mandate is the demand-side tool. The Government could look to create a fleet mandate to ensure that there are targets for fleet vehicles. The sector is around 55% of the marketplace in the UK and provides an important feeder to the second and third-hand market. Given that there is a favourable taxation treatment for this marketplace, a mandate could help drive uptake. The fleet mandate would need to be significantly higher than the zero-emissions vehicle mandate. We need to remember that fleet vehicles enter the used-vehicle market three to five years after becoming fleet. It will mean affordable, zero-emissions vehicles by 2030. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) touched on affordability. Everybody should be able to afford a zero-emissions vehicle by 2030.
On charging infrastructure, the Government have announced some significant funding to remove the barrier of connection costs. The charging points all need to work, though. This £950 million rapid charging fund is for strategic roads and motorway service stations, but it has yet to be rolled out. Connection costs is an issue at these locations, but the same issues exist everywhere. The Government can do more. For example, more can be done with our existing policy mechanisms without further grants from Government. One example is the renewable transport fuel obligation. The UK is falling behind other European nations when it comes to using this policy to drive down transport emissions.
The renewable transport fuel obligation seeks to reduce emissions from transport fuels and many other countries have already reformed their versions to provide revenue generation for a struggling charging sector. European nations have their versions of the RTFO, and California has a similar instrument called the low carbon fuel standard. The key difference is that Holland, Germany and soon the whole of Europe allow renewable electricity use in vehicles to count towards these reduction targets, as does the low carbon fuel standard. I call for the Minister to look at changing the RTFO, because it will drive that infrastructure through to renewable electricity production.
I will finish by talking about plug-in grants. The price gap between zero-emissions vehicles and internal combustion engines continues to reduce, but there is still a significant differential. Many people are asking for an extension to the plug-in car grant. I would support that, but I ask the Government to also look at an alternative: the bonus-malus. The operation of a malus or levy is placed on the purchase of new fossil-fuel vehicles, and this is used to fund a bonus or grant for zero-emissions vehicles, meaning that it is neutral for the Government and does not require state funding.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is great to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this debate.
The UK’s transition to EVs looks like it is about to stall. Those are not my words, but those of the automotive industry. The Government have set a clear legal end date for the sale of petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030. By 2035, they want to see the complete switch to zero-emission sales. We have got nine years to go. We need much more urgent action than we are seeing. We are a long way from achieving what we need to. On the one hand, we see car manufacturers and the motor industry right behind the EV revolution, but the critical infrastructure supporting EV cars is, I am afraid to say, not as developed as it should be.
I want to look at what the industry has actually achieved and succeeded in. Against the 188 new plug-in cars registered in 2010, we are up to 300,000 for 2021. There is now the choice of around 150 zero and ultra-low-emission vehicles available to buy. That will double by 2025. In terms of production, BEVs are now up 64% to account to for 7% of car output in the UK. There is a growing urgency to deliver on gigafactories. The one in Coventry has to be secured, and I hope we will hear an announcement on that very soon.
While vehicle development and supply is good, it is the infrastructure system that we need absolute priority on. We talk about HS2 and the integrated rail plan, but there is nothing like the scale of ambition that we need for the charge point infrastructure for this country. We are one of the worst among the top 10 global electric vehicle markets, at some 16:1 ratio a year ago. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on electric vehicles, and the sorts of stories we heard from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) are very much the topic of debate at our meetings.
Between January and September, just 4,000 new standard public charge points were installed, compared with 212,000 new plug-in car registrations. That is one new standard charger for every 52 new electric vehicles. As we have heard, there is huge regional disparity: in the midlands, as cited by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), we need to install something like 11 charge points every day, but we are doing something like two a day.
So what do we need to do? According to a recent Savanta ComRes survey, the message is loud and clear from consumers. Some 37% of those surveyed were optimistic about buying a full EV by 2025. There is consumer demand, and we are getting many more EVs on our roads, but the survey also showed that the barriers faced by consumers are significant. Some 44% said that the lack of local charging points was significant barrier to buying an EV, while 38% were concerned about fears over charging access on long journeys, whether to Northumberland or elsewhere.
That is the main issue. The Government need to empower and assist local authorities and distribution network operators to develop urgent and comprehensive plans for integrated charging networks. They need to identify the sites, work with charging providers and tender for regional networks, ensuring that the mistakes that were made over mobile phone telephony are not repeated with vehicle charging infrastructure.
The Minister heard about the most pressing issue loud and clear from the industry just a couple of weeks ago: there needs to be a massive focus on infrastructure for charging and for manufacturing and recycling batteries. The Government’s rapid charging fund, with £950 million to rapid and ultra-rapid charge points, is welcome, as is the requirement for all new build homes to include EV charging points—although we should have been doing that for the last five years. That is something that the last Labour Government talked about. Sure, the current investment is welcome, but it does not go far enough. The SMMT estimates that a minimum of 689,000 charge points are required, although the real figure is more like 2.3 million. We need significant expansion in delivering binding targets and introducing regulation and enabling support.
One solution is interoperability or roaming platforms, which would allow the consumers of individual charge point operators to charge on other networks that are associated with that hub. We have only to look at the Netherlands, which is leading the way on that—it is really not rocket science. The Netherlands has been doing it for years.
Of course, we have heard about smart charging, and I appreciate that regulations are being proposed by Government. Finally, we need better battery technology; I just hope that the Government’s ambition is there to deliver on a gigafactory in Coventry.
We need incentives. While there is a clear appetite from consumers for EVs, we need to persuade more to get behind this market. As others have said, the Government should maintain the plug-in car grant. Lastly, we should also consider tax breaks, free or reduced costs for parking, generous long-term plug-in grants and reliable, fast EV charging points on the street.
In conclusion, it is not enough for the Government to simply ban new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. We have to have the scale of ambition and—as we are seeing with the rail infrastructure—a comprehensive plan delivered for EV charging, which needs to be delivered urgently to get the 2.3 million charging points that have been identified. Finally, we need to ensure fair pricing for consumers, so that all can access cheap and clean motoring, not just those with domestic charge points.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I ask Front-Bench Members to keep their speeches to about 10 minutes, so that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has time to wind up.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this important debate and on starting us off so well. She made many excellent points throughout her speech and referenced the excellent recommendations of the Transport Committee. I should say that I serve on that Committee, although that was not a self-serving comment.
There have been many fantastic contributions by Members from across the House and the debate has been, in the main, consensual. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) said that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, but that we are going too slowly. My colleague on the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), rightly spoke of the challenges facing the national grid and charging outside London, which I will come on to. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) spoke of a long journey, by the sounds of it, and the relationship strain of taking an electric car on holiday. I can certainly relate to that—not so much the holiday element, but the change in driving style required by an electric car. Mine has changed, my wife’s has not. No doubt I will get into trouble for saying that.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), a London MP, made excellent points about range of and the need for greener public transport, which I will briefly cover. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always here and is always welcome, spoke of transport being the largest carbon-emitting sector and urged more urgent action, if I can put it like that. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) spoke of the ZEV mandate, which I will probably not have time to cover but which we wholeheartedly support. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), who always takes a keen interest in these matters, started out pretty starkly by saying that we have only nine years but also a very long way to go.
I declare an interest as an owner of an electric vehicle. Thanks in part to the Scottish Government’s electric vehicle loan scheme, I made the switch from diesel to electric this year. In fact, my family went from having two diesel cars to one electric. The bulk of my remarks will cover electric cars, but I will briefly talk about electric buses. Thus far, the Prime Minister’s pledge of 4,000 new green buses has been a pretty damp squib, it has to be said. The three years of the ultra-low emission bus scheme’s operation up to this year resulted in just 58 such buses on the road outside London. It will come as no surprise that London has more ULEBS-funded buses on the road than the rest of England put together. The successor scheme, ZEBRA—zero-emission bus regional areas—has not put a single new bus on the road, and thus far funding has been made available for only 335 electric buses. ZEBRA has been a total flop. The Prime Minister has zero chance of getting to his promised 4,000 buses by the end of this Parliament. In any event, 4,000 buses represents only 10% of the English bus fleet.
In contrast, the Scottish Government have promised to decarbonise more than half the Scottish bus fleet in the same timeframe. We are well into our second Scottish ultra-low emission bus scheme, which, for comparison, has resulted in the equivalent of more than 2,700 buses already ordered or on the road. Indeed, thanks to the Scottish Government’s SULEB schemes and McGill’s Buses, my own area of Renfrewshire has more electric buses on the road than anywhere outside London. These buses need passengers to fill them, and I am glad to say that, by the end of next month, those aged 21 and under will enjoy free bus travel, hopefully instilling some public transport habits into the new generation, helping to reduce car usage by 20% by the end of the decade. We see day to day what progress has been, and is being, made in rolling out the infrastructure we need to move to net zero, so when I look at DFT’s record, I have to say—not for the first time—that I am glad to live in Scotland under a Government with a serious agenda to change our transport options for the better.
Without a mass roll-out of public charging facilities, EVs will simply never be the choice for people for whom residential charging points are simply not possible, especially people who live in flats or multiple-occupancy buildings. The Climate Change Committee estimates that at least 150,000 charge points are needed, while others, such as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, say that at least 700,000 are needed, but just under 21,000 are currently in use. There has to be a rapid acceleration of investment and a clear strategy for how that target will be met. At the moment, there is no sign that the scale of investment needed matches the reality of what is available. Once again, the Scottish Government are leading on the roll-out of public charging infrastructure, and doing so on the scale needed elsewhere.
According to the UK Government’s own stats, Scotland leads the UK in public rapid charging points, at around 70% per capita higher than average, and nearly double even London’s rapid charging network, and is second only to Greater London in all public charging points. That was not achieved by accident; it was the result of policy decisions taken over the last few years in line with the Scottish Government’s net zero strategy, which aims to transform the country to net zero by 2045, five years ahead of the UK’s current plans. That kind of bold investment in infrastructure needs replicating elsewhere in these isles if we are to collectively meet the challenges of the transition to net zero and the ambition set out by COP26. How that infrastructure is accessed, as has already been referenced, is also a real concern.
When the Transport Committee took evidence on public charging and the interoperability of the many different networks—some publicly run, some delivered by the private sector—the then Minister said that regulations to enforce interoperability were planned for before the end of the year. To date, we have not had those regulations, despite the consultation closing in April and despite the Minister’s promise to the Committee.
There is no sign of forcing operators to have common systems, which would give consumers a seamless experience, regardless of which provider they charge the vehicle with. We do not expect drivers of diesel or petrol vehicles to have to remember which card matches which petrol stations, and it should not be any different for EV drivers. Interoperability is standard in the Netherlands, as has been said, with a larger installed base of public charge points. There is no reason whatsoever why that cannot be implemented here. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point because, if that is indeed the case, the Government need to up their game and get those regulations drafted as quickly as possible.
Just over two years ago, I spoke in a similar debate in this Chamber and mentioned the success of electric vehicles in Norway. At that point, just over half of new cars sold there were EVs. This year, that proportion reached over 77%. So successful has their transition been that the debate in Norway is now not about how to get EVs making up the bulk of the new car market, but how to realistically phase out the remaining petrol and diesel cars on their roads.
That, it must be said, is in an oil and energy-rich, progressive and independent northern European country with the power to act in its own national and international interests without a Whitehall-type system to battle through. Norway shows that if the will and investment are there, the marketplace for cars can be transformed in a relatively short period. Therefore, while I may despair at much of the UK’s track record, the optimist in me—there is an optimist in me, somewhere—still believes that it might be capable of pulling it off, if the political will is there. Of course, that is a big if.
In yesterday’s debate on rail investment, I made the point that, compared with the capital, the rest of England was being badly let down on transport spending year after year. That mistake is being repeated in the roll-out of a public charging network. Again, as the hon. Member for Easington said, it is the north of England losing out, with the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber at the bottom of the league table, while London streaks ahead.
If the Government are serious about a national EV strategy, it has to be just that: national. If the Scottish Government can fund and support charge points from Unst—the most northerly island in these isles—to the Mull of Galloway at the very south of the country, there should be no reason for English regions to be left behind in the transition to zero emission vehicles. Norway has managed it, Scotland is managing it, and I hope that the Minister will seek advice from her counterparts in those countries and elsewhere on how to drive forward the transformational change needed over the coming years.
To conclude, on the vehicles themselves, it again seems that the UK is in the slow lane while others are powering ahead. If we are to change historical behaviours, we must have an appropriate balance between carrot and stick, but the Government keep shifting that balance before the market is ready for it. The Transport Scotland-funded low carbon transport loan gives potential EV customers an interest-free loan of up to £28,000 for new cars or £20,000 for used ones, and also covers electric motorcycles and e-bikes. Compared with the UK’s grant-only scheme, the interest-free loan scheme is delivering affordability to households who would otherwise be unable to make the switch to electric vehicles. It is also undoubtedly one of the reasons why take up of EVs in Scotland over recent years has considerably outstripped the rest of the UK, outside of London. That loan has also now been extended to include used EVs, which are now an important area of growth in the market.
The top three factors holding potential EV buyers back are cost, access to local charging points, and range anxiety. By rolling out zero-interest loans, the Scottish Government are addressing that first factor; by having so many charging points, they are addressing the second; and by ensuring that no part of the country is untouched, they are addressing the third.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I will briefly touch on some of the useful contributions by many Members from across the House, who have obviously taken the time to contribute to this forward-thinking, progressive debate on such an important subject.
I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing the debate and putting forward so many interesting ideas. I will also briefly mention my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel)—I hope to be able to go for a spin in his Tesla at some point soon—and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). We also heard about the meandering experience of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards). It would be remiss of me not to mention my former colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who made some important points, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Surface transport accounted for 24% of emissions in 2019 and remains the largest contributor to UK emissions to date. After a decade of failing to reduce the UK’s transport emissions, it is good that the Government are finally recognising the scale of the problem. I will touch briefly on the point made by my other former colleague from the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), on the 4,000 zero emission buses that are still missing from action. If we were to speak to Alexander Dennis in Falkirk or, indeed, Wrightbus in Ballymena, we would hear that not a single British manufacturer has an order for those buses on their books, so I want to know whether those 4,000 buses are apocryphal. We will not let this go until British manufacturers have those buses on their books. I do not want to find out that they are suddenly being given to China or another country when we should be supporting British manufacturing.
I am glad to hear, though, that the Government have adopted the Labour policy of phasing out sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030. However, why are hybrids allowed to be sold until 2035? Hybrids are highly polluting when they use their petrol or diesel engines due to their weight and poor fuel efficiency. They are, unfortunately, a lifeline to the fossil fuel industry, and the policy should be reversed immediately.
The Government have also announced that they will help smooth the transition to zero emission vehicles by introducing a zero emission vehicle mandate, which will gradually increase the level of vehicle sales required to be zero emission up to 100% by 2030. Labour fully supports the move, but when will the legislation actually be introduced? Will the Minister confirm whether hybrid electric vehicle sales will be included within that mandate?
Fully electric and hybrid vehicle sales have surged this year, with over a quarter of new vehicle sales being either hybrid or fully electric in 2021 so far, according to the SMMT. However, the UK’s charging infrastructure is falling behind, as we heard from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. Overall funding for charging given out to local authorities has fallen from £15 million in the previous financial year, 2019-20, to £6.5 million in 2020-21. As many local authorities are not able to use those funds for the remaining schemes, it does need to be addressed, and addressed quickly.
Regional inequalities for charge points are also huge. If the Government are genuinely committed to levelling up, why are they doing nothing to address that regional inequality? The Government have promised a charging strategy by the end of the year, so where is it? Councils have rightly expressed serious concerns that there is no coherent Government strategy about what to build and where. We need urgent action to address regional inequalities, a quick ramp-up of charging, and making charge points easier to use and accessible for consumers. Can the Minister provide an update on this?
The Government have said very little on how the transition to electric vehicles will impact on fuel duty revenues. Does the Minister have a plan to mitigate the loss of that revenue? Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) said, Transport for London must have a sustainable long-term funding package, so that there is no delay to extending EV charging across the network in London as well.
Although it has been great to see surging sales of electric vehicles, they are still unaffordable for many consumers. Labour has a plan to fund interest-free loans for electric vehicles for low-income households and to trial a scrappage scheme for polluting vehicles. That would ensure that the transition to clean, green transport is possible for everyone, not just the privileged few. In contrast, the Government have repeatedly slashed the plug-in grant for electric vehicles. Again, what are the Government going to do to address the affordability of electric vehicles, so that low-income families are not left behind in the transition?
The transition is also an opportunity to create thousands of good, green, unionised jobs in the UK. If the UK is going to remain a hub for automotive manufacturers, we need to ensure that the components for electric vehicles can be built in the UK. Labour has committed to part-financing three battery gigafactories by 2025, but the Government have done little to encourage investment in UK gigafactories. We welcome some of the points made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry): they just need to be accelerated and extended as quickly as possible. That is important due to the new rules of origin requirements in the Government’s Brexit deal. If we want to continue tariff-free trade in electric vehicles with the EU, we urgently need to establish manufacturing capacity in the UK.
We also need to avoid a reliance on imported rare metals such as lithium and cobalt as global demand for them grows. The environmental implications of mining those critical minerals are a serious concern. Furthermore, the mining of those rare metals has highlighted the use of slave labour and the severe abuse of workers’ rights in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo. That is profoundly tragic, and concrete action must be taken to address those concerns. We cannot go green while people are losing their lives to get those materials to us.
We would be able to ease the pressures on supply chains if rare metals such as lithium and cobalt, of which there is currently colossal wastage, were recycled quickly. That could be a quick win for the Government. Significant natural deposits of lithium in the UK could be utilised by ensuring that electronics can be easily disassembled and recycling—that needs to be an immediate Government priority. Unfortunately, there is a wealth of those materials in UK electronics, but they are not currently being recycled. That must change, and it must change rapidly. Will the Government do anything to encourage the urban mining and recycling of those rare metals? Are they considering new standards to require that electronics be easier to disassemble and recycle?
The transition to electric vehicles is a huge opportunity for cleaner air, lower emissions and thousands of good, green and unionised jobs, but the Government must think bigger when it comes to charging infrastructure, affordability and battery supply chains. The Labour party has serious plans to address those issues, and it is time that the Government listened. It is time for a green new deal for the UK—one that is real, supports the poorest, and boosts British manufacturing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
It is a pleasure to be part of the debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for raising this subject, and all hon. Members who have spoken for their enthusiastic and passionate contributions about electric vehicles.
I will outline some of the support that the Government are providing for electric vehicles, before running through some of the questions from hon. Members. We have committed £2.5 billion in funding for vehicle grants and infrastructure to meet a very ambitious carbon target. We anticipate that up to quarter of the 36 million cars and vans on UK roads will be electric by 2030. As we can see from the data released by the SMMT recently, the pace of the transition is really accelerating. Industry data shows that almost as many battery electric vehicles were sold in September as in the whole of 2019, and that nearly one in five new cars sold in November 2021 was fully electric.
The journey is not just about the vehicles, however. As has been said, drivers will frequently need world-class charging infrastructure to support the full range of journeys and vehicles in our electric future. Rather than leaving that to the market, this Government have intervened: the Prime Minister announced his 10-point plan for net zero, which will phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans in the UK by 2030, as hon. Members have said. From 2035, all new cars and vans must have zero emissions at the tailpipe. In response to questions about the definition of hybrid, that definition is being worked on as I speak, and we will be able to update Members on those conclusions very shortly.
In October, the Government announced in our net zero strategy that we would introduce a zero emission vehicle mandate, which would come into force from 2024. The idea is to help the phase-out dates by setting targets for a percentage of a manufacturer’s annual new car and van sales in the UK to be zero emissions from 2024. Alongside our ambitious phase-out dates, we have also announced £1.3 billion to accelerate the roll-out of charging infrastructure, ensuring that drivers can charge where they need to and more easily than refilling a petrol or diesel vehicle. We are doing that through the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles.
Funding is available to support charge point infrastructure in homes, at workplaces, on residential streets and across the wider roads network. We have Homecharge, which provides £350 to homeowners to install charge points, and we have had about 230,000 householders take advantage of that. We have the on-street residential charge point scheme, which provides up to £13,000 per charge point to local authorities to install charging infrastructure, and the workplace charging scheme, which offers £350 per charge point. We have the local EV infrastructure fund, the charging infrastructure fund, the rapid charging fund—the Government are providing a wealth of support and building on the £1.9 billion from the spending review 2020, and we have committed an extra £620 million of this year’s spending review to support the transition to electric vehicles.
Grahame Morris
The Minister is being generous in giving way, and I am grateful for her listing all the investments and so on that have come through her Department, but has she had a chance to address the issues that I raised yesterday in a Delegated Legislation Committee, and indeed that the Transport Committee has raised, regarding the differential rate of VAT? Not everyone can have their own personal charging point if they live in a terraced house or a block of flats.
Trudy Harrison
The hon. Gentleman makes a common-sense point. We are looking at this, and I will, as he suggests, speak with my colleagues in the Treasury to see what we can do. I do think that the Treasury is playing an important part in this transition, but we need to work more with local authorities. Members across the House should work with their local authorities and with me, because, with their leadership and action through local transport and planning policies, we can really help to support the local zero-emission vehicle uptake, and make sure that it is integrated with local transport strategies.
The Government will publish an EV infrastructure strategy shortly. That strategy will define our vision for the continued roll-out of a world-leading charging infrastructure network across the UK, and focus on how we unlock the charge point roll-out needed to enable the transition from early adoption to the mass market uptake of EVs.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her response. During my contribution, I asked her to say what relationship she has had with the Northern Ireland Assembly, Minister Nichola Mallon and the Department for Infrastructure. I want the funding that came from Westminster to come again.
Trudy Harrison
I was going to mention this, but I did have the pleasure of meeting Minister Mallon in Belfast a few weeks ago. I also visited Wrightbus, not far from Belfast, in Ballymena. We are having those conversations with the devolved Administrations—supporting, providing funding and learning how we can collaborate best to ensure that the roll-out reaches all the UK.
Gavin Newlands
The Minister mentioned the strategy. Presumably within that strategy will be interoperability. When is that issue going to be addressed? We were told it would be at the end of this year.
Trudy Harrison
I will comment on Members’ queries now.
The hon. Member for Bath asked about energy provision. That is a matter for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, as I am sure she knows, but making sure we have the clean electricity is vital. She will know as well that the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan sets out the commitment towards 40 GW of wind by 2030 and 5 GW production capacity for hydrogen. We have also passed the regulated asset base for gigawatt-plus nuclear power stations, so we are not shy of taking action on energy.
The hon. Member for Bath also referred to fairness. I think that is really important, because in this transport revolution we have an opportunity that we perhaps did not have 150 years ago, which is to ensure that everybody is involved, this time in charging vehicles. We are working with organisations such as Motability to make sure that the charging infrastructure can be used by all, including disabled people. This is about ensuring through the regulations we are bringing forward that people know where charging infrastructure is; that they can be sure the infrastructure will work; that they will not need to use a selection of apps, but instead can use contactless, for example; and that we have the interoperability across different providers to provide a really comprehensive network, as is needed as we transition from fossil fuel to a decarbonised transport economy.
Matt Western
Will the Government legislate for interoperability? Will they publish a plan showing the milestones of how many public charge points will be built every year between now and 2030?
Trudy Harrison
I will take away that request, but I can tell the hon. Member that 26,000 public charge points are available and that of those 4,900 are rapid chargers. We also have a plan to install 750 kW as a minimum in all the 117 motorway service areas—and that absolutely includes the motorway services on the A1(M) at Ferrybridge at junction 41 and those at Wetherby at junction 46.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry). A couple of weeks ago, I had the absolute joy of visiting HORIBA MIRA in Nuneaton, where I saw the technology and innovation that is supporting not just decarbonisation but the connected and automated vehicles—they were was abundant with UK content, as the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said—that the country will need to be at the forefront. The technology that I saw at Nuneaton will be critical to the transition, and the midlands engine is at the forefront of it. I am delighted that my hon. Friend came to the debate to talk about that.
I am running out of time, but I want to address the lack of driveways. We want to ensure that no driveway is no problem. We understand the need to roll out publicly available charge point infrastructure, and local authorities are key to that. We are therefore putting together a toolkit with advice and, most importantly, resources for where local authorities are struggling to deliver. My message to hon. Members across the House is to work with me and with local authorities, because they will know their local areas best. The Department wants to ensure that we have fair, accessible, affordable, reliable and transparent charging infrastructure right across the UK.
Grahame Morris
The Minister is being kind. I am afraid that she has not addressed the resilience of the national grid and its importance to charging. The BEIS Committee has just produced an interesting letter and report.
Trudy Harrison
That is a matter for BEIS, which it is clearly taking seriously. I work continuously with colleagues in BEIS as well as those in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on clean air zones. I will leave it there to allow the hon. Member for Bath to wrap up.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank everybody for their contributions to the debate. As has been said, there is a lot of consensus. We agree with the Government that the 2030 target to phase out petrol and diesel vehicles is ambitious, but if we want to see the big take-up of electric vehicles, the Government need to do more to support that.
I thank the Minister for addressing some of the points made. What was missing was the national grid, which, as we have heard, is at the bottom of problems with charging. The entertainment prize for a good speech goes to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), who described what it is like for EV owners on the road. The Government must be more ambitious about these gaps and get to the bottom of why the network does not work. That will need investment in the national electricity grid. As I said, the national grid is owned by a private company and it is for the Government to resolve the problem of how they work with it. However, that must be done, because local authorities want to do something—we all agree on that—but the block is the lack of infrastructure investment.
Finally, it is no use buying electric vehicles if the power that fuels them is not 100% renewable. The Minister talked about nuclear, but I believe that this country is well placed to make all its power from renewables. I hope that the Government will share that ambition with me.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Women in the Armed Forces
(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
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they are expected to wear face coverings for the duration of the debate when they are not speaking, in line with 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 they are coming on to the estate: you can have one very handily downstairs in Portcullis House, or you can have one at home—we are not fussy. Members are also asked to give each other and members of staff space when entering and leaving the room.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Second Report of the Defence Committee, Protecting those who protect us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life, HC 154, and the Government Response, HC 904.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the Liaison Committee for granting this important debate on the Ministry of Defence’s response to the Select Committee on Defence. By way of introduction, it was noted by the Defence Committee that recruitment targets had been missed yet again, and that yet again women had been over-represented in the complaints system. Our main concern at that time was to look at how this was compromising operational effectiveness and how it was impacting on the British military, so we agreed to look into the way that this was happening. As an ex-servicewoman myself, I agreed to chair that Sub-Committee. As a veteran, I also wanted to extend the scope of the inquiry to explore what challenges our female veterans face, given the limited information available on that topic.
Fully understanding the situation of women in the service necessitated us having access to servicewomen. That required the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), to lift the defence instruction notice that would ordinarily bar us from speaking to serving personnel. This meant that our inquiry was groundbreaking—the first ever of its kind, collecting evidence from the ground up—and its findings represented a valid account of what it was like, and is like, to serve as a woman in the UK armed forces. It is thanks to the Defence Secretary that I am here today, announcing the progress made as a direct response to our inquiry.
We did not anticipate the quantity and intensity of the evidence we received. It was women’s stories, experiences and lives, and it made for sobering reading. Some 4,200 women contributed, including 2,500 veterans—some whose service spanned back as far as Aden, others who were recently discharged. Just short of 10% of all serving women contributed to the inquiry, so the Committee are confident in the results. We heard shocking evidence, ranging from gang rape, systematic bullying, and collusion and cover-up in the extreme, to ill-fitting equipment, the inaccessibility of sanitary products, and feelings of being second-rate to men and disempowered. From veterans, we heard about a lack of female-specific services, poor transitional support, and feeling as if their service to their country was never valued.
To summarise the findings, 90% of all women would recommend a career in the military, as would I—that was so pleasing to hear—but when things go wrong, they go disastrously wrong. Some 84% stated that they faced extra challenges for being a woman; six out of 10 would never make a complaint for fear of repercussions; and 62% said they had experienced some form of abuse in service, whether harassment, bullying, discrimination or physical or sexual assault. Only 16% of sexual abuse allegations had had forensic evidence taken within the 14-day window of opportunity. Some 55% said veterans services did not meet their needs, while 76% found the MOD was not helpful when they transitioned to civilian life. As a result, the Defence Committee made 34 recommendations to the Ministry of Defence.
I will touch on a few thematic headings, starting with rape and criminal investigations. Having heard harrowing evidence of sexual assault, poor standards of investigation and manipulation of power to deliberately disadvantage servicewomen from complaining or seeking justice, the Committee concurred with the recommendation of the Government-commissioned, judge-led Lyons review that rape cases should be heard in civilian courts. The MOD rejected that recommendation and will instead continue to hold such cases within the court martial jurisdiction under the principle of concurrent jurisdiction.
The MOD has offered a string of explanations for why that should be so. I do not feel that any of them offer a reasoning for this decision, and I ask the Minister again to explain his rationale for not agreeing to that recommendation. However, the mandatory placing of a female on all court martial boards hearing complaints of a sexual nature is most welcome, as is a single service central admissibility unit to oversee such complaints.
Turning to the chain of command, extensive evidence was received regarding how having to report a complaint of harassment, bullying or discrimination or a complaint of a sexual nature to their chain of command severely compromised complainants’ outcomes, resulting in most complaints going unreported. Those who do report are often re-traumatised, facing life-changing consequences. In some cases it was a commanding officer who was the accused, judge and jury.
We are extremely pleased that the chain of command will be removed from all complaints of a sexual nature, which will now be investigated by an outsourced investigation service. That will mean a woman who has been assaulted by her commanding officer will not have to report it to her commanding officer. However, I would like the Minister to confirm the independence of that investigation service. Will he also confirm whether this process will be afforded to complaints of harassment, bullying and discrimination? According to the MOD’s response, the chain of command could be involved in
“a small number of cases, where appropriate”,
so can he clarify when that would be applied?
We are pleased that the MOD will establish a whole service defence serious crime unit, a diversity and inclusion unit and a victim and witness care unit, and it will mandate that a woman sit on all court martial boards involving sexual complaints. Those are significant changes and all credit is due.
On equipment, we found that women were being sent to the frontline with body armour not fit for purpose, helmets compromised by hairstyles, and ill-fitting clothing. The MOD has already commenced work to rectify most of those issues and will undertake a six-month sprint to ensure that the recommendations are met as soon as possible—thank you.
Despite 59% of respondents being veterans, with concerns ranging from a lack of specific female veterans services, particularly relating to post-traumatic stress disorder following sexual assault and incidents of abuse to the inappropriateness of male-focused transition services, we felt the MOD’s response on this subject was rather weak, signposting us to a veterans strategy due to be announced next week. I look forward to reviewing the strategy in relation to the recommendations made in the inquiry, and hope it captures specific women’s issues. I would also like to highlight that the services offered under Op Courage are provided only by NHS England, and a disparity in the accessibility and availability of services remains between veterans living in England and those living in devolved nations, including many in my constituency of Wrexham.
On measuring success, the MOD, by way of acknowledging that there are problems, which it already knew, has already introduced initiatives, such as mandatory bystander training and the bullying, harassment and discrimination helpline. Although our evidence suggested that women were generally aware of those services, they made little to no positive impact on the ground. Can the Minister explain how the MOD plans to measure outcomes and positive change as a result of these and future initiatives?
On recruitment and retention, despite the raft of family-friendly policies already in place, such as flexible and alternative working patterns, our research found that most women were denied access to those schemes by their commanding officers on operational grounds. I am pleased that the MOD has produced a families strategy, and look forward to reading it in detail when it is launched next week. However, there is already a victims charter, which informs servicewomen about their right to take a criminal complaint to the civilian courts, and no one whom we engaged with was aware of the charter or their rights. Can the Minister explain how the MOD intends to ensure that servicewomen are aware of those options and rights, and how uptake will be monitored? I applaud the MOD’s ambitious target of 30% servicewomen by 2030, which gives people like me a basis on which to scrutinise and hold to account the MOD. It shows the true commitment of Ministers and the Secretary of State to servicewomen.
On culture and leadership, our evidence uncovered a culture of collusion, cover-up and manipulation in which intimidation and abuse of power were all too common. I am sure that the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff regrets using the term “laddish culture”, but that is exactly what we found—in abundance—across all ranks, services and command structures. That does not exclusively apply to men.
We are pleased that the MOD will undertake a pan-service culture audit, defence positive action plan, personal experience training and a review of the selection, education and training of lieutenant colonel ranks and above. We are pleased that there will be clear consequences for those who act unacceptably, with underperforming officers having citations placed on their personal records, and a strengthened procedure to make it easier to dismiss perpetrators of sexual assault. However, our evidence supports concerns that the MOD has a tendency to introduce many initiatives as a result of criticism but make little improvement on the ground.
The Committee’s inquiry came after a string of top-down studies—the Lyons review, Wigston, Gray and, latterly, Henriques. There was significant overlap with those reports, but it was not until the Committee’s inquiry, which gave servicewomen and veterans a platform through which to have their voices heard, that the MOD took action. It has been a catalyst for change. The problems faced by servicewomen and veterans have not arisen on any one Government’s watch, but it is this Government, the Conservative Government, who grasped that very uncomfortable nettle and were bold enough to make positive changes. It is time for a military levelling up, and the MOD has listened, has acknowledged that there are problems and, to its credit, is making massive strides to address them. However, there is still a way to go, and the devil is in the detail. I will continue to advocate on behalf of our servicewomen and veterans in my role in Parliament and as a member of the Defence Committee, which will undertake a review in a year’s time.
I thank all members of the Committee for their involvement and commitment. The 18-month inquiry has at times been harrowing and has required resilience. I specifically thank Lucy Arora, a Committee specialist, and my researcher Rachel Varley. Between us, we have heard and read all 4,200 pieces of evidence. However, the people who have made this happen—who have made the MOD listen, and acknowledge and address the suboptimal elements of military life—are all the women who contributed. It is they who made this possible, and they who have improved the lives of current and future generations of servicewomen. For that, I thank them.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I declare an interest as a patron of veterans’ charity Forward Assist.
I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), the only female bar myself on the Defence Committee. She has been steadfast in her efforts to get permission from the Secretary of State to make this inquiry possible. I also thank her for her excellent and sensitive chairing of our Sub-Committee, and for the subsequent publication of the report that we are now debating.
Before I make specific comments on our inquiry, I reiterate the point made in the report that the armed forces do and can provide women with fulfilling careers and opportunities. Indeed, 90% of women told us that they would recommend the forces to women. As our report noted, however, when things go wrong they go dramatically wrong, generally with dire consequences for the victim.
It is welcome that, of our 40 recommendations, the Government have accepted 37, but the rejection of our recommendations on complaints of sexual offences will come as a bitter and agonising blow to those women who shared with us their trauma. I want them to know that, despite the obstinacy of the Government, some of us will not stop fighting for them, to ensure that in the future no one suffers the same pain that they have.
As in many organisations that tend to police themselves, making a complaint in the armed forces becomes fraught with worries of being ostracised, stigmatised and shut out, and of career prospects being greatly diminished. Women have told us that it is well known that if they make a complaint there will be ramifications—not for the perpetrator, but for the complainant, the victim. Those statements are supported by the fact that the Service Complaints Ombudsman has never judged the military’s internal complaints system as efficient, effective and fair. Servicewomen are overrepresented in all complaints, but even more in complaints of bullying, harassment and discrimination.
Despite the MOD’s claim that women’s complaints are falling all the time, they remain at exactly the same level as in 2016. Of those who are brave enough to come forward to make a complaint, more than 90% said that they had suffered negative consequences, and that they felt uncomfortable and humiliated and wanted to leave the forces, such that in 2021, 89% of those who had suffered in that way did not make a complaint. We heard a litany of failings, from failure to investigate properly to witness statements not being taken; senior officers as perpetrators; loss of evidence; not being believed when making an allegation of sexual harassment or assault, or being pressured into not referring that to the police; and complaints taking up to a decade to be concluded and resulting in further bullying, harassment and discrimination.
I am not sure whether the Minister has—I sincerely hope he has not—had any direct experience of going through a complaints process, or spent time supporting someone close to him who has. If he had, he would understand the courage it takes to make a complaint in the first place, and how re-traumatising and utterly exhausting that in itself can be. For someone to find that no one believes them or, worse, that people believe them but are too scared, or too worried about self-preservation or protecting the organisation—above doing the right thing—is utterly soul-destroying. There can be no lonelier feeling.
When that takes place in a closed environment, away from a person’s home and loved ones, it can become utterly unbearable. If they are making a complaint about sexual assault or rape, it becomes intolerable. Every day is a sentence and filled with mental anguish and physical pain. Even though we always repeat the message—a true message—that it was not their fault, the shame and guilt will remain with the victim forever.
That is why I am deeply concerned that the Government have rejected our recommendation and our pleas throughout the passage of the Armed Forces Bill to remove cases of rape from the military courts, and that they refuse to accept the existence of military sexual trauma. That sends the wrong message and does not encourage the cultural change that we need. I am not sure what it is that the Government have against rape victims, but the figures for conviction in the civilian system are dire, at a record low of 34% between 2015 and 2020. In courts martial, that figure falls to 16%. It is clear that victims are being failed. While it is welcome that the Government have committed to service complaints of a sexual nature being outside the direction of command, it is simply not enough, as the hon. Member for Wrexham said.
The Government’s rejection, in their official delayed response to our report, was not convincing enough. The Minister’s response on Monday in the Chamber was equally unconvincing. I make a further plea to him today to make it crystal clear to victims, those serving and veterans why this Government do not think that when it comes to the most hideous of crimes, those serving in our forces can expect a lesser commitment to justice than civilians.
I end my comments by thanking all the women who came forward to share their trauma with us. It is their bravery that will drive me and others to keep pushing for change, because we owe it to them, every single woman serving, veterans and all who follow them.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to participate in this important debate, Dr Huq. It follows on from the statement that was made earlier. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) on putting together an incredible report and on leading the Sub-Committee, which provided some of the solutions that we are looking at here today.
I start by touching on the bigger picture, because we are rightly proud of our armed forces. One question we posed in this inquiry was to ask those who participated in it whether they would recommend joining the armed forces to others. The underlying answer was absolutely yes, but that does not disguise the deep and concerning problems that we are just starting to discuss here today.
It is worth outlining the important societal bond that our military have in the United Kingdom, which is arguably unique in the world. We recruit from the gene pool of the general public. If it is not attractive, does not reflect society or if we are not able to take advantage of the skill sets out there, we will not have a professional Army, Air Force or Navy. When we recruit, it is important that the rest of society sees how well we treat those who serve, whether they be reservists or regulars, and how well they are then looked after when they pack up their uniform for the last time, slide it across to the quartermaster and become a veteran. So, it is important that we look at the questions posed here and some of the concerning answers that have already been touched upon.
As we deal with these issues, my concern is that it is not the first time that they have been raised. We have spoken about the Wigston review and we had the Lyons report. This is not the first time that we are addressing these issues, but this is a comprehensive report. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will recognise why we need not just answers but to see the changes taking place, so that in a year’s time the Defence Committee does not have to undertake another report or call upon another independent study, as I had to call upon the Lyons report about justice only a couple of years ago.
The world is getting more dangerous; we are aware of that. The integrated review confirms the fact that the threats are increasing, and that there is an increased ambition for us to play a role on the international stage. To do so, we need to ensure that we attract the best. It is wonderful to see that every single role in the Army, the Air Force and the Navy is now open to both males and females. Whatever their sex, people can still do whatever role they want to do, whether they want to fly a plane or drive a truck or a tank. They are no longer prohibited from making their mark in whichever area they wish.
I will take advantage of the debate to say that this is probably the wrong time to be cutting the Army by 10,000, but ultimately that is for another day. In attracting the best, we want more women to come forward. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that the ambition for 30% of our armed forces to be female will be a challenge and a struggle; but if we answer some of the issues that we are dealing with today, that target will be a lot easier to secure.
I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham for doing such a superb job. The fact that we had more than 4,000 participants come forward to share their stories, some of them very harrowing indeed, is a testament to how important the inquiry has been.
I pay tribute to the MOD as well. Every time our Committee produces a report there is an obligation for the Department to reply, but rarely do we get a 40-page document of such detail. It is good to see that 33 of the recommendations have automatically been accepted. Others have been looked at with interest, but there are a couple that concern us that have already been touched on, and I will come to those in a second. As a summary of the work-life balance and the challenges facing women in the armed forces today, the report is an incredible outline of where we are.
Participating in some of the groups was very moving, but it is disturbing that our armed forces today are still subject to some of the prejudices and behaviours that I thought had disappeared long ago. I am very grateful to all those brave people who stepped forward and shared their individual stories.
The issues I have are, first, to do with flexible working. The Minister is aware that we now offer that, so that we can strike a better work-like balance, but it is subject to operational commitments. The studies of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham on the Sub-Committee show that although flexible working is there on paper, in practice it is not taken up. Does the Minister have figures on what percentage of the armed forces take advantage of that?
Secondly, I echo what has been said about the serious offences. When I was sitting in the Minister’s seat, it was my view to honour the reflections of the Lyons study. Justice Lyons said that it was better for the serious cases of rape and serious assault to be moved to civilian courts, where there is the expertise, understanding and appreciation of how to deal with those offences. The military courts do not have that experience. They do not come across such events frequently enough to make the wisest of judgments. That is why we wanted the report to go forward.
Again I iterate what I said in the Chamber today. It was very brave, when the Lords amendment came up at the beginning of the week, for my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham to vote in favour of supporting it, only to be punished by the Whips Office because she stayed loyal to the report and recommendations that the entire Committee supported. I hope that, in their wisdom, the Whips Office will recognise that it is a little bit churlish and silly to go down that road. She had no choice but to do that, as did others, and I hope we will see her back in her role as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the very near future.
The issue of uniforms fitting is critical. We should be able to get that right in this day and age. I can remember when MOD ’95 came in. The Minister might recall from his own experience the big change that took place in equipment. It was quite a dramatic upgrade in what we had on the battlefield as infanteers. There was an awful lot more flexibility, but it was designed for men, not women, and that needs to change.
We need another revolution in how we are able to recruit and look after women in our armed forces. Historically, there have been some major changes—advances, even—not only in how the armed forces were seen, but in how they were perceived to operate. We had the Cardwell reforms of the 1870s and the Haldane reforms prior to the first world war. We now need another gargantuan step forward that embraces the offering that women bring to our armed forces. The statements that we hear frequently about global Britain, as outlined in the integrated review and the Ministry of Defence’s own mission statement, refer to our being a
“problem-solving and burden-sharing nation”.
Let us be that exemplar, and let us show how we mean to go forward in getting the best from our society and allowing them to serve our nation with pride.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I start by sincerely commending the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) for her bold leadership throughout this inquiry, from its conception to the publication of the report. This is a bold and comprehensive piece of work that probably should have been done decades ago, and it was because of her commitment and drive that it took wheels and ran. I congratulate her on it and commend her for it, and I think many servicewomen and retired servicewomen will be extremely thankful to her.
The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), made the important point that society watches how we treat service personnel, so it is important that we get this right and do not have another decade during which things do not go as they should for women in the armed forces. He also mentioned diversity. Diversity is important, not because it is part of a box-ticking exercise or somebody said it had to be achieved, but because it brings a fresh way of looking at a situation and a different perspective. That is why we need diversity across all walks of life, but particularly in the armed forces. The armed forces can and should be an exemplar for other parts of society.
I suppose that is disappointing that the Government took so long on this issue. By the same token, however, their response has been comprehensive—that is not usual—so there are positives to it. We now need to see how quickly they implement the changes that they have committed to making.
As the hon. Member for Wrexham highlighted in her opening remarks, the report uncovered really harrowing accounts of gang rape, assault by senior officers, bullying for refusing sexual advances, contests to bag the woman and sexual exploitation of women generally. The worrying issue of the complainant themselves facing consequences, as mentioned by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), is one that we need to take seriously. It will take quite a lot of effort to shift that culture, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister how he proposes to ensure that that cultural shift takes place. That cannot happen, or at least it will not have the impact that we need, if women are still too worried about the consequences of making a report.
Since the publication of the report, we have seen a series of media reports detailing further accounts of serious acts of misconduct by members of the armed forces towards servicewomen and towards civilian women. To be clear, the culture and therefore the behaviour are determined by those at the top of the chain of command. They are the ones who set the tone. Senior officers—both male and female, unfortunately—are turning a blind eye to what is going on or, in some circumstances, even encouraging this behaviour. That has to stop, and things have to change.
When we heard General Sir Nick Carter remark a couple of weeks ago that although the Army requires a fundamental cultural shift to increase the number of female recruits, it encourages “a laddish culture” because
“ultimately our soldiers have to go close and personal with the enemy”,
I think many of us put our heads in our hands and thought, “What on earth is going on here?” His words demonstrate precisely the kind of prejudice that must be rooted out in order to stop unacceptable behaviour and restore confidence in the professionalism and values of our armed forces.
The Government must also formally apologise to servicewomen for failing to protect them from this culture of violence and misogyny. We need not only a formal apology, but urgent action. As I said, I welcome many of the plans in the Government’s response, and I acknowledge that 33 of the Committee’s recommendations have been accepted by the Government. It is also important to state that the current Defence Secretary has done more to root out misogynist behaviour than many of his predecessors, but without new provisions—we had hoped to see some new provisions in the Armed Forces Bill—progress will be limited.
The Government’s rejection of the Lords amendment that would have seen rape and sexual assault tried in a civilian court was a really disappointing blow to many of the servicewomen who supported it. Servicewoman A, who was raped while serving in the Royal Navy, stated:
“There were extremely serious failings in the handling of my case at court martial which ultimately meant it collapsed. This amendment will make the process independent. It will encourage more service personnel to report crimes. It will mean we have some protection from the appalling consequences we suffer when we report rape within our units.”
If Servicewoman A’s case had been tried in a civilian court, she would have been six times more likely to see justice. I wonder how she is feeling now about the rejection of that amendment. Why are the Government blocking it, when it is so reasonable and well considered? Are they concerned that visibility and awareness will increase as a public spotlight is shone on the issue? I believe that a spotlight would be beneficial. What is happening has to be out in the open before change can take place. I say to the Minister that it is not too late to accept this change, and we really should do so. Changes can still be made to the Armed Forces Bill, or we can change legislation at a later date.
I want to make some comments about young women in the armed forces. A freedom of information request by the Child Rights International Network shows a tenfold increase in the number of servicewomen aged 16 and 17 making complaints of rape and sexual assault. That equates to about one in 40, which is double the rate for their civilian counterparts. Despite that, there was no mention of these young women in the UK Government’s response, and no specific measures were included to tackle the violence they face. That represents a total neglect of the duty of care that all institutions have for those under the age of 18.
I am not convinced that the strategies outlined in the Government’s response go far enough to eradicate the permissive environment in the armed forces when it comes to bullying, sexual harassment and assault. This is not an overarching national action plan, such as the one that the Finnish defence forces are implementing; it is not the establishment of a dedicated harassment protection unit, as has been established in the Spanish military; and, sadly, it is not the transferral of rape and sexual assault cases from the military to civilian courts. It is not a radical overhaul, according to the Centre for Military Justice, which says that the Government
“stand accused of picking the lower hanging fruit over fundamental reform.”
Flexible working was mentioned by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East, but it is dependent on operational requirements. Who decides what the operational requirements are? That makes it very easy to reject those requests. Will the Government make a formal apology to the women who experienced abuse and discrimination in the armed forces? How will protections be put in place for 16 and 17-year-olds? I hope the Defence Committee reviews the implementation, and I hope the Government also plan to do so.
Finally, I pay tribute to the servicewomen who have had the bravery to step forward and talk about their experiences. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham for bringing this issue into the sharp focus that it requires.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) for all her work in delivering the report, and I place on record my thanks to the service personnel and veterans who contributed to this groundbreaking inquiry.
As the report highlights, the vast majority of our female personnel have fantastic, fulfilling careers serving our country and would recommend it to others. Last week, the Government promised some very welcome changes to make this experience even better. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) pointed out, the Government response to the report is comprehensive. It is great that uniform and equipment will be improved to make sure that helmets, armour and uniform fit properly. That is a fundamental change. I am also pleased that steps will be taken towards independence from the chain of command in the service complaints system. It represents important progress for female personnel to have their complaints of sexual assault dealt with by someone outside their direct chain of command. Among the other recommendations, I welcome the new set of policies on women’s health and the targets for increasing the inflow of women into our armed forces, although I have concerns that the current targets are not being met.
However, as the report emphasises, when things go wrong for women in the armed forces, they go dramatically wrong. The Government must act more quickly if they are to resolve issues of bullying, violence and harassment in the culture of our armed forces. The most serious aspect of the report is the level of sexual violence it reveals, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). Female service personnel are more than 10 times more likely than males to have experienced sexual harassment in the last 12 months. The revelations were accompanied by shocking evidence, with many cases, disturbingly, involving senior officers as wrongdoers.
As a result, in line with the Lyons review and Labour policy, the report recommends that the most serious offences be tried in civilian courts. The Armed Forces Bill offered a number of clear chances to implement that proposal, but the Government voted against it again and again. The Minister was pressed repeatedly by Members from across the House in the debate on the Bill on Monday to explain that position, and I simply do not understand his logic. He claimed he was confident that the new serious crime unit and the service justice system are capable of dealing with all offences, citing the statistic that 1.6% of rapes reported to civilian police made it to court in 2020, compared with 50% of those reported to the military police. Not only are those percentages a poor comparison because of the size of the populations that they reflect, but the Minister neglected to mention that conviction rates in military courts are far lower than in civilian courts. Between 2015 and 2020, the conviction rate for rape cases tried under court martial was just 9%.
Even when there are convictions in military courts, offenders often get off on light charges. I met a serving member of the armed forces, who wished to remain anonymous. She shared with me her experience of sexual assault and the painful ordeal she had to go through in attempting to get justice. On the day of her trial, the charge was reduced from a criminal case to a disciplinary matter. In that instance, the defendant was convicted of misconduct through alcohol under section 20 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, despite the fact that the manual of service law explicitly states that section 20 should not be used for more serious offences. Worse still, the women involved are forced to remain silent afterwards for fear of bringing the armed forces into disrepute, or being accused of doing so.
The serving member was moved to contact me as she not only felt that the system had denied her justice but was “appalled” by the Government’s response to my parliamentary question on military sexual trauma, the existence of which the Ministry of Defence continues to refute. On 12 July this year, I submitted a parliamentary question asking what steps the Ministry of Defence had taken to ensure understanding and acknowledgement of that term, and it told me that it does not accept the term. In its response to the report, the MOD denies the existence of military sexual trauma once again.
The charity Salute Her—I have met representatives from it over the last few months, and the report commends it for its work and support—points to other countries, such as the US, that are already using the term to gather insight into the experiences of assault faced by women in the armed forces and to change policy accordingly. If this Government refuse to acknowledge military sexual trauma, the Minister will not be able to understand sexual assault in the armed forces fully, tackle it at scale or provide the support that victims need.
According to the report, nearly 62% of female service personnel and veterans have experienced bullying, harassment and discrimination, and nearly 40% say that their experience of the complaints system was extremely poor. However, instead of building real reform into the complaints system, the Ministry of Defence has attempted to apply a quick fix, giving itself licence to reduce the appeal period to two weeks. It has ignored appeals against that in proceedings on the Armed Forces Bill, and it has done so again in the response to this report. Fixing the complaints system is not just about making the process faster; it is about ensuring that women feel able to bring their complaints to light and guaranteeing that those complaints will be taken seriously.
Overall, we will never see the significant change that is needed to make women welcome in the military without addressing the culture that allows assault, bullying and discrimination to take place. After accepting the recommendations of the Wigston review, the Ministry of Defence is well aware that too little has been done to implement them; as the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), highlighted, only one of the 36 recommendations on inappropriate behaviour has been achieved. It is therefore a huge disappointment that the Ministry of Defence has rejected this report’s recommendation for an in-depth review of the implementation of Wigston next year.
Also key to the culture is ensuring that women feel they are fairly represented at all levels. However, according to the current trends for inflow of women into the armed forces, the MOD will not meet its 30% target, which is set out in the response, for more than 80 years. The mistake of wasting time, stalling on targets and letting the culture go unchecked must not be made again. Women remain in danger every day that the culture is not addressed.
I conclude with a few questions for the Minister. I would like him to explain how the Department will begin to understand and tackle the problem of widespread sexual assault and violence in the military, if it will not recognise that military sexual trauma exists. Will he tell the House why the Ministry of Defence has failed to implement many of the Wigston Review recommendations, leading to another damning report of this nature? Will he commit now to finally establishing a central defence authority with responsibility for culture in the armed forces?
I thank the Committee and our service personnel once again for this groundbreaking report. I welcome the range of recommendations accepted by the Government and I look forward to seeing many more women complete successful careers in our armed forces. However, if we are to tackle the serious issue of harassment, bullying and sexual assault in our armed forces, the Government can and must go much further.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I am pleased to respond to this debate and acknowledge the huge importance of the work carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton). It was good to hear her speak in the main Chamber earlier.
We institutionally acknowledge that this is a groundbreaking piece of work, and we will use it as a positive lever, as I have said, to accelerate the necessary institutional change in support of all women serving in the armed forces. I note that the scale of the involvement of former and currently serving female service personnel was significant. The historical arc that their service represented, reaching back to Aden and going through to the 1990s and very recent years, was extremely useful. I hope that the report pointed out some positive improvements, but of course it also illustrated very clearly the huge amount of work that needs to be done. I reiterate that we see this as a very positive opportunity to drive change. That was why the Defence Secretary, when he was approached by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, was very keen that serving female personnel be allowed to give their testimony. He thought that that was a necessary factor in improving the utility and currency of the report, and we are very pleased to see the outcome.
I am grateful for the several contributions in the debate. As well as the speech from my hon. Friend, I was very pleased to hear from the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and the hon. Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock). I will quickly address some of the questions before making some broader remarks.
I will address the issue of concurrent jurisdiction straight up. It was a common theme of today’s debate and was, of course, before the House on Monday night. Regarding some of the statistical analysis that has been done this afternoon, I think it will be useful if I point out that according to MOD figures, from June to November this year, there was a 50% conviction rate within the service justice system for rape offences. Over the past six months, of the 13 individuals tried at court martial for rape, six were found guilty and seven were found not guilty. That is why we have confidence in our conviction rate, but of course, we entirely acknowledge that it is too low, and that we must have a wholehearted institutional drive for better outcomes.
In the broader context, though, we regard it as important that we maintain concurrency as part of the service justice system capability. We are cautious, lest salami-slicing capabilities from the service justice system undermines the viability of the whole organisation. That is particularly the case because, as defence, we are expeditionary by design—designed to travel the world and war fight on behalf of the state—and we need an expeditionary justice system to travel with us. Of course, the numbers are very small and the scenarios often unique, but given that we are expeditionary by design and are sometimes required to operate in ungoverned spaces where there is no legal framework, we regard the ability to have an expeditionary service justice system as an important component, which we do not want to undermine by removing concurrency.
Mr Ellwood
The Minister is aware of the yellow card procedures and what happens in an operational environment, and he is absolutely right that conduct in those environments needs to be dealt with from a different perspective. The issue that we are trying to shed light on is what happens here in the UK. It is not salami-slicing. As we have said, it is clear that there is expertise in the civilian courts, so let us shift those cases across to the civilian courts, which have the experience that military courts do not. Justice Ministers have called for this in the past, and we are doing so here today.
Leo Docherty
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for that intervention. Of course, the jurisdiction is concurrent, so the choice of where these cases are best heard remains with the civilian prosecutor. I am not saying that we should have an absolute approach to this: my point is that we need to retain concurrency because of the essential expeditionary nature of our work. However, in simple terms, the civilian prosecutor will always have the final say, and it is quite right that that is the case.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
It might be because I am no legal expert, or because it is the end of the week and we are all a bit tired, but I am still not really clear. For my benefit and the benefit of those listening, will the Minister explain whether he believes that by not removing rape from military courts, victims will have more or less access to justice, and could he explain how?
Leo Docherty
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. It is conceivable that a case being tried in the courts martial may actually be a better outcome for the welfare needs of a victim, due to the constraints around career sustainability or location. Clearly, I am not saying that that is a given; I am saying that the civilian prosecutor should have the final say, but it is entirely conceivable that not having a case taken out of courts martial and into the civilian system may be a better outcome for the welfare interests of the victim.
Stephanie Peacock
It is conceivable, but it is not very likely. I am sure the Minister is aware of Salute Her, the charity, which I spoke to yesterday and which was very involved in the report. We spoke about the fact that it has helped 600 victims of sexual assault and not one of them said they wanted their case heard in court martial. What does the Minister say to that charity on that point?
Leo Docherty
I would remind the charity that that is why we have concurrent jurisdiction and why it is entirely plausible. If cases would be better heard in the civilian context, they will be. That is a decision for the civilian prosecutor.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he said that, ultimately, it can still be decided in civilian court, if that happens. Why are we keeping the courts martial if a case can ultimately be decided in a civilian court? Why do we have a two-tier system?
Leo Docherty
As I mentioned, and I think the hon. Member for Barnsley East agrees, it might conceivably be advantageous to the victim for a case to be heard in the courts martial, due to career considerations, geography or constraints about their career progression. It is conceivable that it might be better for their welfare. It is good to have that flexibility in case that scenario occurs. However, the bottom line is that the civilian prosecutor will always have the final say.
Carol Monaghan
The Minister has spoken about the civilian courts and the increased number of convictions, which I think we all welcome. However, in her opening remarks, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) talked about victims’ reluctance to come forward because of how they would be treated. How does he propose to deal with that?
Leo Docherty
That is a very good question. We need to be much more public about the outcomes of cases of this nature in order to give serving women confidence. The Secretary of State is very clear about increasing the number of women on courts martial. It is about the whole package that will give women confidence that their complaints will be heard independently and credibly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham asked about the independence of complaints of a sexual nature, and I can 100% confirm that that provision is now in place. If a serviceperson makes a complaint of a sexual nature, it will be handled entirely independently of the chain of command by the single service secretariat. My hon. Friend asked how we would measure outcomes. We will do that by being very public about our statistical performance and our outcomes. I also welcome the fact that our progress will be entirely accountable to Parliament. I look forward to her scrutiny throughout the delivery phase of all this work.
Sarah Atherton
You have not mentioned cases of harassment, bullying and discrimination. Are they going to be dealt with within the same process as you just outlined now? Going back to the further point about welfare, am I right in thinking that what you said is that rape cases should primarily be heard within the military jurisdiction because of welfare reasons? We know from our evidence and from visits to Salute Her that women are retraumatised during that process, and that actually only 16% of investigations regarding women who make an accusation of sexual abuse have any forensic evidence. How are you promoting and encouraging welfare by keeping it in that current system?
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. May I just say that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Dame Eleanor Laing, is very hot on people not saying “you”? I know that we are discussing a very sensitive subject. I think the point has been made. Let us all try and avoid the word you in this room.
Leo Docherty
Let me be very clear: I am not saying that these cases should be heard in the military system. I am saying that it is right that we have the flexibility of concurrent jurisdiction. I am saying it is conceivable that, for the benefit and the convenience, and therefore the welfare, of a hypothetical victim, hearing a case in the court martial might be appropriate. However, that is, of course, entirely a decision for the civilian prosecutor.
My hon. Friend asked me about bullying, harassment and discrimination. That has not been removed from the chain of command. We still believe this it is about institutionalising a robust response from the chain of command. The chain needs to be part of the solution, not the problem. That is why we keep complaints of bullying, harassment and discrimination within the chain of command system. That is right and proper, because a lot of this is solved by better leadership. It is not about entirely decanting these issues from sub-unit commanders; it is about ensuring that people step up and realise that it is a function of their own professionalism to be able to deal with these sorts of cases.
One way in which the Secretary of State has gone further than the Committee’s recommendations is by requiring career reporting in the formal reports on commanding officers to include their approach to these cases. If a commanding officer goes against or does not fulfil their duty, or receives a complaint from the Service Complaints Ombudsman about a grievance, that should be reflected in the career profile of a person in authority. That is important measure will ensure that, institutionally, everyone has bought into this and is part of the solution, not just the problem.
The hon. Member for South Shields also mentioned service complaints. I was pleased with her reference to Salute Her. I have visited Salute Her, and I acknowledge the important work that it does. The Office for Veterans’ Affairs will be commissioning important research into the experience of women veterans. We look forward to that being announced next week when we formally launch the veterans strategy. I know it will be of particular interest to Salute Her.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East mentioned the importance of recruitment and flexible working. I remember when he was Minister on the Public Bill Committee scrutinising the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018. I will write to him with some figures. I do not have figures today, but I do have very positive anecdotal experience of talking to serving females about the benefits of flexible working. He should be very proud of the Bill he took through. Allowing people to drop the kids at school and then do a day’s work in a more flexible way, when operational requirements allow, is of significant personal benefit.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West mentioned diversity having value, rather than just being a box-ticking exercise. I commend that. As our new Chief of the Defence Staff referred to, this is not about wokefulness. It is about ensuring that we are a highly capable war-fighting machine that can deploy around the world to defeat the nation’s enemies. Diversity is a necessary precondition of that. We cannot afford not to be diverse, because diversity makes us more robust and, in this context, much more lethal.
That plays into the question the hon. Lady asked about how we achieve this cultural shift. It is all about leadership, ultimately. It is about a huge range of technical provisions, some of which I will mention in a minute, but the bottom line is that it has got to be backed up by leadership. Leaders need to be instilling this vision in their people. That plays into some of the questions from the hon. Member for Barnsley East. We are going to deliver this through good military leadership. I should mention that we have accepted 33 and partially accepted four of the Committee’s recommendations, and noted 13 points that are conclusions rather than recommendations.
Let me canter through some of the departmental and institutional improvements that we are getting after. The service chiefs have commissioned a policy review to strengthen the available levers for dismissing or discharging those who are found to have committed sexual offences or unacceptable sexual behaviour. We are developing a new sexual exploitation and abuse policy, which will look at the use of transactional sex workers, for example. We take extremely seriously the overseas context, which has been mentioned, so we are looking at what kinds of policy provision we can put in place for it.
We aim to build trust in the service complaints system and the service justice system through a revised approach to publication of successful service justice sexual offending prosecutions, alongside anonymised service complaint cases, so that women who are serving can see that those issues are taken seriously and that justice is delivered. As I have said, those cases will be taken outside the chain of command, and—this was mentioned in passing —we are very pleased to be delivering the defence serious crimes unit as a mainstay of the Armed Forces Bill.
As I have already mentioned, the Secretary of State is determined that there should be more female representation on courts martial boards. Broader than that, moving from the technical, legalistic provision, it is about ensuring that the broader cultural environment for women serving is satisfactory. We are doing a six-month review to accelerate existing work to deliver a range of new women’s health policies in the workplace, in response to feedback from serving women. The chiefs of staff are leading an urgent six-month review accelerating existing work to address uniform and equipment improvements, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. I am pleased to basically, body armour—will be issued by summer next year. So we are cracking on and buying the right equipment for serving women as well as men who happen to be smaller than average. That is good news on body armour.
It is also important to note that we are putting broader lifestyle support measures in place. Flexible service was mentioned. Importantly, with regard to supporting family life, wraparound childcare is now being piloted, and the recent feedback that I have had from members of the Royal Air Force serving in High Wycombe is that it is an absolute game changer in allowing a spouse to work and dramatically improving family cohesion. We look forward to that being rolled out in due course. That is one of the important components of the family strategy that will be formally launched next week. All hon. Members will get a copy of it with a “Dear colleague” letter explaining some of the excellent details. Basically, it puts the service family at the heart of defence and delivers choice and flexibility.
I should say a word about trying to see the positives and reinforcing the fact that service life should be seen as a positive opportunity for women. It is not just about mitigating bad behaviour but about celebrating and reinforcing good behaviour and the amazing array of positive opportunities that come through service. That is all about leadership. As I said, an important component of leadership is how those in authority and leadership positions deal with complaints as well as ensure a work-life balance and inclusive leadership—in other words, acknowledging the needs of the family when possible—at sub-unit level. We seek to empower leaders to help us drive this institutional change. Of course we are trying to regulate bad behaviour, but it is also about inspiring leaders to be part of the delivery mechanism for positive institutional change.
We have an ambition of 30% female inflow, but the bottom line is that we will achieve that only if we have really positive female role models who attract female recruits. Recently, I was pleased to visit the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery. I spoke to a range of brilliant service personnel, some of whom had served for 18 years and others for three or four years, and they were unanimous in the message that they love service life. Of course some had critical feedback, and I was pleased to take note of that. They are the sort of individuals who will inspire more females to join and acknowledge that it is an excellent career.
I mentioned the veterans’ charity Salute Her. When we launch the veterans’ strategy next week, we will commit to better understanding the needs of female veterans. That will be extremely important, and we will track that.
I will conclude with role models. As a Department, institutionally we are there to ensure there is a robust and independent service justice system that gives women confidence that they can serve with dignity and thrive in every role—since 2018, every role in the armed forces is open to women. The bottom line is that this kind of institutional change can be brought about only by servicewomen themselves. The best accelerant of the change will be to have brilliant women at the very top of the military, driving forward institutional change and inspiring more women to join and serve. That is why our target is 30%.
I would like to mention three women in particular. The first is Major General Sharon Nesmith of the army recruiting and initial training team; it is people like her who will effect this change. It is also people like Air Vice-Marshal Maria Byford, who is chief of staff personnel and air secretary, and the soon-to-be Rear Admiral Jude Terry, who will be promoted to that rank in August next year. They are role models who will drive positive change. Their own careers show young women who are considering a career in the armed forces that women can serve and thrive in the Army, that they should join, and that they will have a great career and will flourish in the armed forces.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
The final words of wind-up will come from a fourth role model, Sarah Atherton.
Sarah Atherton
Thank you, Dr Huq. I want to finish on a positive note. I was on “Woman’s Hour” last week. Eight minutes after I had finished, I received an email, which said:
“Idiots like you push women to enter a very male environment and then moan when the normal biological functions take place.”
That is the attitude that we here are trying to remove.
On a positive note, I met a young—compared with me—commanding officer last week. He had read this report independently, from cover to cover. He had changed his leadership style, with good results from the personnel in his unit, and he was even empowered to challenge a two-star who had very loudly said, “I can’t get used to seeing women on ships.” The good thing was that the two-star took the challenge as constructive criticism. Change is happening.
I thank everyone for their contributions today, the Minister for his response, and the ministerial team and Secretary of State for their support throughout this. Of course, the MOD has made massive changes. It is a very old—probably the oldest—male-dominated institution, and I appreciate all that it is doing. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) mentioned being global leaders. Throughout the Committee’s inquiry, we liaised with the US, which has been undertaking a similar inquiry, and more latterly Australia. I am pleased that the Minister has gone further and is going to scope an international conference in 2022 to look at the progression of women in the military. The world is waking up to the fact that there are issues for women who serve.
We have many inspirational women in our military right now, of every rank, and they are all an inspiration to others. The inquiry has not been about wokeing up the Army, of which I have been accused. It is about taking a stand. Treating people differently because of their gender, in this day and age, is totally unacceptable. The inquiry is about promoting British values of justice, fairness and equality, and ultimately it is about operational effectiveness.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Second Report of the Defence Committee, Protecting those who protect us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life, HC 154, and the Government Response, HC 904.
Written Statements
Brexit Opportunities: Review of Retained EU Law
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Lord Frost CMG, has today made the following ministerial statement:
On 16th September 2021 I announced a review of “retained EU law” (REUL). This refers to the very many pieces of EU legislation which have flowed into the UK legal system during our EU membership, through the European Communities Act 1972 as an obligation of membership and without any ability for Parliament to change them. It also covers EU case law and principles. To ensure continuity and certainty immediately after Brexit, REUL was taken onto our own statute book through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act of 2018.
However, while this was an important short-term bridging measure, it does not represent the right long-term end point for the UK and our statute book. Many laws that were retained are not necessarily right for the UK as an independent country, and there are anomalies and uncertainties which remain over the precise status of REUL as part of the UK's domestic law. Accordingly, we have now launched two reviews: the first into the substance of REUL, and the second into its status in law. This statement sets out the progress that has been made so far and the next steps.
Our overall intention remains, in time, to amend, replace, or repeal all the REUL that is not right for the UK.
On the substance review, I have directed Government departments to establish the content of REUL in policy areas for which they are responsible, and to consult stakeholders as necessary. There is no authoritative assessment by Government of which policy areas are most affected by REUL. This first review will deliver such an assessment, and enable us to establish which sectors of the economy and which departments are most affected by REUL.
On the second review, into the legal status of REUL, we have identified the following seven areas where EU law concepts, retained by the EU Withdrawal Act, still affect the UK even though we have left the EU:
Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, rights under treaties and directives which had direct effect in UK law whilst we were a member state have been incorporated into domestic law. Many of these rights—like respect for human rights and equal pay for men and women—replicate rights that were already part of UK law, separately from our EU membership. We want to ensure, to the extent appropriate, that the UK law-derived rights relied on in our legal system are not confused or overlaid with EU-derived rights. If required, we will also clarify the scope of directly effective rights in directives, saved as REUL under section 4 of the Act, to make it clear that only those rights which have already been recognised by the CJEU or the UK courts are incorporated.
Even though we have left the EU, the UK courts are still required to interpret REUL in accordance with retained general principles of EU law, such as proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations, so far as those principles are relevant. These general principles have developed in the EU over the years to apply to the laws as they exist in the EU system. But REUL is now UK law derived from EU sources, so we need to consider whether this new body of UK law should be interpreted under UK principles of interpretation, or under those that apply to the EU treaties and legislation developed for member states.
Currently, under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, REUL has a special and unusual status in UK law. Whatever its original EU legislative form (for example, a regulation or treaty article), for some purposes REUL is treated as UK primary legislation, and in other cases its status depends on its original form (with a significant number automatically accorded the status of primary legislation). Accordingly, we will be revisiting the legislative framework in the European Union Withdrawal Act and the operation of such REUL, so that it is given a more appropriate status within the UK legal system for the purposes of amendment and repeal. That status should reflect the fact that Parliament had no ability to block or amend such legislation once agreed in Brussels, indeed it often had no meaningful democratic scrutiny in the UK at all. Accordingly, this aspect of the review will consider whether, and if so, how, REUL could be amended or repealed by an accelerated process, with appropriate oversight, given the unsatisfactory nature of its original incorporation.
The EU concept of the ‘supremacy of EU law’—which forces all other UK legislation to be interpreted so as to give way to EU law where there is a conflict (even if EU law was overridden by subsequent non-EU sourced UK law)—has been preserved by the 2018 Act so far as relevant to the interpretation, disapplication or quashing of domestic law passed or made before the end of the transitional period. This interpretative concept is alien to the UK legislative principles, whereby later parliaments (and their laws) can override earlier parliaments. This concept never sat well with our long established democratic and parliamentary traditions, and now we have left the EU is clearly no longer appropriate. We will consider the issue and it is likely that we will propose removing the concept from the statute book.
Under the 2018 Act, in interpreting REUL, UK courts remain bound by EU courts and their decisions issued before the transition period ended. Only the Supreme Court or certain appellate courts have the power to depart from such case law. REUL is UK law which is derived from a (now) foreign source. In all other cases, when UK legislation draws on foreign models, its courts are not bound by foreign case law, although it may be persuasive. Accordingly, we need to consider the anomalous status of EU case law, and we will be revisiting the issue of which UK courts should be able to depart from retained EU case law, and on what basis.
The Court of Justice of the EU may, from time to time, declare an EU instrument invalid under EU law. In addition to the general process for addressing REUL which is no longer right for the UK, we propose to ensure that the retained version can be swiftly removed when the original EU law measure has been declared invalid under EU law.
The review will also consider any consequential actions, such as updated guidance relating to the courts (for example, on the treatment of EU case law) and the place of EU law in legal education.
We will continue to develop policy proposals at pace. My officials will be consulting widely with internal and external stakeholders, including from the judiciary, legal practice, academia, and industry to ensure that any proposed legislative and non-legislative solutions are thoroughly tested.
We will incorporate Parliament’s views, including through targeted engagement with select committees, to ensure the outcomes of the review into REUL status are robust. Our aim will be to issue proposals in the spring, and legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Any individual or group with relevant expertise that wishes to be involved in this review should contact the Brexit Opportunities Unit in the Cabinet Office.
( brexit.opportunities@cabinetoffice.gov.uk).
[HCWS460]
Deployment of UK Military Engineers to Poland
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am today informing the House of the deployment of UK military personnel to Poland to provide assistance to the Polish armed forces.
For a number of months Poland, along with their Baltic neighbours Latvia and Lithuania, have been under significant pressure from irregular migration originating across their border with Belarus, and facilitated by the Lukashenko regime. Poland has every right to protect its borders within international law in the face of an unprecedented and volatile situation. The UK is committed to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our close allies as part of our commitment to European security.
For this reason, the UK is deploying a squadron of Royal Engineers, along with associated support elements, to Poland in order to support Polish troops with specific engineering tasks. This follows the deployment on 11 November 2021 of an initial engineer reconnaissance element. This is not a combat deployment.
This engineer squadron will be in addition to, but separate from, the 150 UK personnel based in Poland since 2017 as part of the US-led multinational battlegroup under NATO’s enhanced forward presence. The engineering personnel will be deploying on a bilateral basis, as UK national activity in support of a close ally. They are not deploying as part of a NATO response or operation and will not be under NATO command or control. The engineers are planned to be deployed until the end of April 2022.
[HCWS461]
Maximum Student Loan Interest Rate
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Further and Higher Education (Michelle Donelan)
I am announcing today a temporary reduction in the maximum student loan interest rate following the continued reduction in the prevailing market rate for comparable unsecured personal loans.
In accordance with the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, where the Government consider that the student loan interest rate is higher than the prevailing market rate for comparable unsecured loans, we will take steps to reduce the maximum student loan interest rate.
The Government regularly monitor the interest rates set on student loans against the interest rates prevailing on the market for comparable loans.
Following the continued reduction in the prevailing market rate, I have today [9 December] laid legislation to cap the maximum post-2012 income contingent repayment undergraduate and the postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate in line with the prevailing market rate. The cap will come into effect from 1 January 2021 and last for a period of two months.
The reduction will be 0.1 percentage point on the maximum student loan interest rate to reflect the average market rates during the preceding monitoring period.
The maximum post-2012 undergraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate and the postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate will be 4.4% between 1 January and 28 February.
From 1 March 2022, the post-2012 undergraduate and postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rates will revert to the standard rate +3%.
Further caps may be put in place should the prevailing market rate continue to be below student loan interest rates.
[HCWS462]
Contingent Liability Notification: India Green Guarantee
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia (Amanda Milling)
I have today laid a departmental minute outlining details of a new liability (the India green guarantee) which FCDO plans to undertake in order to guarantee up to US$1 billion (£746 million at the current exchange rate) in lending from the World Bank to India.
It works in more than 170 countries globally to reduce extreme poverty, boost shared prosperity and address global challenges such as climate change.
The India green guarantee to the World Bank will unlock additional lending worth US$1 billion for green projects in India. This financing will be used for projects that address climate change and will be designed to maximise impact through relevant approaches described in the departmental minute.
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the statement, except in cases of special urgency.
The UK is creating this new liability for two reasons. First, to meet a clear climate financing need. India is pivotal in the global effort to tackle climate change. It is raising its climate ambition but will need enhanced financial support in order to do so. Secondly, to alleviate constraints on World Bank lending to the Government of India. The departmental minute provides further detail on these issues and how the guarantee addresses them.
The liability is expected to last for up to 25 years. FCDO would only pay official development assistance if a default occurs as agreed with the World Bank. The departmental minute sets this out in detail.
HM Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before Parliament, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS453]
UK-Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council 2021
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia (Amanda Milling)
On Tuesday 16 and Wednesday 17 November, I chaired the ninth UK-Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council in London. The Council was the first in person since 2018 and was attended by elected leaders and representatives from Anguilla, Ascension Island, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Tristan da Cunha and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
The key themes of discussion at this year’s Council were environment and oceans, the International Maritime Organisation III code audit, the UK-overseas territories relationship, economic resilience, law enforcement, the response to and recovery from covid-19, the importance of mental health and protecting the vulnerable, and improving inclusivity in our societies.
Mr right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Secretary, as well as HRH The Duke of Cambridge, addressed the Council. Other ministerial colleagues attending the discussions included the Minister for the Pacific and International Environment (the right hon. Lord Goldsmith), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), the Minister for Security and Borders, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). I was also joined by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)
The Council agreed priorities and set out a number of important commitments and areas for joint work in the year ahead.
We discussed the importance of protecting the unique environments and biodiversity in the overseas territories, recognising that these are on the frontline of the effects of climate change. The territories expressed thanks to the UK for facilitating their presence at the COP26 summit. We agreed to prioritise climate change and environmental issues in future funding for the territories.
We reaffirmed our commitment to supporting the overseas territories in building successful and resilient economies, acknowledging the impact of external shocks, such as the covid-19 and natural disasters on the small and vulnerable economies of territories.
We recognised that the impacts of covid-19 were not yet over and committed to continue working together collaboratively to bolster the health services in the territories through existing and new links with the UK. We committed to work with the territories to access the limited supply of the UK’s therapeutics supply. We reaffirmed our commitment to improving the lives of people with mental health problems, including children and young people.
We reaffirmed our joint commitment to build upon cross-multi-agency law enforcement working to enhance co-operation and increase capacity in the territories. We also discussed the important role that Governments can play in promoting inclusive societies.
We agreed a joint communiqué, which was issued following the conclusion of the conference and was published on the gov.uk website.
The communiqué and associated press statement reflect the commitment of the Governments of the overseas territories and the UK to continue to work in partnership to achieve the vision set out in the June 2012 White Paper: “The Overseas Territories: security, success and sustainability”.
In line with our commitment in the White Paper, we will continue to report to Parliament on progress by Government Departments.
[HCWS455]
West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust: Publication of Independent Review Report
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Today NHS England and NHS Improvement have published the report of the independent investigation to review whistleblowing at West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust. This review was commissioned by NHS England and NHS Improvement at the request of the Department for Health and Social Care. It followed widely reported events arising from an anonymous letter sent to the relative of a patient who had died at the trust.
The review led by Christine Outram MBE has considered as its starting point the appropriateness and impact of the actions taken by the trust and other relevant bodies in response to the issues raised by and connected with the October letter. The review was also asked to produce advisory recommendations and learnings.
The findings of the review describe a breakdown in working practices and shine a light upon an executive team that was not sufficiently held to account by its board. In particular, the review found that fingerprinting and use of biometrics such as handwriting experts is not appropriate in any NHS context. The review also found that in handling whistleblowing material made available through unconventional or even inappropriate means, the NHS should still focus on what and why something is being raised, rather than who has raised it.
There is significant learning to be gathered from the report in relation to how freedom to speak up was implemented in the trust; and how freedom to speak up concerns should be separated from performance and disciplinary matters. The report also emphasises the importance of having strong board governance and checks and balance processes in place.
The trust and other relevant organisations including NHS England and NHS Improvement, the GMC and CQC will need to take stock of the findings of this important report. Indeed, this is a lesson for all NHS organisations to actively work to promote an open culture.
The Government take the issue of speaking up extremely seriously and have put in place clear sources of support for staff to help them raise a concern, including the speak up direct helpline and website and the National Guardian to help drive positive cultural change across the NHS so that speaking up becomes business as usual. The National Guardian also provides support and leadership to a network of over 700 local freedom to speak up guardians, covering every trust, whose role is to support staff who want to speak up about something.
The Government have also enhanced the legal protections available for those who speak up to prohibit discrimination against job applicants on the grounds that they have raised concerns. This is additional to the longstanding provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996, amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which gives legal protection against detriment to all workers who speak up. We will continue to support the right of all workers in the NHS and wider health and care sector to speak up.
This review and its report have been delayed in part by the covid pandemic and complicated by the sheer scale of the issues that have emerged from this investigation. I would therefore like to thank Christine Outram and her team for their diligence, commitment, and hard work in getting to the heart of these matters.
This is a comprehensive report describing a complicated set of circumstances. Much has happened in the trust since the review was first commissioned. The report outlines the changes and actions the trust has taken to improve its HR, culture and leadership practices. These are encouraging signs that that the trust is learning and should be better placed in the future.
Whilst the response to the anonymous whistleblowing letter represents an unusual set of events specific to one organisation, the Department will absorb the report and consider the learning for the wider system and discuss with NHSEI what the next steps might be.
I have placed a copy of the report of the independent review into West Suffolk Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS463]
UK-Singapore Digital economy Agreement
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Following intensive negotiations on the UK Singapore digital agreement launched in June this year, I am pleased to report that we have now reached agreement in principle on what will be the world’s most comprehensive digital trade agreement.
The UK-Singapore digital economy agreement (the “DEA”) will take our trading relationship with Singapore—worth £16 billion in 2020—to the next level by overhauling outdated trade rules that affect both goods and services exporters, making it easier for UK business to target new opportunities in both Singapore and lucrative Asian markets. This means that modern trade in services, financial services, agricultural goods, manufactured goods, legal advice, architecture, and many other sectors can operate more easily, supported by their all-important underlying data.
The deal reflects the objectives for digital trade that I set out in September this year, namely:
Securing open digital markets, including through important commitments such as a prohibition on imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions.
Championing cross-border data flows and prohibiting the unjustified forced localisation of data as well as committing to high standards of personal data protection.
Championing consumer benefits and necessary business safeguards in digital trade. This includes important issues such as the protection of source code and online consumer protection.
Promoting digital trading systems that cut red tape and make trade cheaper, faster, and more secure for businesses. This includes commitments around electronic signatures and contracts.
Promoting collaboration with Singapore to shape the rules that govern digital trade and ensure they are free, fair, and inclusive. This includes commitments to collaborate with Singapore in emerging fields such as fintech and lawtech.
The deal also closely reflects the ground-breaking G7 digital trade principles that the UK brokered in October under our presidency. This includes recognition of the importance of decent conditions of work for those employed in the digital economy.
Following the agreement in principle, the legal text will now be finalised. Signature of the agreement will take place at a future date, at which point the agreement will also be presented to Parliament for scrutiny.
[HCWS454]
Delivering Justice for Victims
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Today the Government are publishing a package of measures that will collectively raise the voice of victims in our criminal justice system and strengthen the accountability of all the agencies charged with supporting them.
We are publishing a consultation on a new victims’ law: “Delivering justice for victims—a consultation on improving victims’ experiences of the justice system”. The consultation seeks views on how we can:
Improve communication from agencies with victims, including through an explicit requirement for a prosecutor in a case or certain types of cases to have met with the victim before the charging decision, so that victims’ voices are amplified in the criminal justice process.
Mainstream the use of community impact statements, so that the voice of whole communities is strengthened and the police, CPS and court understand the wider scale and extent to which crime can blight whole neighbourhoods.
Clarify and sharpen accountability for when victims do not receive the right level of service, by enshrining the victims’ code in law and strengthening oversight mechanisms through reinforced inspection regimes nationally and police and crime commissioners locally.
Increase the victim surcharge so criminals pay millions of pounds more towards crucial victim services and therefore take greater responsibility for the cost of supporting victims to recover from what they have suffered.
Improve provision of community-based services and strengthen support available from Independent Sexual Violence Advisors (ISVAs) and Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs).
The Government are also announcing:
The start of a national roll-out of provision of pre-recorded cross-examination for sexual and modern slavery victims to all Crown courts, which will mean that more victims can benefit from recording their evidence earlier in the process and outside of the courtroom, subject to judicial discretion.
The publication of national criminal justice scorecards which will give a cross-system view of performance, so we can better monitor performance, understand problems in the system, and address them more effectively, whilst spreading the very best practice widely.
The publication of a progress report on the end-to-end rape review action plan and the first ever scorecard on adult rape, which will mean that we can hold criminal justice agencies to account for delivering improvements in outcomes for this horrendous crime.
Together these measures will contribute to our plan to give victims the justice they deserve, and build back a better, stronger, fairer country. The consultation is available at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/victim-policy/delivering-justice-for-victims
[HCWS457]
UK Internal Market Act Exclusions: Common Frameworks
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
During the passage of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 my ministerial colleagues made clear that the powers under the Act may be used to give effect to agreements reached within a common framework regarding exclusions from the market access principles. The Government brought forward amendments to delegated powers under the Act to that effect.
The relevant powers, under sections 10 and 18 of the Act, permit a Secretary of State, by regulations, to amend the schedules of the Act so that
“certain cases, matters, requirements, or provision”
can be excluded from the application of the Act’s market access principles. A process for agreeing such exclusions in areas of policy divergence within a common framework has been developed by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. A copy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be published on the UK Government’s website www.gov.uk.
New exclusions from the UK Internal Market Act’s market access principles require the approval of both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure. Accordingly, where agreement to such an exclusion is reached within a common framework, the relevant Department and Minister will seek that approval by laying a draft statutory instrument before Parliament in accordance with the UK Internal Market Act.
[HCWS459]
European Union (Withdrawal) Act: Common Frameworks Report and Repeal of Section 12 Powers
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
I am today laying before Parliament a report, “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 June to 25 September 2021”. I am laying this report because it is a legal requirement under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for quarterly reports to be made to Parliament on the progress of the work to develop common frameworks. The report is available on gov.uk and details the progress made between the UK Government and devolved Governments regarding the development of common frameworks. This report details progress made during the 13th three-month reporting period, and sets out that no “freezing” regulations have been brought forward under section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. As a result of the progress that has been made to establish common frameworks in collaboration with the devolved Governments, the Government intend to repeal section 12 powers through the enabling power set out in section 12(9) of the Act. A copy of the “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 June to 25 September 2021” report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The publication of the report reflects the Government’s continued commitment to transparency.
[HCWS458]
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Inquiry 2016: UK Follow-up Repor
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
Today I will place in the Library of the House a copy of the UK’s 2021 follow-up report to the UN Committee on the Rights of Disabled People following the 2016 inquiry.
This Government are more committed than ever to eliminating barriers so that everyone can participate in society. This commitment aligns with the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (the convention), which protects and promotes the rights of disabled people. The follow-up report demonstrates how we are implementing the convention and showcases the UK’s progress over the past two years in creating more opportunities for disabled people to participate and thrive in society.
The report shows positive action taking place across the UK to support disabled people, through policies and programmes that tackle the barriers faced by disabled people.
As a key element of this, in July 2021 we published the national disability strategy, which sets out steps to improve disabled people’s everyday lives. It offers both a positive vision for long-term societal change and a wide-ranging, practical plan for action now. The strategy includes over 100 practical actions from right across Government to improve the lives of disabled people, across education, employment, housing, transport, shopping, culture, justice, public services, and data and evidence.
In July 2021, we published “Shaping future support: the health and disability green paper”, which explores how the welfare system can better meet the needs of disabled people. We are committed to improving access to crucial support.
We also published our response to “Health is everyone’s business” (HiEB) in July 2021, which sets out measures the Government are taking to provide greater clarity around employer and employee rights and responsibilities: address the need for employers to have access to information and advice that is easy to understand, trustworthy and accessible, and encourage more employers to provide access to expert support services such as occupational health (OH).
Together these publications show the Government’s holistic approach to supporting disabled people and those with long-term health conditions to live full and independent lives.
The report shows that we are continuing to support disabled people in all aspects of everyday life. We are investing more than ever before in disability benefits and providing more personalised and tailored employment support to help more disabled people start, stay and succeed in work. As set out in the national disability strategy, we are committed to improving the accessibility of housing and are investing further in making public spaces accessible to all. We are prioritising funding for adult social care and personalised care reform to ensure everyone receives the right care they need; and we have increased grant funding across the UK for children and adults to support this. We are continuing to put the voices of disabled people first by engaging with disabled people and stakeholders through DPOs, networks and relevant organisations.
Everyone should be able to participate fully in society—whoever you are, wherever you live, and importantly, whether you have a disability or not. That is the vision we have set, accompanied not by rhetoric but with tangible action plans, to create a society that is safer and fairer for all.
[HCWS456]
House of Lords
Disabled Students’ Allowance Scheme
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the operation of the Disabled Students’ Allowance scheme to ensure it is working in a timely manner and in the best interests of those it is set up to support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Department for Education continues to work closely with the Student Loans Company to seek ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the disabled students’ allowance. Current projects include improving the application experience for students and putting in place contracts for the provision of needs assessment and assistive technology, which should secure increased value for money and improve the service to students.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, considering the problems with the application process, the 150-day wait between application and potential award, and that there is no audit or quality assurance, the scheme is clearly not working in a timely or optimal manner for those it is set up to serve. Does my noble friend agree that it is time for a review and an overhaul of disabled students’ allowance for visually impaired students and all disabled students? Will she agree to meet me and others to fully examine all the issues?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would of course be delighted to meet my noble friend to explore this, but a number of important improvements have already been introduced into the system. As we go forward, the Department for Education has set clear expectations for the quality standards that all DSA suppliers should meet. We will monitor these standards. We will have access to sound data with which to do this, in collaboration with the Student Loans Company, and will carry out audits at any time. We believe that the new procurement model will indeed improve the service for all DSA students.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests in this field. Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that if you are identified as dyslexic at 14, you have to be told again once you are 18 that you are still dyslexic—it is a lifetime condition—and pay roughly £600 on both occasions for this privilege? How does this help anybody other than the person doing the assessment?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am slightly confused by the noble Lord’s question. My understanding is that his point was valid up until 2019, but we changed the criteria then so that any pre-existing dyslexia assessment from any age would be valid in higher education.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, on that very point, will the Minister take back to other departments the immediate expansion of the pilot programme for the passport that allows the assessment to be carried through not just for disabled students’ allowance but to access to work? If this were carried all the way through from school and college this problem would, at least in part, be resolved.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would be delighted to share that with colleagues in other departments.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I welcome the improvements to which my noble friend has just referred but can she say something about the totality of resources available to disabled students so that all those who are entitled to this equipment have access to it?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that changes have been made to how the allowance works. There will be a single annual allowance of £25,000, which will replace four separate allowances. Our aim is that it will be simpler and more flexible. When we did the equality impact assessment we found that, over three years, four students out of about 70,000 would be disadvantaged by this but that visually and hearing-impaired students in particular would have much flexibility about how they used the resource available to them.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I think the Government reformed DSA only last year, but the official evaluation quoted by the Commons Library found that only 55% of those getting DSA agreed that the support they received met all their needs. The really interesting thing was when they were asked whether the DSA enabled them to participate more fully in their course than they would be able to otherwise, only two-thirds said yes. I think that means that it is better than nothing. Given that we are spending £120 million a year on this, does the Minister think that perhaps a more fundamental review is needed?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will look again at the research to which the noble Baroness refers, but, putting it another way, each student has a right to up to £25,000 a year. The average DSA—I appreciate it is the average and that there will be extremes at either end—is just below £2,000, so there is clearly no financial limit on students getting the support they need and we are absolutely committed to them receiving it.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, wishes to speak virtually. I think this is a convenient point for me to call her.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, a student I know with the hidden disabilities of ADHD and dyslexia has had very good support from Brunel University because she had been told about DSA not at her school but at her diagnosis. Could the Minister encourage all schools to be more proactive in explaining the benefits of DSA?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point and it is helpful to have a specific example. We work very hard to raise awareness of DSA through multiple channels, but there is still a significant gap between the number of registered disabled students at university and those who access the grant.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
Is the Minister satisfied with the take-up of DSA, particularly by students who have hidden disabilities? A report I saw recently—it was a few years ago—indicated that around 60% of students were not able to take it up and that only 13% or so were being informed about it by their university or college. Has there been an improvement on that?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not have the most recent data to hand, but if there is more up-to-date data, I will be very happy to share it with the noble Baroness and the rest of the House. Our understanding is that most eligible students who go through the full application process are getting the support they need, but the noble Baroness raises a good point about what happens to students who start the application and perhaps do not complete it or who are unaware of it. We are trying to address both those points.
UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what the United Kingdom’s contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) is in the current year and next year; and what steps they are taking to ensure that UNRWA does not run out of funds.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is a long-term supporter of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency—UNRWA. So far in 2021 we have provided £27.9 million to UNRWA, although final figures will be published in the annual statistics for international development report. This includes an additional £1 million that I can announce today for UNRWA’s flash appeal following the Gaza conflict, taking our total contribution to the appeal to £4.2 million. We are also working with UNRWA to improve its financial viability.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, perhaps more for its tone than its substance. Could he confirm that the figure he gave for 2020-21 contrasts with the figure of £70 million in 2018; that is, a cut of something in the region of 60%? Does he also agree that UNWRA’s work is more valuable and more vital in a period such as now when there are no talks going on about resolving the Israel/Palestine dispute? Do not the two things contrast rather sharply?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point about talks, I take encouragement that recently, for the first time in many years, President Herzog and President Abbas have spoken, which is a positive. On UNRWA, the noble Lord is correct. The budget has reduced, but nevertheless the funding I stated continues to provide important support, particularly in education for more than 500,000 children, half of whom are girls, within the Palestinian territories.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I shall just pick up that last point about talks. Last month, at the UN International Media Seminar on Peace in the Middle East, the UN Secretary-General remarked that it is 30 years since the historic Madrid peace conference. He also underlined the ongoing commitment of the UN to work with both sides and with the Middle East quartet. Can the Minister tell us a little more about what we are doing as a country to initiate, facilitate and support our allies in ensuring that talks commence?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the US is taking a particular lead on these issues and positive initiatives have been undertaken by the new Administration in Washington, which we support. We work very closely with the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority on a wide range of initiatives underlining our continued strong support for a two-state solution. More recently, we have been encouraged by positive steps taken by the new Government of Israel, including engagement with Jordan, which will be a key partner in any future peace agreement. I agree with the noble Lord that this challenge—this issue, this dispute—has gone on for far too long and that we need a resolution.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I met the Commissioner-General of UNRWA on his recent visit to London and have visited two UNRWA facilities. Young people from the Shatila camp in Lebanon came to meet me because on the day that I was going to visit that camp there was a flash security alert about my visit. That shows the tense nature of these young people who continue to live in these camps. The 60% reduction of UK support is not only morally shameful given our historical obligations, but I saw schoolrooms with books, teaching staff, computers and other facilities funded by the UK. That 60% reduction will have a direct impact on those young people, removing life chances in a very vulnerable area. UNRWA has asked for an exceptional prioritisation mechanism from the UK FCDO. Will the Minister please consider that, because these cuts could be very dangerous?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already acknowledged that there has been a reduction which reflects the reduction in the overall ODA spend. Notwithstanding that, on Gaza specifically the United Kingdom has sought to provide support and the £3.4 million has been enhanced with the additional £1 million that I have announced. Of course, I take note of the noble Lord’s insight from visiting camps and meeting people directly. I will certainly take back his suggestion to the FCDO.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register. Some noble Lords call for unwavering financial support for UNRWA by the British people, but what part of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency should be engaged in teaching hate and encouraging jihad, violence and martyrdom—paid for by the British people? I urge my noble friend the Minister to talk to his colleagues in Canada, Australia and the US about total restructuring and reform that offers relief and work, as opposed to incitement and hatred.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be fully aware of my views on that. No British money should be spent on any textbook or support for any institution or organisation that suggests or inflicts that kind of extremist ideology on any community or any child anywhere in the world. I assure him that, in our support for UNRWA, we are vigilant on these issues. I am cognisant of reports that have been produced in this regard, and we have completed a full audit to ensure that the facilities we support are fully consistent with not just our values but those of the UN.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has been in his post a good deal of time now and is a very effective Minister. How much longer must the people of the Occupied Territories suffer and be humiliated, in the way that they have for so many years, before the international community and the British Government in particular start taking some positive steps? How is it credible to continue to argue for a two-state solution when we recognise just one of the two states? Is it not high time that we at least recognised the state of Palestine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. I share the point that he raises: as I said in an earlier answer, this has gone on for far too long; from both an Israeli and a Palestinian perspective, this needs resolution. I have been to Israel and the Palestinian territories. I have seen for myself the impact the conflict has on both communities. It requires peace negotiations to start again. We are encouraged by recent steps that the US has taken. The position has not changed on recognition of a Palestinian state: we will do so at a time when it serves the peace process in the best way. At the same time, we continue to support and work with the Palestinian Authority. For example, it was invited to, and attended, COP 26 recently.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the West has supported UNRWA financially for more than 70 years, contributing tens of billions of dollars towards not solving the refugee problem but perpetuating it. Is it not time that UNRWA’s functions were transferred to the United Nations refugee council and the Palestinian Authority for the proper treatment of refugees and their resettlement and advancement? UNRWA is a failure.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises specific issues about UNRWA. As I said in my original Answer, the UK continues to support UNRWA but, as I have indicated, where concerns are raised about any UN agency it is right that the United Kingdom, as both a funder and a supporter of the multilateral system, ensures that this work is carried out effectively. I assure the noble Baroness that this is exactly what we do. As I reiterated earlier, UNRWA currently carries out some very valuable work, including on the education of young children.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, UNRWA was founded in 1948 to help 700,000 refugees but now provides aid for more than 5 million. Uniquely, UNRWA status—unlike that of any other refugees anywhere in the world—is passed down through the generations. Should we not encourage UNRWA to press Lebanon, Jordan and the other countries to give these refugees citizenship and full rights, instead of perpetuating the so-called right of return that prolongs the conflict and undermines the policy of a two-state solution?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right: UNRWA was set up under a unique mandate by the UN General Assembly to provide protection and core services to Palestinian refugees across the Middle East. We are clear that the final status of the Palestinian refugees must be agreed as part of the wider peace negotiations. Until that time, the UK remains firmly committed to supporting UNRWA and Palestinian refugees. I note his point about other countries, and we are supporting Palestinian refugees in those countries as well.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are persistent allegations of increased violence towards Palestinians by settlers illegally occupying lands on the West Bank? What representations have Her Majesty’s Government made to the Government of Israel on this matter?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we consistently make representations on the issue of settler violence in the Palestinian territories. I assure the noble Lord that we work closely with Israel on security issues as well. For example, we very much encourage recent announcements from the new Israeli Government on the added support they are giving, in terms of both economic prosperity and security, for the Arab community in Israel. Israel is a key partner for the UK. That means that, as a friend and partner, where we have issues of concern we raise them directly.
Future Farming Programme: Small Farms
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure small family farms remain economically viable during the transition to the Future Farming Programme for England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. We will reinvest money saved by reducing direct payments—initially applying smaller reductions for farmers with the smallest claim sizes—into improved environmental schemes and opportunities for all farmers to get their businesses ready for the transition. These opportunities include grants to invest in productivity measures, support for new entrants, farmer-led innovations and improving farm resilience and sustainability.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but he will know that farm incomes are already falling. By 2023, the smallest farms could be losing as much as 35% of the direct payments they received under the CAP. Of course, we all want the sustainable farming incentive to work, but the transition is relatively short and the Secretary of State’s latest letter still does not provide the detail that farmers need to plan ahead. I ask the Minister to confirm that the practical financial impacts of the new scheme are being regularly reviewed. Can he confirm whether contingency plans are in place to ensure continued farm viability, particularly for smaller family farms?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me the opportunity to say: yes, precisely. We monitor farm incomes carefully and have data going back many years. The current area payments under the basic payment scheme are no friend of the smaller farmer: the largest 10% of farms in the country receive 50% of the money. We are trying to create a fairer system, and not only so that smaller farmers receive a fair amount. Many farmers who do not receive any—for example, 40% of sheep farmers—will have access to these funds.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble friend take this opportunity to correct the record? He inadvertently stated that tenant farmers had not complained about their status under the new schemes. If, as our honourable friend in the other place has said, legislation is required to amend the tenancy agreements, will the Government bring this forward as a matter of urgency?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for the chance to clarify my remarks made to her last month with regard to the Tenant Farmers Association. The TFA provides a constructive contribution to considerations on the letting of agricultural land and a huge input into our rollout of the new schemes. The Government are working to ensure that the design of our future farming schemes is accessible to as many farmers as possible, including tenant farmers. For example, we have designed the sustainable farming incentive scheme rules for 2022 to have shorter agreements and more flexibility to better suit tenant farmers, and we have removed the requirements to demonstrate landlord consent. We recognise that some agreements prevent farmers getting income from schemes because of restrictive clauses, and we are working with the TFA to correct that.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, while I appreciate the Government’s support for small farmers, as I understand it, unless your farm is over 5 hectares you are not eligible for these schemes. You also have to have been in receipt of the basic payment system to qualify. Can the Minister outline whether this is correct?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There is a threshold for access to the scheme, but it is designed to ensure that we are reaching as many small farmers as possible. As I said earlier, many do not receive any support, particularly in sectors such as the poultry and pig sectors. This is an opportunity for many of them to get access to government money that would not otherwise be available under area payment schemes.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a director of a tenant farm and a trustee of the Prince’s Countryside Fund, whose aim is to enable family farms to thrive. An increasing amount of future farm income will come from the various ELM schemes. However, areas such as biodiversity offsetting and tree planting do not fall within the definition of agriculture. Over a third of farmers in the UK are tenants, and virtually every tenant farmer in the UK will have a tenancy clause that requires them to use land exclusively for agriculture. If these tenants enter these environmental schemes, they may be in breach of their tenancy, and there would be a huge risk of an incontestable notice to quit from their landlord. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that tenant farmers, particularly those on short-term or restrictive tenancies, will not be constrained by landlords from entering new environmental schemes?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. We are working really hard to resolve some issues that predate the changes that we are making. Countryside Stewardship, for example, has had this difficulty with tree planting and possible wetland creation. We want to make sure that we are getting the money to the active occupiers of the land. We are working with the Tenant Farmers Association where we believe that there may still be issues relating to some aspects of the agreements. We are very keen to keep my noble friend and other Members of the House informed of those discussions.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, in the last 10 years, we have lost something like one-third of small abattoirs, and yet these are very valuable to the rural economy. They improve animal welfare by shortening journey times to slaughter, and, importantly, they aid livestock farmers to be financially self-sustainable by allowing local killing and processing, allowing them to add value and produce food of good provenance, good quality and low food miles. What plans do the Government have to support small abattoirs and prevent further loss of this important aspect of rural infrastructure?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise this. At Defra, we chair the small abattoirs working group, which brings together industry representatives. I recently visited a project that is, in part, supported by government funding and which seeks to create mobile abattoirs, which we think could be particularly valuable in certain areas. We continue to find other ways of trying to support this vital sector to shorten food miles and improve farm animals’ access to properly run abattoirs, and I will keep the noble Lord in touch with our progress.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition. Of course, one of the things that is really affecting the viability of small family farms is rural crime: theft of equipment, fly-tipping and, in particular, hare-coursing. As the Minister knows, we have been trying to bring forward amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which Her Majesty’s Government are resisting. They have the enthusiastic support of the NFU, police from all around the country and Members from every side of this House, so will the Minister tell us the timetable to introduce provisions to try to deal with this very harmful crime?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right to raise this. I speak with some experience, as a regular victim of such crime. Like everyone, I would like to see greater measures brought in. We are working closely with our Home Office colleagues to ensure that proper provision can be brought in to clamp down on this particularly unpleasant crime, and I will keep him informed.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, while we may broadly support the general direction of agricultural policy, a number of farmers, particularly more elderly ones, do not think that they will be able to cope with the new system and are considering quitting and selling up? In the light of that, rather than allow their land to be bought by big agribusinesses or speculative funds, would it not be sensible for the Government to facilitate counties acquiring that land to establish a new generation of county farms and bring a new generation of farmers into the industry?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The county farm structure is very attractive to me and my fellow Ministers, and there are certainly discussions on trying to expand it. We are also trying to make sure that those who want to exit the industry can do so with dignity and some resource, through the lump sum payment. We are also supporting new entrants: it is absolutely key that we create some mobility in the industry. So a combination of that and a potential increase in county farms is, I think, the right way forward.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, wishes to speak virtually. I think that this is a convenient point for me to call him.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
With the reduction in help for agriculture since we left the EU and fears about unfair competition from new trade agreements, what special assistance are the Government considering so that British farms can continue to be viable and contribute to the making of—according to the British Cheese Board—more than 1,700 delicious British cheeses, including Stinking Bishop?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I say to the noble Lord and the creators of that delicious cheese that there is no reduction in support. We have ring-fenced the amount of money that goes into the basic payments scheme, and we are rolling this out in a different, more effective and fairer way. In addition to that, we have, for example, our farming in protected landscapes fund; our farming investment fund to help innovation; our research and development and innovation fund; a slurry investment scheme, which is of particular interest to dairy farmers; and farm resilience support mechanisms. So there are a number of ways in which we are supporting precisely the kind of farms that the noble Lord is talking about.
Northern Ireland: Supply of Medicines
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the uninterrupted supply of all medicines to Northern Ireland from the end of this year.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, the people of Northern Ireland must have access to the full range of medicines available to people elsewhere in the UK. We are currently in intensive discussions with the Commission to see whether we can establish a consensual way of resolving the current difficulties in this area, among many others. Some progress has been made, but agreement has not been reached.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Her Majesty’s Government have a unique and inescapable obligation to ensure the flow of medicines to all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, without disruption or barriers? Does he agree that the imperatives of health exceed any contractual obligations that we might have with partners and friends? Does he also agree that the Government would not only be justified in taking but are required to take all necessary steps to ensure that medicines continue to flow to Northern Ireland, as now?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the question posed by my noble friend. There is obviously an obligation on this Government, as on any other, to provide medicines throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, we would argue—and I think that it would be accepted—that the provision of medicines is an essential state function, as set out in Article 1 of the protocol. That is why it is important to find a solution that respects that.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it has been suggested in some quarters that a deal on medicines could be imminent and would result in the EU changing legislation to ensure that medicines, including generics and innovative drugs, could be licensed by the UK legislator for GB licence holders so that they could flow freely to Northern Ireland. When will the Minister and the Government sign up to this approach and create the momentum that could lead to agreement in other areas?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, there are a number of difficulties in this highly technical area of the supply of medicines. We have been looking at the proposals made by the Commission. The problem set out by the noble Baroness is not the only issue that needs to be resolved. At the moment, we are not confident that what is on the table would resolve all the issues, but we continue to talk.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the grace period to allow medicines to come to Northern Ireland from Great Britain is about to run out and that that will have devastating consequences for the supply of over-the-counter medicines and essential drugs for hospitals for people in Northern Ireland? What will he say to people in Northern Ireland to bring certainty on this vital issue? Does he accept that medicine should never have been part of the protocol in the first place? Why was it?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the grace period formally expires at the end of this year, but we are also in a standstill agreed between the two sides in July that keeps current arrangements running. It is our expectation that the current grace period arrangements will continue beyond the end of the year as long as we are in constructive discussions with the EU. The existence of the grace period has meant that some of the supply difficulties that we had earlier in the year have changed, but obviously we need to find a permanent solution to this problem.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, surely it is vital to give certainty to the people of Northern Ireland on healthcare. Does the Minister agree that, in taking his decision tomorrow during the negotiations, now is the time to put pragmatism before ideology?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we would love to find an agreement if one were available. We think that the proposal that we made to take medicines out of the protocol entirely would be the simplest way of solving this problem, but we continue to look at the proposals that the EU has put on the table. At the moment, we do not have the necessary detail or understanding of the texts to enable us to accept these proposals, but we continue to talk.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the simplest and probably best solution would be if there were mutual recognition between the United Kingdom and the EU of the authorisations of the European Medicines Agency and our MHRA? That would be a bilateral, trade-related solution that would also serve the needs of Northern Ireland.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, that might indeed be a solution; it has not been part of the discussions so far, and I think that the regulators on both sides guard their discretion closely and the ability to proceed at the speeds that they think best, as we have seen this year on vaccine licensing.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, there can be no question of any interruption to the supply of medicines to Northern Ireland. This is urgent for the UK, but we should remember that the EU needs to resolve this issue for Malta and Cyprus as well. Patients, their families and clinicians need certainty. Will the Minister confirm that he is not taking a “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach? The EU needs to resolve this issue on behalf of member states and is likely to present further suggestions imminently. Does he accept that supply of medicines should be dealt with as a priority and, if necessary, separately from other Northern Ireland protocol issues?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I repeat that the Government will not allow there to be any disruption to supply of medicines to Northern Ireland; that is an absolute obligation on us. Of course, medicines are only one of many problems that we have put on the table. They are a special case, if you like, of the issue of supply of goods more generally to Northern Ireland, so the matter cannot be seen entirely in isolation but needs to be solved as part of many of the other difficulties on the protocol.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be mindful of the fact that I have a family horticultural business. Before the House met today, I was on a call with the National Office of Animal Health, which emphasised to me that animal health medicines are also part and parcel of this package. Is he similarly negotiating for those?
Lord Frost (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right to raise this important aspect of the question. Although veterinary medicines are part of the general discussions that we are having with the EU, they are by no means as far advanced as those on broader medicines. Unfortunately, we are some way from a solution on that matter.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, important as medicines and trade are, does the Minister recognise that the main challenge of the Northern Ireland protocol is a possible constitutional crisis?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we are well aware of that aspect; we are well aware that the protocol is not working for the people of Northern Ireland. There are societal and economic difficulties, identity is being eroded, and it is compounded by trade diversion. We need to restore the balance if we are to avoid a loss of confidence in the institutions established under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and that is what we are working to try to ensure.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is astonishing that the Minister confessed in the answer to a previous question that this is just one of many problems arising from the agreement. He is the Minister who negotiated that agreement—every aspect of it. When is he going to confess that he messed it up?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, it is well known by now that I was the Minister who negotiated this agreement; it is also well known that the agreement required careful handling, which it has not received during this year, and that is why we face so many of the problems that we are now trying to deal with.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister forgot to answer the second question from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds: why were medicines there in the first place?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, as I said in answer to an earlier question, medicines are a special case of the general issue of supply of goods into Northern Ireland. As the protocol covers that general issue, it includes medicines. It has created special difficulties that we are trying to resolve.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, on the supply of medicines, I understand that one issue in these negotiations is that there is further information which apparently is not being provided to the UK Government. Could my noble friend elucidate on this a bit more because, obviously, we all want agreement to be achieved as soon as possible?
Lord Frost (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that in an area as technical and complicated as this, it is obviously essential that we have full access to all the detail, all the potential legislation and all the potential guidance issued. At the moment, we do not have that. We have not been able to see it all, but I hope that we might be able to do so before too long. It is obviously not possible for us to reach agreement unless we have access to that level of detail.
Duchy of Cornwall Bill [HL]
Thursday 9th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Duchy of Cornwall Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Duchy of Cornwall Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Scotland: Economic Recovery and Renewal
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie
That this House takes note of Scotland’s contribution to economic recovery and renewal, and how this may support wellbeing and quality of life across the United Kingdom.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this debate on a topic close to my heart—even if it is not close to the hearts of those who are now walking out of the Chamber.
To have the chance to talk about Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom is extremely important, and we do not do it enough. I refer to all my interests as laid out in the register but, most importantly, to the fact that I am a proud Scot: I live and work in Scotland. This debate is about the value of our United Kingdom and the value that we here, at its political centre in Westminster, place on Scotland. It is also about the future, about what kind of United Kingdom we want to build and about Scotland’s contribution to that future. I appreciate that it is very difficult to put a price on well-being and quality of life, but most of the priorities that we ask a Government to support to ensure them have a price tag on them.
I had hoped to welcome the new Minister from the Scotland Office to his post, but unfortunately he is isolating. I am sure that all Members will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery and good health.
The House of Lords Library briefing for today starts by saying:
“Assessing Scotland’s contribution to the wider UK economy and to UK wellbeing is complex.”
I do not expect that Members of this House have ever shied away from complex issues. Yes, defining “well-being” challenges most of us; the Scottish Government have been trying since 2007, with a national performance framework that has 81 measures of well-being, but potentially not much evidence of there having been any change. I am clearly not here today to speak for the Scottish Government, but I hope that the outcome is a commitment from this Government that they will not resort to pulling rank and that we build on the words of the noble Lord, Lord True, to this House in July to create a more regular rhythm of engagement and embed a culture of collaboration across all levels of government.
Today is an excellent day to highlight the Scottish economy, as the Scottish Finance Secretary is to set out her annual Budget in the Scottish Parliament. Clearly, she has different priorities from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I suspect that there will be a few caustic comments about how much the Scottish Government would like to do but cannot because of the constraints of Westminster—but I urge the Government not to rise to the bait. There is a bigger narrative here, to be found in the relation to well-being of the whole United Kingdom.
The real issue that I want to address is one of tone. While the SNP may want to argue that independence would make Scotland wealthier, much of the economic narrative regarding the devolved economies from the centre, countering that fiction, focuses on the union dividend. The majority of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the UK, and the majority of public spending in Scotland comes from the block grant, so apparently we would be doomed without the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom Government. This narrative leaves the impression that the Scots are lucky to have the UK. While I believe that all of us, from whatever part of the United Kingdom, are fortunate to live in it, that does not give us an appreciation of the full picture. The debate simply becomes about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
If we look at the value rather than simply the cost, the opportunity that devolution has afforded Scotland to do things differently often offers the rest of the UK a template—a test—of change, which through collaborative working could support well-being and quality of life across the UK. On Tuesday, your Lordships debated the Second Reading of the Health and Care Bill. Health and social care integration was established in law in Scotland in 2014; in conjunction with the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013, that legislation may not have delivered on the policy intention—I accept that—but, as England struggles to grasp the nettle of the future provision of health and social care, the integrated systems in Scotland, as well as in Wales and Northern Ireland, offer valuable lessons.
It is the same with digital healthcare. Our experience in Scotland, where the demands of serving remote communities such as Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles from specialist centres in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen has meant that, long before we all rushed online because of Covid, clinicians and patients in Scotland were testing video consultations from 2016. The system, which is now known as Near Me, has been evaluated for its clinical appropriateness and for how patients experience it by the University of Oxford, and its recommendations have been acted on. In my own area of neurology and neurological services, national guidance is being developed collaboratively for the use of virtual versus face-to-face appointments. The Scottish Government have commissioned a further phase of evaluation to explore the rapid scale-up of this system in response to the pandemic—evidence that would be extremely relevant to the current debates throughout the UK on face-to-face versus virtual access to doctors and health services.
If we look to the future, post the pandemic—in those sunny upland days, although there is a climate emergency—we see that Scotland is in the strongest position to drive growth of the green economy in the UK by significant margins, based on its existing green infrastructure and future potential. We have a strong base of existing green economy jobs in sectors such as onshore and offshore wind, solar and hydroelectric power and, based on the size of the labour market, we have the highest concentration of green jobs in the UK. For future sector planning, Scotland also benefits from the largest relative number of higher education students studying green-related subjects, such as engineering, technology, building and planning and agriculture. The Scottish Affairs Committee recently noted in its report in September that investment in the national grid was necessary so that the renewable energy generated in Scotland could reach the rest of the UK. Can the Minister give us some reassurance on future plans in this area? Is this not the union dividend that we should be emphasising?
An area that we must support throughout Whitehall is the Scottish business community. Strathclyde University recently found that Scotland had the second-highest total early-stage entrepreneurial activity in the UK and, interestingly, that Scottish entrepreneurs were likely to be from non-white ethnic groups and activity was most prevalent in outlying hard-to-reach geographical areas such as the Highlands and Islands. Does this not feed very comfortably into the challenges that we face in other areas for levelling up in the rest of the UK?
I turn to the creative sector, because it is another Scottish success story. Just two and a half years after selecting Glasgow for a new hub, Channel 4 now has its biggest creative team based in Scotland. This is possible only because of the supply chain of independent production companies, which supports hundreds of jobs—and it is an example where a small level of publicly funded support in the early stages can generate positive economic, cultural and social impact in Scotland and across the UK. The 2019 report of my noble friend Lord Dunlop stressed that devolution must work not only in Scotland but throughout government here in Westminster. I hope that the Minister will keep a close eye on the impact of future plans that Channel 4 may have for this sector in Scotland.
Clearly now is not the time for indyref2 but, as my noble friend Lord Dunlop warned in his review, we must not devolve and forget. We must ensure that the unionist cause is not reduced simply to accountancy. To ensure quality of life throughout the whole UK, we have to work together across all levels—economic, health, education, social and cultural, on devolved and reserved matters, together. In closing, I ask the Minister to champion across government departments the integral role of Scotland in our recovery and to concentrate on the practical things that make devolution work for the whole UK. I look forward very much to this debate and beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie on introducing this debate so very ably just now.
I shall briefly connect a few points: how devolved powers to Scotland, as well as those to Wales and Northern Ireland, can facilitate good practice within the UK; yet how UK regions and their locations represent the sources and engines in any case thus additionally, or irrespective of devolution. I refer next to the central issues of education, apprenticeships and jobs; then national and international benefits when economic targets and well-being standards are set and measured together.
Before considering how devolution in a variety of fields may assist good practices within the UK, perhaps we should first look at economic results since 1999. This is the extent to which devolution may have improved regional economic outcomes. As it is, those showings are rather disappointing; for their readings have hardly changed at all from 1999 to 2019; nor has devolution held back an increase in regional inequalities across the UK.
Those seeking to explain the UK’s continuing geographical disparities sometimes point to the limited ability to raise income from local taxes. Certainly, it is often a more convincing story elsewhere, with local taxes accounting for more and central government grants for less. In 2015, 67% of local government revenue in the UK came from central government grants, compared to only 26% in France, 30% in Sweden, 34% in Spain, 38% in Germany and 40% in Italy.
It is also alleged that regional disparities may have been partly sustained through an insufficient willingness by devolution recipient hubs, such as Edinburgh and Cardiff, to redistribute funds quite enough to the Scottish or Welsh areas under their respective controls.
Nevertheless, although it may not have enhanced economic performance to date, devolution remains a useful intervention, as my noble friend Lady Fraser has just pointed out. Each devolved authority can adjust and amend a wide range of services and disciplines such as health, local government and law and order, as relevant. Therefore, through comparison, evidence and synthesis, better practices have the chance of coming to light and becoming adopted throughout the UK, to the advantage of all. And much more so than they ever could have done when the delivery of these services was centralised, as it was before devolution.
This leads to a separate, if connected, focus. That is the enormous potential of various parts of Scotland to contribute to the UK economy. Here the Government’s recently published strategy, Build Back Better, is to be welcomed.
In 2022 and 2023, and following their prescriptions, what steps will be taken to create free ports and trade hubs in Scotland? Where and how will Scotland benefit from the current review of United Kingdom transport links? Can the Minister also indicate when the process to roll out gigabit broadband in rural areas will begin and what timescale is envisaged for this? On proven growth industries, what plans do the Government have further to advance financial services and insurance, which in 2018 and 2019 was already the largest industry for Scottish exports to the rest of the UK? What plans do they have for utilities, the second largest Scottish growth industry, which has been driven by an increase in electricity exports?
Next, and concerning Scotland, are the very good prospects of the UK’s creative industries. We may take heart that, between 2011 and 2019, their gross value-added measure grew four times faster than the rate for the rest of the UK economy. The sector exported £36 billion in services worldwide and accounted for almost 12% of the UK’s services exports.
That apart, renewed efforts must continue to be made to spread out these advantages—still far too heavily concentrated in south-east England—much more to the rest of the UK. What government intentions and proposed actions, therefore, are there to extend them to Scotland?
The central issues may be education, apprenticeships and jobs. The Government are investing in city and growth deals in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland—and included within a range of new and worthwhile avenues—are international city partnerships, the vastly increased scope for education as a result of digital technology, and more effective options and approaches towards skills, apprenticeships and jobs.
In Europe, the structure of twinning cities together, initially to build up good will after the fighting of the Second World War, has now evolved a further and pragmatic agenda which goes beyond reconciliation and good will. Through trade, culture and academic exchanges, increasingly the same twinned cities form working synergies, sometimes—for best mutual advantage —by widening the original network with additional cities.
As Scottish consul for Croatia, I have been keen to encourage this process, enabling the city of Dundee to form a working partnership with the city of Zadar in Croatia. Some of those among Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness, et cetera, are twinned with cities outside Europe, yet not least with cities or regions within the human rights affiliation of the 47 states of the Council of Europe, within which the UK remains a prominent member.
Would my noble friend the Minister agree that the accomplishment of international city working partnerships is an area where Scotland may already be leading within the UK? Does he identify certain respects, whether through funding or in other ways, in which the Government’s current city and growth deal might further support such partnerships?
Then there is the increased scope for education through digital technology. This includes both formal and informal education and its ability to be applied at any and all levels, whether local, national or international.
The Government’s pre-Covid industrial paper calls for the better teaching of maths, sciences and technical knowledge. All such programmes would be best delivered online. There is also a strong case to include the humanities within a comprehensive range of subjects. Video games systems, such as those designed in Dundee, already cover a number of subjects with excellent results, particularly when, through use of the Socratic dialogue, learners are also challenged to ask questions and drawn out to give their own opinions on what they are learning.
Where it already exists, there may be no need to replace good teaching at schools and universities. Instead, locally and nationally within the UK, the purpose of online learning delivery is to supplement teaching as required, although it may occasionally provide courses in the first place, if they are otherwise lacking.
Internationally, however, the purpose is different. Within a full range, it offers countless numbers of people abroad whichever subject or subjects they need and want to learn but have not been able so to do, owing to an insufficient availability of teaching in their own countries.
The Minister will recall that, in chairing the G7 summit in June this year, the UK launched an initiative to assist education internationally. A key issue is that online learning courses should meet standards and lead to qualifications. As a Council of Europe parliamentarian and through its committee structure, I am writing a report on that now.
The Government are already committed to supporting, for the next three years, the UK games fund, which is based in Dundee. In connection to both this and their G7 commitment, what steps are being taken to ensure that online learning delivered internationally meets standards and that its learners receive qualifications? Equally, what plans do the Government have to inspire the design of such programmes within the creative industries?
In Scotland’s towns, cities and rural areas there is an urgent need to encourage apprenticeships, leading to employment, and to provide training and motivation for young people as well as for other community groups, including refugees—in the latter case to help them settle in and find jobs.
Local authorities are fully mindful and conscientious, yet inevitably overstretched, with limited resources and many responsibilities. Significant progress can often be made, however, through public-private joint initiatives or through local charities, such as our own small family one which works in this way in Dundee.
Can the Minster advise in which respects current government city and growth deals and other projects can help with motivation, skills, training and apprenticeships for young people and other relevant groups in Scotland?
Recent findings compare well-being measures in Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales. On two of these, overall happiness and the extent to which people feel that the things they do in life are worthwhile, Scotland scores worst. Nevertheless, and equal with England and Wales, Scotland is first on overall life satisfaction and, together with England, it also has the lowest anxiety level.
Even in theory, let alone as a desirable political deployment, well-being has always been slightly elusive and suspect, such as the reference of Epicurus to happiness as the only possible good. Later on, picking up the reins with utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham may have been a bit more convincing, but there was still the challenge of demonstrating how something as private as well-being could ever be much advanced within the necessary nuts-and-bolts machinery of a working economy.
In view of this apparent inconsistency, and owing to the dry subject matter of his further writing, although he and Mill remained staunch advocates of collective human well-being—the greatest happiness of the greatest number—there came the joke rhyme pretending that Mill might have become tempted to change horses all the same:
“John Stuart Mill, by a mighty effort of will, overcame his natural bonhomie, and wrote ‘Principles of Political Economy’”.
That apart, in OECD countries in recent years, there has been a welcome and growing consensus for well-being to take a central role. One explanation for this shift of opinion is the recognition that, however subjective, its effects can still be fairly easily measured over a number of different fields, including health, education, relationships, personal activities and so on.
Another explanation is the understanding that GDP and well-being indicators do not have to conflict with one another. Instead, they can be complementary.
I know that your Lordships will support me in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for his enormous contribution and vision within the wide field of well-being and its pursuit.
The priority is to increase opportunities for learning and employment, particularly so that young people sustain confidence and motivation from matching their skills and abilities to an ever-widening and diversified range of apprenticeships and jobs.
Not least through digital technology and the creative industries, this is already the direction of a much better UK economy: one in which Scotland can come to excel, thus demonstrating to the benefit of others elsewhere its good practices; and a proven consistency between daily work, well-being and the quality of life.
Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Fraser on securing today’s debate and for having the foresight to schedule it on budget day in Holyrood.
An economic debate is usually all about the numbers, but before I get to them, I will spend a short time talking about language, because language matters. Too often I feel that those of us who support the continuation of our United Kingdom are at risk of doing the Scottish nationalists’ job for them by talking about Scotland in a way that separates us from that of which we wish to remain a part. This happens, for example, where we compare facts or figures, spending or investment, hospital waiting times or educational attainment, where Scotland is reduced to a comparator of our neighbouring nations, not a member of the wider whole. From there, it seems to me that, it is only a short hop from defining ourselves as a counterpoint to our opponents’ preferred framing, where they define the United Kingdom as some kind of imposition, something that is done to Scotland, rather than the simple truth that the establishment of the United Kingdom and its development down the centuries is something that Scots not just participated in but helped build and that we had and continue to have ownership over. It is our union too.
I also feel that, when we are discussing the nuts and bolts, particularly of the economic relationship—whether that is examining the balance of trade or pointing out that rUK is by far Scotland’s biggest and most important market—we must not forget that British companies do not divide themselves at Berwick or Carlisle. Their offices, factories, distribution chains and retail outlets are dotted all over these islands, and neither the Treasury nor the Scottish Fiscal Commission can or should seek to box them into just one geographically defined column on a balance sheet.
I am as guilty of falling into the trap of talking about Scotland comparatively as any; it is easy to do. Vigilance against it is why I am so appreciative of the manner in which my noble friend Lady Fraser defined today’s debate, with its focus on the contribution to the recovery of the whole of the UK and looking at that not as a metric and measure simply of itself but examining how that economic recovery can impact and improve well-being and quality of life.
I am unashamedly a pro-business Tory. I believe, yes, that hard work, endeavour, production and earning, and providing for one’s family are good for the individual, for health, self-esteem, freedom, increased choice and agency. However, I also believe that what work does for the individual, business does for the country. A healthy economy gives us the funds and levers to improve public policy and grants greater influence in an ever more integrated world to be able to shape improvements on a global scale. It is a virtuous circle.
That is why I despair when I see people—even those of my own party—dismissing business or disrespecting the herculean efforts that people have gone to, especially in the last two years, to look after their staff, do well by them, keep the show on the road, survive and fight back. We know that it is all interconnected. A feeble economy, suppressed earnings and high levels of unemployment increase poverty, and poverty, particularly intergenerational poverty, impacts enormously on health outcomes, educational outcomes, employment outcomes and future earnings. As businesses are being asked once again to send workers home, it is more important than ever that this Government and all the devolved Governments and Administrations work together to support firms back to health.
No Government, particularly not a Conservative one, would seek to tell companies how or whether to operate, nor welcome the sustained taxpayer subsidy of profit-making industries. Yet, in the extraordinary times we find ourselves in, this Government have mobilised to do both, to keep people safe and protect the economy. I for one am proud that my Government made the decision to invest £400 billion in British business, protect more than 14.5 million jobs and make over £100 billion in business grants and loans available to ensure that fundamentally sound companies that would not otherwise have made it survived. Within that envelope, we see 910,000 Scottish jobs protected through the furlough scheme and 100,000 Scottish businesses supported through UK Government loans.
Supporting both the labour market and the companies that sustain it has been so important. It is one of the reasons why the UK has the fastest rate of economic growth in the G7. It is why we see record job vacancies across the country as firms are able to bounce back. Yet both the UK and Scottish economies still find themselves 2.1% smaller than in the last quarter before the pandemic struck, so there is work to do. Scotland’s whisky producers, food manufacturers, financial service providers, farmers, hoteliers, truck drivers, shops, bars and restaurants will be every bit as key to this recovery as Midlands garment makers, Yorkshire farmers, Welsh agribusiness, Northern Irish tourism operators, Essex bank workers or Mancunian nightclub owners.
I would like to say a word about the recognition on the part of businesses that their responsibilities go far beyond the bottom line and further still than looking after their own workforce, to contributing to their home communities. When Covid struck, I was still an MSP, representing a city-centre constituency. I know from my own experience of businesses that dipped into their own pocket to support their staff while they waited for government help to kick into gear. I know of companies that dedicated time, product lines and personnel to help with the volunteering effort, to ensure the vulnerable and clinically vulnerable were okay. I know of firms which were not content to just clap NHS workers once a week, but supported them directly with transportation, discounting or food. I know—well—one gin distiller who immediately switched production, using his white spirit to make hand sanitiser to donate to charities and not-for-profits around the city, so they could carry on their important work at the very beginning of the pandemic when sanitiser was short. It was a superb effort—especially as the one thing the rest of us needed when Covid struck was gin.
This is why I so appreciate what this Motion attempts to convey. There is an enormous recovery under way, and Scotland, its companies, its people and its resources are playing a full part in that recovery effort. They do so not because a healthy economy is an end in itself but because it is that healthy economic recovery which will support hospitals everywhere, including in Scotland, to start tackling the treatment backlog, and because it is a strong economy which will underpin educational investment, training the next generation of research scientists so that any new vaccines are as likely to come from Edinburgh or Glasgow as they are from Oxford.
It is only through a healthy economy that we can support the thing that matters most of all: giving people the belief and opportunity to ensure that their children have a better quality of life than they did.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow that excellent speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Davidson, whom I know so well and have great personal respect for. Like her, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, on choosing this subject and introducing it so appropriately today. I shall concentrate on two related issues: first, the threat to the union, which I believe is growing; and, secondly, the improper expenditure by the Scottish Government.
As my noble friend Lord McAvoy will confirm, I have been an enthusiast for devolution since way back in the 1960s and campaigned for it when it was not all that popular. Devolution and independence, as I think even the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will admit, are two totally different concepts; sometimes the SNP does not really understand that. With devolution, it is implicit that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland remain part of the United Kingdom.
As an MP, I campaigned for devolution, because I saw as a Member of Parliament—the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will remember this very well—that Scottish legislation was an afterthought, dealt with inappropriately or late at night in the Westminster Parliament. Scottish education, the Scottish health service and Scots law were different—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, knows this better than anyone. For over a century, we had administrative devolution but not democratic accountability; we needed to set up a Scottish Parliament for those particularly Scottish Bills.
I campaigned through the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly, and then I campaigned for the Scottish Parliament with the Labour campaign. My old friend Jim Boyack, who is sadly no longer with us, was one of the great campaigners for that; his daughter, Sarah Boyack, is now doing a wonderful job in the Scottish Parliament, I am glad to say. Eventually, after an abortive referendum in 1979, in which we did not get over that artificial barrier of needing support from 40% of the electorate, we had a successful referendum in 1997 and created a Scottish Parliament. I am very proud of that.
Devolution in Scotland worked—and worked well—between 1999 and 2007, when we had a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, working well with Westminster. We saw some huge advances in Scotland. There was free personal care for the elderly—we are just getting round to that in England now. The smoking ban was in Scotland first. Free travel for elderly people was introduced in Scotland; again, ahead of England. The SNP is now trying to take credit for some of those things, but it was a Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration who introduced it.
Negotiations took place between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. I remember it well because for a year I was Minister of State for Scotland and I used to take part in them. They were friendly. Sometimes they were quite—not difficult—serious and strong negotiations. I remember on free personal care it was about who should pay for it. I had discussions with Malcolm Chisholm, who was the Minister then, and we eventually came to an agreed conclusion, but they were serious negotiations.
However, there was a change in 2007. The change came with Alex Salmond and the result of that election. I think it is still uncertain whether the SNP won that election, but that is another story. The SNP started to build up the campaign for independence, using the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government as a campaigning vehicle for independence. That is what it is doing. They are a campaigning tool for independence, rather than for the delivery of the services devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
As a result, we have seen a decline in those services. We have heard from previous speakers about education in Scotland. Sadly, on some international criteria, education in Scotland has deteriorated rather than improved in the last few years. We have had the ferry fiasco, with rusting ferries at Ferguson on the Clyde, while ferries operating to the islands are breaking down and the islanders are left isolated. We have had the deaths at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, which somehow Nicola Sturgeon and her Health Minister, Humza Yousaf, seem to shrug off as someone else’s responsibility, but they are the people responsible.
What should the United Kingdom Government do in relation to these matters? I have two suggestions. First, they should rein in spending by the Scottish Government on areas that are not devolved. The constitution is a reserved area and I would argue that using the time of civil servants, publishing documents and arguing the case for independence using public money is not right. It is irresponsible and should be clamped down on by the United Kingdom Government. They have 26 Ministers in Scotland—that is more than the Government of Norway, an independent country—and some of them work on reserved areas.
Let us take foreign affairs. It is a reserved area. No one here would deny that. To quote the website of the Scottish Government, they say:
“We also have a network of eight offices worldwide who work to promote Scottish interests overseas and strengthen our relationships with countries and continents.”
In fact, that what they are promoting overseas is Scottish independence. They are arguing the case for Scottish independence in other countries. Where are these overseas offices? They are in Beijing, Berlin, Brussels, Dublin, London—“overseas” seems a strange definition of London; they might like one, but there is no sea between Scotland and England, thankfully—Ottawa, Paris and Washington DC. In my view, that is improper expenditure.
When I was a Minister at DfID, we agreed on some expenditure by the Scottish Government in Malawi. Just as local councils can complement and add to DfID expenditure, so should the Scottish Government, but not a whole development programme, which is what they propose.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, that I have raised this with Ministers on a number of occasions. I think they are afraid to do anything. They are fearful of the Scottish Government. We know that the Scottish Government have a grip over the media in Scotland but we should not be afraid to argue what is right—and keep on arguing. I think the time is right. It is long overdue, as I see from social media. When I post these things, I get people coming and agreeing with me very strongly.
I can tell noble Lords also that when I go to Tynecastle to support Heart of Midlothian—and most recently when I was at Livingston and surrounded by Hearts supporters—they say to me, “Keep rattling that woman’s cage.” Noble Lords know the woman they are talking about.
The second thing I want to come to is the need for a UK constitutional review. I admit an error as far as the Labour Government are concerned: not following up on devolution—we gave it to Scotland, it followed in Wales and it was already there in Northern Ireland—but there is an English democratic deficit and we should have followed up. We did try with the abortive referendum in the north-east of England, but we were not offering real power and it was carried out at a very inauspicious time.
We now end up with a hotchpotch of mayors and other so-called devolution, but it is not real devolution and the counties of England are forgotten. What we need is a convention, somewhat like the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which moved quickly to legislate. The Labour Government were able to legislate quickly because we had the blueprint from the Scottish Constitutional Convention. We need a UK constitutional convention, or it could be a royal commission or a Speaker’s conference or something like that, but we need something on a UK basis.
I have been arguing this—I have written to Minister after Minister about it but they seem to shrug their shoulders—but it is the responsibility of the UK Government to do it. The Labour Party has set up a commission, which Gordon Brown chairs. I welcome that and I have accepted that, but it is more of an academic exercise. The reality is that what could be done can be done only by the Government. I see my noble friend Lady Wilcox is here. I think it is a mistake that the Labour Government in Wales have set up a separate commission to look at devolution—all the options for the development of devolution in Wales, including independence. They have a Plaid Cymru person as one of the joint convenors. I think that is a mistake. With the campaign for indyref2 in Scotland, with this new Welsh commission and, unfortunately, with the consequences of Brexit in Northern Ireland, I see the break-up of the United Kingdom getting nearer and nearer.
My time is running out, although apart from the Front Bench I am the only Labour speaker, so if noble Lords would excuse me a little, I think the union is in grave danger of disintegrating and it would be an absolute disaster. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, trying to answer some questions earlier—not very well—Brexit shows how breaking up a union of 40 years has caused problem after problem. How many more problems would be caused by breaking up a successful union of 300 years? The UK Government need to take some action now.
I know the Minister. I am very pleased to see that it is the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, here, although I extend my sympathies to the Minister who was not able to be here because of Covid. I was very friendly with the noble Viscount’s father. He and I worked very closely together in Ayrshire on an all-party basis and he was a great man, a man I had great respect for. With due respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, I know that he cannot give me answers to these questions today but I ask him just one thing. Will he take the pleas that I have made today to the Prime Minister, to Michael Gove, to the Secretary of State for Scotland—to people who can make decisions so that we can get some answers that will preserved this United Kingdom?
Lord Goodlad (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Fraser on securing this debate and on her admirable analysis of Scotland’s contribution to economic recovery and its effect on the well-being and quality of life across the United Kingdom. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who spoke as always with knowledge and authority.
I speak as someone of Shetland parentage, like my noble friend Lord Lamont, and much of what I have to say relates to Shetland. I wish first to deal with the Cambo oilfield, north-west of the Shetlands, which Shell recently announced it is pulling out of. The project is currently awaiting the green light from the Government’s Oil and Gas Authority, which I hope will be forthcoming. I hope that the authority will bear in mind the words of the Shell spokesman when announcing the Cambo decision:
“continued investment in oil and gas in the UK remains critical to the country’s energy security. We believe the North Sea and Shell in it has a critical role to play in the UK’s energy mix, supporting the jobs and skills to enable a smooth transition to Britain’s low carbon future.”
While we move towards net zero, it is worth remembering that 75% of the UK’s total energy needs are met by oil and gas. As my noble friend Lord Callanan reminded your Lordships last Thursday, oil and gas are still essential for our energy needs, are vital to the production of many everyday essentials such as medicines, plastics, cosmetics and household appliances, and they will remain so in declining amounts, even in a net-zero world. As he rightly pointed out, the choice we face is whether we wish to use oil produced domestically or to import it.
Opponents of the development of the Cambo field might reflect on the desirability of replacing publicly listed companies—accountable to shareholders and regulators and beholden to disclosure requirements—with private equity capital, which does not have such obligations. Cambo is majority-owned by Siccar Point Energy, which is backed by private equity. There are many eager private investors in fossil fuels. According to the Private Equity Stakeholder project, over $1 trillion has been invested in the energy sector since 2010, and only 12% of that in renewable energy projects. Opponents of Cambo should perhaps beware of what they wish for.
Siccar Point has said that the Cambo project would create over 1,000 direct jobs and thousands more in the supply chain. This is obviously of relevance to Shetland, which has a population of just over 23,000. The west of Shetland province has been identified as an important location for future offshore oil production. In 2019, McKinsey consultants projected that by 2025 the west of Shetland province would contribute around 30% of UK continental shelf production, up from 2% in 2014. The report said that these estimates could rise further if break-even levels fall as the price of oil rises—it is currently predicted by JP Morgan to rise to $150 a barrel—bringing into production a potential 3 billion barrels of oil: equivalent to the province’s previously unsanctioned reserves. The Oil and Gas Authority suggests that around a quarter of all upstream production and operations jobs in the UK continental shelf—about 67,000 jobs—may be centred on the west of Shetland by 2025. The country as well as the industry has a clear incentive to support production to the west of Shetland.
Other industries important to Shetland are aquaculture and fishing, which account for nearly 40% of Shetland’s exports. One-fifth of all fin-fish landed in Scotland and about one-sixth of that landed in the UK are landed in Shetland. More fish and shellfish are landed in Shetland than in any other port in the UK except Peterhead. The weight of fin-fish landed in Shetland in 2020, at 51,000 tonnes, was almost as much as the total landed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—52,700 tonnes—and was greater than that landed in all of England and Wales: 40,800 tonnes. Perhaps my noble friend when he comes to reply might indicate what the implications of the post-Brexit negotiations are for Shetland’s fishing industry.
Other important developments include the Shetland Space Centre on Unst. Following the Government’s approval for Lockheed Martin to transfer its satellite launch operations, the space centre estimates that by 2024 the spaceport could support a total of 600 jobs in Scotland, including 140 on Unst and 210 across Shetland. Although there has never been a whisky distillery in Shetland, there is now a gin distillery on Unst, which in addition to juniper relies on local seaweed for a flavour which I hope your Lordships would find most palatable.
Tourism is of increasing importance to Shetland. In years gone by, only birdwatchers and archaeologists made the journey. Now visitors include ecotourists, gastronomes and fishermen—the trout fishing is exceptional, the local rule being that if the fish are unco-operative, you change not your fly but your loch. I believe my late father’s record of a 20-pound sea trout caught in Tingwall Loch still stands. I hope the pandemic will subside soon enough for the cruise ships to return, bringing as they do welcome tourists to Jarlshof, Eshaness and some of the most beautiful countryside in the world.
On 9 September 2020, the Shetland Islands Council voted in favour of a Motion that
“The Shetland Islands Council formally begins exploring options for achieving financial and political self-determination.”
It is easy to understand why it did so. Let us hope that the council’s Motion has been noted in Edinburgh, which I very much doubt. However, I am confident that it will have been noted in London. Whatever future governance arrangements eventuate, Shetland will continue to contribute, as it always has in peace and war, to economic recovery and the well-being and quality of life of what I hope will remain the United Kingdom.
Lord Dunlop (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Goodlad. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Fraser on securing this debate and introducing it so well. May I also say how sorry I am that my noble friend Lord Offord is not able to take his place on the Front Bench today? I suppose that as we are discussing recovery and renewal, I join others in wishing him a speedy recovery and an early renewal of his bid to make his maiden speech.
The Motion refers to well-being. Our national well-being has been threatened as never before by the pandemic. Every aspect of life has been affected, not simply the direct impact of the virus but the indirect effects: the impact on mental health, the diagnostic tests postponed, the operations cancelled, the huge waiting list backlogs, creaking social care, strains placed on our public finances, and the cost to businesses whose trade has been disrupted for prolonged periods and now face further uncertainty. It is therefore hardly surprising that the experience of the last two years has caused everyone to re-evaluate priorities and to think hard about how individually and collectively we bounce back.
The pandemic has taught us two important lessons. First, it has reminded us of the value of being able to act collectively across the UK. Where would we be today without furlough and the vaccine rollout? Secondly, the delivery of public services is more effective when local know-how is properly engaged—when decisions are taken closer to the people affected by them. How much better might test and trace have been if less centralised at the outset? I suggest that these lessons now need to be applied to economic recovery and renewal and to the task of improving quality of life in Scotland and the UK as a whole.
Scotland, as the Motion makes clear, has an important economic contribution to make. Scotland is rightly famous for its whisky, shortbread and, as we have heard, gin. Food and drink are certainly jewels in Scotland’s exporting crown, yet this stereotype is long out of date. Scotland is now making a name for itself in industries of the future too. For example, it is a little-discussed fact that Glasgow manufactures more satellites than anywhere else in Europe. The engineering skills honed in the North Sea are now being applied in developing the next generation of renewable energy, which will help us tackle climate change. I might add in passing, to echo my noble friend Lord Goodlad, that one good reason to take care not to scare off investment in sustaining jobs, skills and businesses in north-east Scotland is that it would put at risk a managed and orderly transition away from fossil fuels.
Scotland has some outstanding performers, yet the substantial potential remains unfulfilled. Take exports: Scotland has around 350,000 businesses; only 11,000 of them export and, of those, just 100 account for over 60% of all Scotland’s international exports. If Scotland could increase its international export share of GDP to the same level of the UK as a whole, it would be worth £16 billion annually to the economy. That would provide a lot of financial firepower to help tackle, for example, the blight of child poverty in Scotland.
Fulfilling potential is a challenge that Scotland shares with the UK as a whole. One of the UK’s most intractable problems of the past 30 years has been regional economic inequality. Scotland and the UK have some of Europe’s most dynamic and productive cities and regions, yet the UK remains one of the most economically unbalanced countries in the industrialised world. Disposable incomes in the north-east of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are more than 40% lower than in London, and disparities between, for example, North Ayrshire and Edinburgh, are similarly large. Half the UK’s population, including those in the poorest parts of Scotland, live in regions with productivity no better than the poorer areas of the former East Germany. This has held back the UK’s economic performance and undermined the cohesion of the union.
International evidence suggests that economies grow faster and more strongly when they grow more evenly, and they do that where governance is less centralised. Why should that be? Because communities have greater control over resources, policies are better tailored to local needs, public investment is more effective, and beneficial yardstick competition develops. Why, for example, is Manchester doing better than Newcastle? What can we learn from Birmingham and Glasgow? Today, the UK remains one of the most centralised states, despite significant devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Within Scotland, devolved power is hoarded in Edinburgh, with local authorities increasingly emasculated. We cannot hope successfully to meet the challenges ahead without empowering local communities, north and south of the border, to play their part. There is mutual interest in this agenda—one that is unifying after all the division of recent years. London and the south-east are obviously the main drivers of the UK’s economic success—the places where returns from public investment are highest, thereby generating resources to fund better public services and support less prosperous areas. However, reducing reliance on London and the south-east can only be healthy for Scotland and all parts of the UK. As we have heard, nearly two-thirds of Scotland’s exports are sold in markets in the rest of the UK. Building stronger English regional economies will create greater opportunities for Scottish businesses, and vice-versa. I understand that the levelling-up White Paper has been delayed until the new year, so we must wait to see if the Government are serious about pursuing this agenda, but I have to say that the indications seem to be encouraging.
A less centralised UK will alter fundamentally the nature of government in this country. When significant powers were devolved to Scotland, the mistake was not to think harder about the continuing need for joint working where devolved and reserved powers intersect. Michael Gove, the first formally titled Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, is working hard to rectify that omission, and he needs to.
Covid has highlighted just how much the UK and devolved Governments depend on each other to be successful. Whatever the deep divisions are over our constitutional future, the vast majority of people in Scotland are united in wanting to see the UK and Scottish Governments working together on their behalf.
In conclusion, building what I have described as a union of co-operation will require a culture change from a Whitehall used to issuing directives and jealously guarding the purse strings. There needs to be a change of attitude in Edinburgh too. New partnerships will need to develop, in which the centre and more peripheral areas of the UK learn to work together in new ways. Whitehall will need to continue to improve its capability to negotiate with and mediate between the demands of different tiers of government. Other countries seem to manage this successfully, and there is no reason why we should not do so too.
My message to the Government and my noble friend on the Front Bench is this: do not give up when the Scottish Government refuse to work with you on valuable UK initiatives such as the connectivity review and free ports. Scotland’s network of city and growth deals shows that co-operation is possible. Press to deepen that co-operation in areas such as new green technology, space and export promotion, where Scotland has so much to contribute. Do so confident that this approach is in tune not only with the Scottish business community but the Scottish people as well, and so clearly in the best interests of Scotland and the UK as a whole.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow those wise and judicious speeches by my noble friends Lord Goodlad and Lord Dunlop. It is also a great pleasure to be able to congratulate my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie on securing this Motion and on phrasing it as she did—looking not only at the balance sheet and the economic contribution that Scotland makes to these islands but to the well-being of its people. We often miss that in these debates.
Patriotism is not reckoned in tally sticks. As my noble friend Lady Davidson of Lundin Links points out, it is a terrible mistake to look only at block grants and bottom lines and try to assess nationality in numbers. We should take a moment in this Chamber to celebrate all the contributions that Scotland makes to the well-being of the human race. I cannot think of any similarly sized territory that has contributed more to the happiness of mankind proportionate to its population. Let us think of all the things that Scotland has given us—steam engines, television, telephones, daily disposable contact lenses, golf, toasters, cash machines and, not least, the United Kingdom. We can very easily forget that Great Britain, and after it the United Kingdom, were largely Scottish creations.
One oddity of the age in which we live is that people are determined to see everything through an imagined prism of hierarchy and oppression, so everything is squashed into a pyramid of greater or lesser victimhood. This has given rise to the slightly “Braveheart” view that, in some way, the smaller of the two nations must have been annexed or colonised in some way. That would have been quite a shock to people in England at the time, first, with the Union of the Crowns and then the Acts of Union. If one looks at the response south of the border when James VI was making his procession, there was a general fear that swarms of landless lairds were going to descend on England and snap up all the sinecures and titles. It was the English Parliament that denied His Majesty the title of King of Great Britain that he so craved and that continued to deny the claims of his son.
I occasionally go and look at the ceiling in Banqueting House on Whitehall. Since I was last there, they have put beanbags in, so you no longer have to crane your neck in quite the same way. There is a wonderful iconographic celebration of the union there. England and Scotland are shown as great, fleshy, Rubenesque ladies, coming together and bestowing the crown on the baby Charles I, as Prince of Wales, while the weapons of war are consigned to a furnace. In a funny kind of way, the Stuarts created a sense of shared Britishness, although not in the way that they intended. The shared nationality came out of a common opposition to that dynasty.
It is striking that, when you look at what was happening during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, you see that people were not arraying themselves as English or Scottish; they were making alliances across the border, as royalists or puritans, with Presbyterians and whoever else. In the end, I suppose, it was almost intrinsic in the design of that Rubens ceiling, for which Charles I paid the almost astronomical price—at least, in those days—of £3,000. It looked a bit foreign, and the Stuarts felt a bit foreign. In a shared opposition to this rather transalpine school of art that was thought to influence the dynasty’s thinking, a common Britishness was forged, resting on shared language, manners and beliefs.
Of course, when the Acts of Union went through, people were change-resistant; Parliaments were change-resistant. A certain amount of cajolery was needed on both sides of the border to get the legislation through. For some reason, that cajolery was remembered and resented in Scotland but has been almost completely forgotten in England. Had there been a referendum, I am pretty that it would have gone against England. Luckily, the Acts of Union went through and, as Adam Smith pointed out, having lived through it, the removal of that border opened the door to a united Great Britain, rising above the run of nations. It no longer needed to fret about internal borders and turmoil; it could concentrate on the rest of the world.
In doing so, it lifted the well-being not just of people in this archipelago but of peoples elsewhere, as a family—as peoples with a community of interest and shared affinities that go well beyond simple geographic proximity. It is relationship that I sometimes think was incarnated in that between Boswell and Johnson; teasing and occasionally joshing, their relationship was fundamentally deeply affectionate. Neither of those men would have reached the heights of fame that they have now attained without the participation of the other.
It is a relationship sometimes summarised by what is possibly an apocryphal story but such a good one: that of the highlander at Dunkirk who, observing the total rout on the beaches, told his sergeant, “You know, if the English give in too, this could be a long war”. In that spirit, we see something of our shared national outlook, resting as it does on character and what James VI and I called “similitude of manners”. It was that bridling at injustice and slowness to anger but resolution when roused, if you like, that led the peoples of these islands together on the great endeavours of ending slavery, spreading law and justice around the world, and saving Europe, first from Bonapartist tyranny and then from fascism, and then playing a brave role in saving it from Stalinist tyranny. These were the achievements of a common people, resting not just on proximity but on real affinities of outlook. We have only just got started.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, for initiating this debate on the contribution that Scotland makes to the United Kingdom.
There have been many references to the financial side of this subject, including the contributions that Scotland has made financially and the financial advantages that Scotland has gained from the union with England, including the Barnett formula. Instead of focusing on these matters, I wish to dwell on the great contributions that Scotland has made in education, science, medicine, infrastructure and many other spheres of life, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, mentioned.
On the cultural side, one remembers Robert Burns and his inspiring and amusing poetry, such as “Tam o’Shanter” and its warning on the dangers of alcohol, and the outstanding novels of Sir Walter Scott and the Governor-General of Canada, John Buchan, and many others. On casting an envious eye on the past, I wish to look to the future developments in Scotland that will benefit the whole of the United Kingdom.
When one looks back, it is with some sadness that we see the deterioration in Scotland of the health service and education, and the political shenanigans of the past 10 years. I was brought up in Glasgow, and had the privilege of a classical education at a grammar school in the Gorbals—a school that produced outstanding people such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Gilmorehill, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, and John Buchan.
Then we remember the grandson of a Scottish crofter, Harold Macmillan, who was Prime Minister at a time when the House of Commons was a civilised place of courtesy and good humour. When the United Nations Assembly delegates were horrified by the President of Russia taking off his shoe and using it to thump the podium, Prime Minister Macmillan quietly asked, “Can anyone give us translation of that, please?” We must not forget Keir Hardie, that splendid statesman who never engaged in the trivial pursuits that have recently become habit in the House of Commons.
Does the Minister agree that we must learn from history, be inspired by our history and seek to encourage the striving for a better and more optimistic future?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, on initiating this debate. I reflect that we do not debate Scotland—or indeed the other devolved Administrations—enough in this Chamber. I hope that we will do so more in future. We have heard a variety of speeches and contributions. I take from the noble Baroness that there is an attempt to be positive and constructive, although I think that it is sometimes difficult not to depart into some areas of criticism and concern at the state in which we find ourselves.
My view is that, given the right policies and a following wind, Scotland is well placed to make a positive contribution to the UK’s recovery post Covid. Scotland accounts for a significant and rapidly changing energy sector, and I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, to which I will come back. We are leaders in food and drink. We have world-class bioscience and healthcare capacity, although I agree that, sadly, there has been a diminution in the support for health in recent years. Scotland is the UK’s second most important centre for financial services, and is a world-class destination for tourism and culture. Until a few years ago, I would also have recorded that Scotland had an outstandingly good education system. Sadly, that is no longer the case, thanks to a flawed secondary school curriculum and a wholly dysfunctional exam system.
What is incontrovertible is that Scotland’s economy and well-being are closely integrated into the rest of the UK. Those who try to change that will likely find it difficult and destructive. As the Library briefing points out, 62% of Scotland’s exports go the rest of the UK and 38% elsewhere. Scotland has a trade deficit with the rest of the UK—something you do not hear north of the border. It is further worth noting that our two most important exports are financial services and utilities. In the case of utilities, our success in exporting electricity is largely due to feed-in tariffs paid for by customers in the rest of the UK.
As for financial services, Scotland’s long history of canny financial management is a valuable reputation which, however, probably would not survive if Scotland adopted a currency other than sterling. For 50 years, Scotland has been at the sharp end of the development of the UK’s offshore oil and gas resources. Parking for a moment the claim that it is or was Scotland’s oil, the industry has been a huge driver of the Scottish and UK economies for two generations. It created hundreds of thousands of jobs, the majority in England, underpinned world-leading technologies and delivered substantial balance of payments benefits, both in reduced imports of oil and gas and in exports of products and services. The UK is a major supplier of subsea systems and technology.
Even without the urgent pressure to tackle climate change, the UK continental shelf is a mature province and production is in decline. The question is how we manage it. Since the establishment of the nationalist/Green coalition in Scotland, the Government have joined forces with campaigners to promote the accelerated shutdown of Scotland’s offshore industry. Having built the case for independence during the referendum on that very oil and gas industry, the SNP is asking us to believe that we could do it just as easily without it. Knowing that the decision rested with the UK, Nicola Sturgeon called for the cancellation of the Cambo field, and it appears that that may have contributed to Shell’s decision to pull out of the project. Regardless of the merits of Cambo, the accelerated shutdown of the North Sea, pressed for by Green Ministers, will make achieving net zero harder, take longer and be more costly.
These are the facts. The oil and gas industry currently supports around 200,000 jobs across the UK, 71,000 of them Scotland, and 90% of those jobs are transferable into renewables and net-zero technology. That is demonstrated in a very good report produced by Robert Gordon University, demonstrating how we can use oil and gas technology, expertise and capital to achieve the transition. It shows that a managed transition can reverse the decline in employment. We need that capital and expertise to achieve this and to do it without further damaging the economy by importing oil and gas that we could produce and losing billions of pounds of export opportunities for our technical expertise. If we do it right, we will accelerate to net zero and go from a low of 160,000 jobs and falling to 200,000 jobs and rising across the UK.
The Greens, incidentally, also want to close down salmon farming, which is obviously very important in Shetland and the Highlands, and are pretty hostile, generally, to our livestock industry and related food processing. The Scottish Government have chosen to intervene in the Scottish economy in failing sectors, with a spectacular lack of success. They have acquired an airport with no flights, a fabrication yard with no orders, a shipyard unable to complete its construction and ferries that do not operate. They have underwritten an aluminium smelter, to the tune of an eyewatering £586 million, which has so far secured only 50 jobs; that is more than £11 million per job. Another £1.35 billion was spent on a new Forth Bridge, which not only appears to have been unnecessary but has had to be closed because of icing, with traffic diverted to the original bridge. Rail investment has been concentrated in the central belt and those of us in the north-east of Scotland still face a single track between Aberdeen and the south. I can only wait with trepidation for Ministers with the track record of success I have just summarised to take over responsibility for running our rail services.
I have to say that the UK Government are also not entirely blameless in inhibiting Scotland’s potential to contribute to recovery. Prime Minister Boris Johnson won a referendum on the slogan “Take back control” and a general election on the mantra “Get Brexit done”. Neither of these things has been achieved. Trade deals are looking weaker than those we had in the EU and involve more concessions to secure them. In turn, this threatens Scotland’s livestock industry, which has responded to the deals with New Zealand and Australia with outrage: it was not consulted, of course. The UK economy is weaker because of a botched Brexit—I am not going back over the ground, but Brexit has not been delivered effectively—and decisions of incompetence, and the Scottish economy is weaker because of the obsession with independence and poor policy decisions. If these are addressed, Scotland and the UK can flourish together.
I welcome the very thoughtful report of the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, which was a long time being published. The whole point of his very thoughtful contribution was that we can achieve far more by co-operation. Indeed, the Common Frameworks Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I are members, had the Constitution Secretary of the Scottish Government in front of us this week. He used every opportunity to promote the case for independence, but he was not prepared to acknowledge that we live in a devolved settlement and that the Government have a responsibility to operate within that and not to use the Scottish Parliament just as a lever to break up the United Kingdom. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said to him, the problem is that making devolution work would undermine the case for independence, which is why they do not want to do it. As a passionate home ruler who worked to deliver a Scottish Parliament, for which I have no regrets, and worked with the Labour Party to do that, and to ensure that it was representative and had adequate powers, I never believed or intended that the Scottish Parliament should be used simply as a lever to crack open the United Kingdom. That is not what it is fit for.
This is a plea to the people of Scotland, who I think are split down the middle, and to those who may not be sure which camp they are in, to wake up and smell the coffee about what they are being led into, because it is not something that will achieve what this Motion wishes to achieve. I genuinely believe that Scotland and the UK are interdependent in every way, not just economically but socially. We are married to each other—literally, in many cases. We are family and it is absurd to treat, as Scottish nationalists do, England as the enemy and the UK Government as a hostile agent while looking across to countries of which Scottish people know less, and whose language they do not speak very well, compared with the islands we all share. I am somebody who was born in England with an incontrovertibly Scottish name and three Scottish grandparents and who has spent my entire adult life in Scotland, through choice. I am proud to be Scottish and British: why on earth should I have to choose?
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, it is nice to be back on the Front Bench. I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, not just on securing this debate but on the way in which she opened it and, I presume and hope, will close it as well. I thank other noble Lords for their thoughts and contributions across your Lordships’ House.
My speech, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will be a bit more political and I fear will drift into some of the comparisons and statistics that the noble Baroness, Lady Davidson, understandably warned against. I say “understandably” because I share many of her fears that if we are not careful, we will do the independents’ job for them—but I do think there is a way of balancing the criticism of many of those failures with a vision for the future of the United Kingdom.
Reciprocity has always been at the heart of my beliefs: not what you do to or for people but what you do with people. The fundamentals of that principle sit at the heart of how I believe Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England should fit together for all of our mutual benefit. It should never be just about what Westminster does to or for the devolved nations or regions, but what it does with them.
When the Scottish Government present their 2022-23 Budget, the focus must be on Scotland’s recovery from the Covid pandemic. A national recovery presents an unrivalled challenge and one that requires urgent, direct and bold action in order to address it. But to properly tackle Scotland’s pandemic recovery, this Budget must also confront many of the harms caused over the past 14 years, with underinvestment and underfunding by the SNP Government. The examples of the Scottish Government’s negligence are endless and it is worth spending a bit of time examining them before we look at some of the solutions.
Some 350,000 people in Scotland still earn poverty wages, more than one in four children in Scotland still live in poverty, and foodbank use in Scotland is up 75% since 2015, long before the pandemic even started. Despite this, the Scottish Government have twice delayed taking over control of the benefits system. They have rejected taking responsibility and only sit on the sidelines and complain.
For me, the worst example of the Scottish Government’s negligence is Scotland’s appalling drug death numbers. Scotland’s drug death numbers are three and a half times more than those of the other parts of the United Kingdom, with 1,339 people dying from drugs in Scotland in 2020. Drug death numbers are more than three and a half times higher than they were a decade ago, with this alarming upward trend accelerating since 2013. This high number of drug deaths does not occur in Portugal, the Netherlands, Norway or many other European countries. The Scottish Government have had more than enough time to deal with this issue but have repeatedly failed, and the numbers continue to rise. Those 1,339 drug deaths are not just statistics: they are someone’s son or daughter, sister or brother, mother or father. Those 1,339 people have been failed and paid with their lives. The solutions are not simple and they are not free, but they exist and could be delivered, if the will was there.
The SNP has also broken its own treatment time guarantee a staggering 380,000 times. The 62-day waiting time standard for urgent cancer referrals has not been met since 2012. Life expectancy has stalled in Scotland, and there is a 10-year gap between the richest and poorest areas. One in four young people are being rejected by CAMHS, almost three years after an external review called for rejections to end.
If Scotland’s recovery is to be long term—and let us be clear; everyone in your Lordships’ House wants it to be—it needs to be a green recovery. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, said in her opening remarks, Scotland is well placed to deliver this green recovery. But, as we have heard, the Scottish Government’s record on the environment and climate change fills me with little hope that they will deliver on it. In 2016, the Scottish Government promised to have their first low-emissions zone in place by 2018, but their failure means that the earliest we will see this low-emissions zone is 2022—next year, four years after it was promised. The promise to create a publicly owned energy company has not gone beyond the business case stage, and the current rate at which the Scottish Government are buying low-emission buses means that it will take 65 years for all the buses to be replaced.
To pick up a theme that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes touched on, when you look at the state of the public services, it makes you think sometimes that the current Scottish Government are comfortable with their failure. It gives them a grievance with which to rail against the current devolution settlement; if the situation in Scotland was better across education, health and the economy, their arguments for fuller independence would be weaker. With that in mind, why does the SNP continuously focus all its efforts on a second independence referendum? I believe it is because it does not want to talk about its record or the issues that affect the people of Scotland. Rather, it focuses on division and a divisive second referendum.
On these Benches—and we have heard from other Benches as well—there are plans and a vision for Scotland; there are ways that we can build and deliver a better future for Scotland. In understanding Scotland’s recovery, it must deal not only with the immediate impact of Covid and protect jobs, incomes, and our health service; it must also mark the start of a long- term recovery and make Scotland a fairer place to live. Although the Chancellor previously announced £170 million as part of a levelling-up fund to help Scottish communities, analysis by Citizens Advice Scotland revealed that more than 1.4 million people ran out of money before pay day during the pandemic. Can the Minister please outline exactly how the Government’s levelling-up fund will help Scottish communities?
We understand what is needed to get Scotland’s economy back on its feet. Introducing a skills for recovery fund would guarantee everyone who has struggled to find work a job for at least six months. We would introduce 50% relief on business rates in 2022 for retail, hospitality and leisure properties. We would introduce a high street voucher, where every adult would be provided with a £50 prepaid card to spend in non-grocery businesses in physical premises in Scotland to support local businesses. When it comes to health, Labour would plug the gap in social care and introduce a mental health recovery fund, as well as commit £100 million to tackle the workforce shortage in the NHS. Scottish Labour would also spend £500 million to tackle the backlog that the NHS in Scotland faces. No recovery will be long-lasting without education investment being at the heart of it. We would commit £30 million to install active ventilation in schools, along with £110 million towards targeted tuition—practical, physical and educational investments that are critically needed.
Scotland needs a recovery as bold and direct as the one we propose but, sadly, I fear that the Scottish Government will not take on board this offer. With the positive contributions in this debate from across your Lordships’ House, I believe we have shown what can be achieved. We cannot just devolve and forget.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the origins of this debate are rather unusual. First, it was supposed to include the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Offord, who only yesterday had to withdraw due to illness. He informed me yesterday that he was exceptionally apologetic not to be here. We all wish him a speedy recovery and much look forward to hearing him for the first time soon, in the new year, as he steps fully into his new ministerial role in the Scotland Office. If your Lordships will excuse the Scottish reeling pun, you have second fiddle today. I will attempt to cover my noble friend’s points and some of my own, and of course do my best to answer questions where I can.
The debate was initiated by my noble friend Lady Fraser, and I welcome her to the first debate she has opened. Today is also unusual in that it seems to me to have been a very long time indeed since we had a proper debate on Scotland. My thanks are certainly due to my noble friend in that respect as well.
My first observation is that this debate has demonstrated forcefully and eloquently the strength of feeling in this House for this great union of ours—of our four nations, including Scotland, being inexorably linked—which has stood the test of time. I loved the historical perspective outlined by my noble friend Lord Hannan.
On the same subject of devolution, which was raised by my noble friends Lady Fraser and Lord Dundee, let me be clear that we believe that the people of Scotland are best served, supported and protected by the UK Government and the Scottish Government working together. This was a theme from my noble friend Lady Davidson, who made some strong remarks in this respect, and from my noble friend Lord Dunlop. The UK Government and Scotland Office respect the devolution settlement and we seek at all times to work together. My noble friend Lord Dunlop’s report was an important and helpful piece of work, informing our intergovernmental review. We firmly believe that there is a shared ambition to improve intergovernmental arrangements. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, it is so important to work hard to preserve this particular union. It was interesting to have his reflections on negotiations pre Mr Salmond.
These structures and processes are the best route for proactive, effective and formalised engagement, with accountability grounded in shared secretariat arrangements, transparency and dispute resolution arrangements. The UK Government are operating on the basis of new working arrangements with the devolved Administrations, as my noble friend Lord Dunlop outlined. The UK Government’s quarterly transparency reports show the range of ministerial and official-level meetings. I can report that there is extensive engagement between UK and devolved Ministers and officials every day, so this is very important ongoing work.
I will take a step back and reflect on Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. Again, my noble friend Lord Hannan perhaps stole some of my lines. We Scots are well aware that we comprise only 8% of the population but 33% of the geography, and our DNA dictates that we must always contribute more than 8% and aim for 33% in every endeavour. I believe that we are happiest and most productive working together as four nations. This strength has allowed proud Scots in the past to demonstrably punch above their weight, from Alexander Bell to Alexander Fleming, the manufacture of some of the world’s greatest ships on the Clyde, and from Robert Burns to the great John Rae, a particular unsung hero of mine—an Orcadian and one of our great Scotsmen, who discovered half of northern Canada in the mid-19th century. I could go on.
I will start on a positive note by looking at the rude health of the Scottish economy. Our economy is performing well—remarkably well, given the awful impact of the Covid pandemic over the past two years, which has rightly been raised in this debate. The UK economy is the fastest-growing in the G7 this year and Scotland is playing its full part. Total exports have risen by over 4% this year, estimated at just over £87 billion.
However, it is no time for complacency and if the pandemic teaches us one thing it is the necessity for constant vigilance. My noble friend Lord Dunlop and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, raised this important point. New variants such as omicron are a constant threat, though one we can face with more confidence than we could muster just over a year ago thanks to the wonder of science in the UK, which delivered vaccines on a timescale previously unthinkable. Now we urgently need to get booster jabs into as many people’s arms as possible. My noble friend Lady Davidson is right to praise the work, ingenuity and resourcefulness of the people of Scotland in helping their communities in this respect.
I turn now to energy, which formed part of my noble friend Lady Fraser’s remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. My noble friend Lady Fraser also asked a question on the link to the national grid. On the back of the high-profile COP 26, chaired by the UK in Glasgow, energy is certainly one area where Scotland can be a world leader in the transition to net zero. We have all the natural resources and existing infrastructure, plus the scientists and engineers required to build a balanced scorecard in energy. We contribute 60% of the UK’s onshore and offshore wind generation, our tidal and hydro opportunities are immense, plus we have 100,000 highly skilled jobs already working in energy with 70,000 in oil and gas.
We must remember, though, that the transition is to net zero, not to zero carbon, and with 35% of our energy needs in 2050 still coming from carbon—halved from 70% today—we would be foolish to ditch our world-class oil and gas sector in the North Sea just to import from elsewhere. This was a key point of my noble friend Lord Goodlad’s remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie. A balanced approach in energy should include renewables, oil and gas, hydro and tidal, and carbon capture, as well as nuclear. Scotland is uniquely placed to lead the world in this space and, by doing so, will contribute massively to the well-being of and quality of life in the UK.
COP 26 in Glasgow brought the world to Scotland’s door. What a tremendous achievement for the two-year presidency of the UK to increase those countries committed to net zero up to those responsible for 90% of emissions. It is sometimes said that the UK has a limited role to play in climate change because it accounts for only 1% of world emissions, yet Glasgow proved that our UK leadership still counts as we demonstrate that it is possible to simultaneously grow our economy while cutting our emissions.
There is a determination to see nascent green technology make the breakthrough to deliver genuine environmental benefits and prosperity through employment. Scotland’s wind power, which was also a theme of this debate, is being resourced. To that end, the Government have announced £160 million to create floating offshore wind farms, maximising the higher wind speeds found out to sea. That follows the biggest investment yet seen in tidal power, namely £20 million per year. Scotland is also home to a £9.4 million trail-blazing hydrogen project at the UK’s largest onshore windfarm, Whitelee, on the hills south of Glasgow. Coupled with carbon capture, whereby the greenhouse gases which damage the environment so gravely can be safely stored in the very rocks from where we once drew oil and gas, Scotland’s energy transition surely can lead the way, making a huge contribution to the well-being of the people of Britain, notably in keeping the lights on.
Financial services were raised briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. This is one of the most successful sectors in Scotland, employing 150,000 highly skilled jobs and contributing £13 billion to Scotland’s economy. Our fintech cluster comprises more than 150 fintech start-ups in Edinburgh and Glasgow, which combine to be in the top three clusters in Europe, and Scotland is now responsible for 11% of the UK’s responsible investing market. Overall, we contribute 20% of UK exports in financial services, a sector where the UK is ranked second in the world after the USA.
Fisheries were raised by my noble friend Lord Goodlad. Our fisheries, food larder and drinks cabinet are world-class. Exports of salmon and whisky together account for 20% of UK exports of food and drink, and the whisky industry supports 10,000 jobs in Scotland, 7,000 in remote communities and 40,000 across the UK. This is where I have a reflection: assuming we can secure a trade deal with India, we could dramatically increase our exports of Scotch. Langoustines served in swish Parisian bistros are won from pristine Scottish waters and whisked from port to plate at speed. A £100 million UK seafood fund, allied with new opportunities afforded outwith the EU’s common fisheries policy, means that fishing is an industry charting its own course into the future.
I will say a few words about defence. It was not a particular theme in this debate, but I think it is important. BAE Systems on the Clyde and Babcock at Rosyth on the Forth are at the heart of the UK’s defence capability. I understand that the Indian navy is particularly interested in our state-of-the-art weaponry and defensive systems, where 15 world-leading UK companies have significant design and manufacturing operations in Scotland.
One great example is HMS “Queen Elizabeth”, the aircraft carrier built on the banks of the Forth at Rosyth, which has just returned to UK waters. As well as a potent symbol of defensive power, this trip delivered innovative trade possibilities. For example, in Mumbai, the ship was the backdrop to UK—including Scottish—promotion opportunities. It was not just whisky—I am sure gin was on board as well—but, for example, we showcased the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo.
Scotland’s vital contribution to defence is essential in today’s deeply uncertain world. Scots serve proudly in all branches of the forces, and RAF Lossiemouth and Her Majesty’s naval base at Faslane are at the cutting edge of our air and sea power. As we know, Faslane is home to the Royal Navy’s Submarine Service, including the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent.
Shipbuilding, although reduced in scale, remains a Scottish speciality. I should point out that, over the last 15 years, she has delivered six Type 45 destroyers, two aircraft carriers, five offshore patrol vessels, and already has orders for eight Type 26 frigates. I am sure that I could go on.
On this link to trade, raised by my noble friend Lady Davidson, noble Lords will be well aware of the Government’s commitment to secure trade deals with 80% of the world’s trade within three years of leaving the EU. I am pleased to say that we have currently signed up to 64%, but there is much more work to do. We will bring extensive new trade alliances across the world, from which Scotland is well placed to benefit.
I turn to another theme that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and my noble friends Lady Fraser and Lord Dundee: the levelling-up agenda. Following COP 26, within the Scotland Office our attention has turned to the post-pandemic levelling-up agenda across the UK. EU structural funds are being replaced by the £2.6 billion shared prosperity fund and the £220 million community renewal fund, and it is worth noting the explicit commitment by the Chancellor at the Budget, reaffirming that total replacement funding via the UK shared prosperity fund will at a minimum match the previous size of EU structural funds in Scotland.
These are further complemented by the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, with almost £180 million committed to local projects in Scotland, as part of the recent funding round announced at the Budget, alongside the ongoing investment of £1.5 billion in UK government funding. Of course, this supports the 12 city and growth deals across all of Scotland. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that the city and growth deal agenda is a good example of joint working between the two Governments and local areas across every part of Scotland. In this spirit of co-operation, a new heads of terms agreement for the Falkirk growth deal will be signed this month, as well as the full deal in Moray.
I hope the House will agree that Scotland is uniquely served by two Governments, and these UK government investments will augment and strengthen devolution by investing in people, projects and businesses within local communities equally across the whole of the United Kingdom. This plays quite well into the remarks from my noble friend Lord Dundee, who spoke about the importance of skills.
I turn to universities. All of this high-end design, technology and manufacturing is backed up by our world-class universities, such as the UK’s current top university and my alma mater, St Andrews, which continue to attract research funding of 13% to 15%—another exemplar of our “more than 8%” rule, which I alluded to at the beginning. On the new green economy, the first Industrial Revolution was born on the Clyde, and, last month, Glasgow showed once again that our universities and technologists are leading the charge.
Cities were raised by my noble friend Lord Dundee. I took note, with interest, of his remarks on twinning, which is often important. We should always remember Scotland’s vibrant cities: Glasgow for its culture—the Burrell Collection, for example—and its architecture by architects such as Charles Rennie Mackintosh, and Edinburgh for its great humour, not least the Edinburgh International Festival.
I will also pick up the point made by my noble friend Lady Fraser about Channel 4, which she is right to raise. As part of an internal channel restructuring process to take jobs outside London, Channel 4 created headquarters in Leeds and regional hubs in Glasgow and the other devolved nations. Scotland has begun to show its strength here and has a strong track record of staging big Hollywood film productions, such as the sequence of “Fast & Furious” films and “World War Z”, starring Brad Pitt, the storyline of which covers a threatening virus that turns humans into zombies, which is perhaps a sombre reflection for us this afternoon. Perhaps I should not go further on that. In addition, the £7 million UK global screen fund will target support across the screen sector, including film, TV, documentaries, animation and interactive narrative games content.
Health was raised by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Fraser and Lord McColl. I note the points made about the record on health, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. The UK Government recognise that it is important to support the Scottish Government, and £14.5 billion in additional funding has been given through the Barnett formula since the start of the pandemic. I hasten to add that this is on top of the block grant and in addition to extensive direct UK government support to people and businesses in Scotland.
More than 100,000 Scottish businesses have also benefited from £4 billion of UK Government loans. Vaccinations, which were alluded to, have been a great success, with almost 120 million doses administered, as of 8 December 2021. It is fair to say that Scotland has benefited from closely working with, and from the input of, the UK Government. I stress again: working together is the theme.
My noble friend Lord Dundee spoke about digital connectivity. The recent Budget confirmed a further £8 million from Project Gigabit to deliver full fibre to 3,600 premises in Scotland, including in Aberdeenshire, Angus, Highland, Moray, and Perth and Kinross. It has delivered faster speeds to 600,000 households and businesses in Scotland, replacing legacy copper wire with full fibre. This is part of the overall £5 billion Gigabit programme.
My noble friend Lady Fraser spoke, rightly, about tone, which was also picked up by my noble friend Lady Davidson and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. As far as I am concerned, Scotland and the Scots people are a much-valued and most important part of our United Kingdom. Long may this continue. We hope that more Scots will come around to thinking the same about the UK Government and those good souls south of the border.
I finish by agreeing with my noble friend Lord McColl and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that we must strive for a positive future. I believe that there is one.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, the first that I have led—I very much enjoyed it. I am grateful to so many who have given me a history lesson. I take the words of my noble friend Lord McColl that we should learn from and be inspired by our history but that we need to look to the future. I have learned a few things: I did not know that Glasgow was so good at building satellites, and I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is a Jam Tarts supporter.
Looking to the future, my noble friend Lord Dundee pointed out the importance of sectors that we do not traditionally think of in Scotland, such as the video games and creative industries. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and others pointed to the importance of financial services and the potential for Scottish businesses to export more, which the Minister illustrated in relation to the potential to export to places such as India.
Many noble Lords have touched on the importance of the green economy and the role of the transition to net zero. At the moment, this is a really interesting example of somewhere there is an opportunity. My noble friend Lord Goodlad and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned Cambo, which to me is an example of the vulnerability of the Scottish Government’s current position, because, as was alluded to, the SNP is very happy not to take responsibility for decisions on this.
So I hope that the UK Government are not scared of the Scottish Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned, but are able to identify and, potentially, magnify these sorts of issues, such as the opportunities in the green economy, as we mentioned. If we do not and if we are not careful, there is a perfect situation at the moment for the SNP of a Conservative Government in Westminster and an SNP Government in Edinburgh. We cannot do anything about Edinburgh at the moment, but we can do something about Whitehall and Westminster. So I urge the Minister to take back to all departments from the Scotland Office the words of my noble friend Lord Dunlop that we achieve more through co-operation and that we need a culture change in Whitehall. Yes, we need one in Edinburgh as well, but we need one in Whitehall.
There is a generation of people in Scotland who are now entering the workforce who have known nothing but the Scottish Parliament, which was established in 1999. Let us not forget that in Scotland you can vote from the age of 16 onwards. This generation does not hark back to history. They know only the current devolved situation, so it is important that we heed my noble friend Lady Davidson’s words about language. We are in a devolved settlement, we are collectively the UK and that is the way that we will make the case for the union.
I thank all contributors to today’s debate and I thank the Minister for his response, but we will hold his words to the sticking place, to quote the Scottish play, and I look forward to another opportunity, I hope in the not-too-distant future, to return to this place to celebrate the progress that Scotland and the rest of the UK have made in the recovery from the pandemic.
Ten-Year Drugs Strategy
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, when we discuss the Government’s important new strategy on drugs, it is worth recalling the horrific statistics behind it. The cost to the economy is £20 billion just in England, but the human cost is what truly shocks us all. Drugs drive nearly half of all homicides, and nearly 3,000 people tragically lost their lives through drug misuse in England and Wales last year. The most deprived areas of the country face the most drug-driven crime and health harms, something I know will shock us all. County lines drug dealing, involving many young people, fuels violence and exploitation.
My key question with respect to the new strategy, which we all want to work, is: how will the Government ensure that this strategy works? How will they drive the strategy forward? What is the local mechanism for the delivery of the strategy? In other words, how do we turn the rhetoric of the strategy into reality?
The Government’s Statement says that they accept all Dame Carol Black’s recommendations, which is very welcome, but she also posed a question about why we are in this dreadful situation. She says, and we should learn from this:
“Drug misuse is at tragically destructive levels in this country … Funding cuts have left treatment and recovery services on their knees. Commissioning has been fragmented, with little accountability … partnerships … have deteriorated. The workforce is depleted … and demoralised.”
That is from the strategy document on which the Government have based their work, so never has a new 10-year plan been more needed, although the starting point has to be a reversal of what has been the case and how the problems so graphically highlighted by Dame Carol Black will be reversed.
Specifically, can the Minister confirm that all the spending required by Dame Carol Black’s recommendations will be met? For example, are all the 54,000 new treatment places she advocates to be funded? Are the new family hubs the Government have announced part of this drugs strategy?
The need to tackle county lines, as highlighted in the Statement, is crucial, so can the Minister update us on progress on this? The Government have said that 1,500 county lines have been closed. What does that mean? Is it the shutting down of a phone number or the closure of a county gang line?
The Statement also talks of the police and criminal justice system. How are we going to drive up prosecutions for drug offences, which have fallen over the past 10 years, with prosecutions down 36% and convictions down 43%?
The real focused effort has to be on the victims, so how are we going to recruit more front-line drug workers? How will we co-ordinate the work of local partners out there on the street? How will we support our schools as they seek to divert their students from harm?
We all want the new drugs strategy to work. Supply chains have to be cracked down on, the implicit tolerance of so-called recreational drug use has to be challenged and criminals have to be prosecuted, but there also need to be effective, co-ordinated drug treatment programmes. So can the Minister confirm that at the heart of the Government’s proposals there will be new, properly funded, co-ordinated drug treatment programmes that divert people from illegal suppliers?
Drugs shatter communities. They shatter the lives of many people, including so many of our young people—often, but not always, some of the most deprived. We have to break this cycle of violence and abuse. It will require investment, co-ordination, treatment, prosecutions, education and a real effort delivered locally but driven from the centre. Let us hope that this strategy can deliver it because the problem of drug abuse and misuse is all around us, along with the associated human misery. We must do more. Let us hope that the drug strategy, so good on paper, becomes the reality that we all want it to be on the ground.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, noble Lords will know that when you follow the Opposition Front Bench on a Statement you are concerned that you might have your thunder stolen, but as we are talking about drugs there was no danger of that today.
The Statement sets out the impact of the illegal drug trade on individuals, families, and the economy, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has reinforced that. What assessment have the Government made of what the impact would be if there was a regulated market for cannabis, for example? What evidence is there from other parts of the world? Did the Minister see, for example, the documentary authored by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Government often rely upon to support their position, where his conclusion from looking at how such a policy operates in the United States called for a feasibility study into how such an approach could be adopted in the UK? In particular, he noted the marginal impact on drug use and the positive impact on tax income, providing resources for community policing and drug rehabilitation programmes. Does the Minister think there could be similar benefits to the UK?
The Statement talks about “a blueprint for driving drugs out of our cities, towns and villages”, but the so-called war on drugs has failed to have any impact on the demand for and use of illegal drugs. There has been temporary success in taking out county lines, which are soon replaced by others, temporary success in arresting drug dealers, who are soon replaced by rivals, and temporary success in occasionally seizing large quantities of drugs, which are dwarfed by the huge quantities of drugs that get through to users, all of which demonstrate that these so-called victories are pyrrhic. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already asked about what progress has been made on county lines. What evidence is there of a net reduction in county lines?
Does the Minister think the sight of the Prime Minister dressed as a police officer, as we saw on Monday, looking like Paddington Bear in fancy dress, is likely to strike terror into the hearts of drug dealers? “Tough enforcement action”, to quote the Statement—attempting to control the supply of drugs when demand for drugs continues to grow—is completely the wrong approach. It was the wrong approach at the time of prohibition in America in the 1920s and it is now. Does the Minister think that, instead of tough enforcement action, a similar approach to that taken with alcohol—a system of regulation and control to mitigate the harms caused—is what we need in relation to drugs other than alcohol?
We need to focus on demand. Behind the smokescreen of Paddington Bear against the drug dealers, there is some welcome news on that front in this Statement. Increased funding—in fact, the majority of the increase —is to support drug-dependent people to move from chronic use into recovery.
Dame Carol Black’s review called for an additional £552 million a year by year 5, on top of the baseline annual expenditure of £680 million from the public health grant, to provide a full range of high-quality drug treatment and recovery services. The Government are providing £530 million over three years—less than Carol Black was asking for in year 5 alone. In fact, Dame Carol asked for £119 million extra in year 1, £231 million extra in year 2 and £396 million extra in year 3, a total of £746 million, against the £530 million promised in the Statement. That £746 million can be achieved within the budget announced by the Government, but only if the majority of the £300 million the Government are putting into enforcement is diverted into treatment, where it would be far more effectively spent. Will the Government consider reallocating the budget even further in favour of treatment?
When the Labour Government moved cannabis from a class C to a class B controlled drug, with harsher penalties for possession and supply, there was no impact on cannabis use. Later, when the media covered the fact that excessive use of extremely strong, genetically modified cannabis, particularly by young people, could have serious health impacts on users, cannabis use declined. Does the Minister not agree that the evidence shows that a health-based approach, where demand is reduced by informing users of the danger and where the supply and strength of the drugs is controlled, is likely to be far more successful than continuing the failed and pointless war on drugs?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I am looking forward to hearing from the noble Baroness; I think I know what she is going to say.
I will respond to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick. On the impact—the question of what the problem is—I think most people would agree that illegal drugs inflict some devastating effects on a quite horrifying scale. The cost to society is colossal, running to about £20 billion a year. There were almost 3,000 deaths relating to drug misuse in 2020. This represents two-thirds of registered drug poisoning deaths and accounts for 52.3 deaths per million people. Heroin-related deaths in England have more than doubled since 2012 and make up the largest proportion of drug misuse deaths at 45%.
In 2020 alone, referrals of children suspected to be victims of county lines—I will get on to that shortly—increased by 31%. Drugs drive nearly half of all homicides and a similar proportion of acquisitive crimes such as robbery, burglary and theft. More than 3 million adults reported using drugs in England and Wales in the last year, and more than one in three 15 year-olds report having ever taken drugs.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether we had done an assessment on the impact of a regulated market for cannabis. I do not think we have. Our position on cannabis remains the same as the last time I spoke about this, but if I have anything new to add I will let him know.
On the additional three-year investment from April next year, the total is £900 million. There is a £300 million three-year Home Office investment, and we commit to making up to £145 million of funding available for county lines—as I said, I will get on to that in a second. There is £533 million—more than half a billion pounds—for DHSC to increase and improve treatment services, £120 million for MoJ for drug treatment and probation services, £68 million for DLUHC for treatment and support in England for those with a housing need, and £21 million for DWP to roll out individual employment support across all local authorities in England. As noble Lords can see, it is a cross-Whitehall effort—across six departments, in fact. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, talked about co-ordinated programmes. He is absolutely right: if we are operating across six departments, we must certainly have a co-ordinated approach.
The noble Lord asked whether the statistic of 1,500 county lines being shut down means we have caught 1,500 criminals or just that 1,500 phone numbers have been taken out of circulation. In the last two years, our county lines programme has delivered more than 1,500 lines closed, more than 7,400 arrests, £4.3 million in cash and significant quantities of drugs seized, and more than 4,000 vulnerable people safeguarded. It means that 1,500 active county deal lines have been closed and found to remain out of use, which is good news. Through our programme we will continue to focus on arresting and charging the line holder and securing criminal justice outcomes to ensure that we put offenders behind bars. The National County Lines Coordination Centre determines that a line is closed when there is evidence that the controlling gang is no longer capable of distributing drugs using that telephone number, with check-backs to ensure that the telephone number remains out of use.
The noble Lord also asked me how we would measure ourselves and what progress looks like. By 2024 we expect the whole-of-government mission to have prevented nearly 1,000 deaths, reversing the upward trend in drug deaths for the first time in a decade. We expect it to have delivered a phased expansion of treatment capacity, with at least 54,500 new high-quality treatment places, which would be an increase of 20%, including 21,000 places for opiate and crack users, delivering 53% of opiate and crack users into treatment. We expect at least 7,500 more treatment places for people either sleeping rough or at immediate risk of sleeping rough, which would be a 33% increase on current numbers. We expect to provide a treatment place for every offender with an addiction, because the two are so often linked.
We also expect that this strategy will have contributed to the prevention of 750,000 crimes, including 140,000 neighbourhood crimes, through increases in drug treatment. We expect it to have closed over 2,000 more county lines through our relentless and robust action to break the model and bring down the gangs running these illegal lines, and to have delivered 6,400 major and moderate disruptions—that would be a 20% increase —against the activities of organised criminals, including arresting influential suppliers, targeting their finances and dismantling their supply chains. These are the ambitions on which we should be judged.
On the noble Lord’s point that we are simply reversing the cuts made since 2010, the strategy is underpinned by a record investment of nearly £900 million of additional funding over the three years, as I said, taking the total investment in combating drugs to £3 billion over the next three years. It sets out our landmark whole-of-government approach to tackling drug misuse, with more leading departments than ever before.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about county lines, on which we are already delivering real impact. In the past two years, our county lines programme has delivered more than 1,500 lines closed, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, with 7,400 arrests and £4.3 million in cash. The latest national co-ordination centre assessment of county lines shows a reduction in the total number of potentially active lines, an important point, with numbers reported to have fallen from between 800 and 1,000 in 2019-20 to 600 in 2021. There is more to be done on county lines programmes through this strategy. We will be investing up to £145 million to tackle the most violent and exploitative distribution model seen yet. We will continue funding the National County Lines Coordination Centre to provide that vital national strategic oversight. We will also focus on the largest exporter areas, alongside dedicated surge funding for local police forces to tackle county lines and grip the transport network through the dedicated British Transport Police’s county lines taskforce, invest in new technology including ANPR, and fund provision of specialist support for vulnerable children, young people and families involved in county lines activity.
We do not have plans for decriminalisation of drug possession generally. Our approach to drugs remains clear. We must prevent drug misuse in our communities and support people through treatment and recovery, which is one of the main planks of the strategy.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, in the absence of any evidence-based drug policies in this country, which would include heroin treatment centres linked to staffed consumption rooms to tackle very effectively polydrug use and heroin use, and in the absence of readily available medical cannabis to about 1 million people who need it—I could go on—can the Minister confirm that the small increase in funding for treatment envisaged in this strategy will not, even in the third year, fully compensate for the cuts in spending on treatment? Taking into account, as the Government tend not to do, the cuts to Home Office and probation service funding of treatment, as well as the funding from local authorities, can the Minister confirm that even in year 3, when the largest increase will come into play, we will not even get back to all those years ago, before the cuts began? As the Minister knows, Carol Black was prohibited from looking at any change in the law, and it is only with change in the law that one will achieve good evidence-based policies on drugs.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think that the noble Baroness knows, even before asking the question, that we do not intend to change the law. However, I thought that she might be quite pleased by the focus of one of the pillars, which is treatment and support for drug users. She will also not be surprised to know that we do not have any plans to introduce drug consumption rooms. Anyone running them would be committing a range of offences including possession of a controlled drug and being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug. We support a range of evidence-based approaches to reduce the health-related harms of drug misuse, such as maintaining—oh, I cannot find the page in my notes, so I will get back to her on this in a second.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will follow on from the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, reflecting on the long-term failure of decades of the so-called war on drugs. I imagine that the Minister is aware of the 2005 report from the Downing Street strategy unit. It concluded that, to have a tangible effect on drug flows in this country, 60% to 80% of drugs coming in would have to be seized. The seizure rate has never been higher than 20%. This Statement talks about tougher enforcement action. Does the Minister still agree with those figures from 2005 and, with this tougher enforcement action, what estimate do the Government have of the percentage of drug flows that will be stopped?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
May I finish answering the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher? We want to maintain the availability of needle and syringe programmes to prevent blood-borne infections and widen the availability of Naloxone to prevent overdose deaths. I do not know the document to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, refers. I went through some of the figures for drug deaths with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. We will not go soft on some of the penalties that we have for drug use and drug dealing. As I told the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the focus of one of the pillars is helping people with treatment and rehabilitation.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, notwithstanding the complexity of the current crisis, as detailed by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I welcome this strategy. I have raised the matter of the severe cuts in services over the past decade since I led Addaction, a national pilot by Breaking the Cycle, a project funded by the Zurich Community Trust that invested nearly £1 million over five years to work successfully with 500 families. That is how much it costs when you are doing it right, as is acknowledged on page 55 of the strategy, which is about the complexity of the services required. I hope that the strategy that is to be implemented will add hope for people who have been waiting for services. Can the Minister and her department not reinvent the wheel for services which are already out there waiting to be called, by the Government and local authorities, to make themselves available to very vulnerable families?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I agree most wholeheartedly. It is not about reinventing wheels but about seeing what works, and about what new interventions might help people to rebuild their lives. There is all this talk about decriminalisation, but drugs destroy lives—we have all seen those effects.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I welcome the report and congratulate the Government on being prepared to set out a strategy. I can understand why some people are unhappy about part of it. Alcohol is quoted as the great place to go for a wonderful life with wonderful regulation and without all the consequential problems that you have with an unregulated market. All I can say is that, if we had a strategy on alcohol that set out some of the targets that we have here, I would almost think about joining the Government.
I declare an interest, in that I am the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Twelve Steps Recovery Programme for Addiction, which covers not just alcohol but gambling and drugs and a whole range of things. We have already had an intervention in the Commons, and we have been offered a ministerial meeting over the recovery part of the report—over whether you are prepared to spend more time trying to get people totally sober, because we feel that the effort to try to get recovery and sobriety in so many areas has been falling so short.
In particular, we have harm reduction with methadone, and the rumour is that we are now spending £1 billion a year on methadone; it is very difficult to get to the real figures, but the story is that it is £1 billion a year. We did not have methadone available at all in 2006, when it first came around. How many people have secured sobriety during that period? How much work has been done to try to get them sober and off the drugs—because it is a drug, and it has its consequences. People die from methadone. That is the kind of research that needs to be done—then we can try to look for adequate resourcing.
I am grateful that the Minister has set out targets. Those of us who want to see recovery will be trying to keep her nose to the grindstone on it, so we deliver on them. I am sorry that we do not have the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, with us today, because much of this problem of course ends in jail. That is where we need more openness in jails, to admit people who are willing to assist people to get recovery. We have found with the 12-step programme—
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Sorry, we need a full debate on this. My question is on the 12 steps. Will the Government commit themselves to apply them more fully than they have done in the past, and will they do a proper record of the work that is done and research on that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am very pleased to have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who equates the harms from alcohol with the harms from drugs. Socially, in many cases, the harms from alcohol are worse, because it is so freely available. He is right that quite often these things end in prison—whether it is drugs or alcohol. He talked about the ministerial meeting, and I would be very happy to join him in that if he wishes—and I would also be very happy if he wanted to join the Government. It is not my call, though.
The original impetus for a new strategy came from Dame Carol Black’s review of drugs, which recommended the setting up of this cross-government drugs unit, responsible for co-ordinating and delivering a drugs strategy. Of course, our strategy goes wider than just the health harms—although the noble Lord’s point about alcohol stands just as much. That said, I look forward I hope to joining him, and take on board all the points that he makes.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
While the situation in England and Wales is bad, it is even worse in Scotland, which has the highest level of drugs deaths in Europe. The SNP Government have always tried to blame this on Westminster, saying that it is because the Government here refuse to change the law—but, of course, that ignores the fact that the law is the same in Scotland, England and Wales. What are the UK Government doing to counteract this propaganda that comes from the “Comical Alis” up in Scotland?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
From some of the contributions that we have heard today, clearly some of the propaganda works. Drug consumption rooms are in Scotland, and they do not work. Scotland has a huge drugs problem, and its strategy clearly has not worked. This is not a strategy for the whole UK but aligned to the devolved and reserved policies led by the six contributing departments; we continue to work with devolved authorities, so certain aspects cover England, Scotland and Wales. I am very glad that the noble Lord mentioned it, because he is absolutely right.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Is there going to be any detailed work on looking at the relationship between violent crime and the constant and steady use of marijuana, particularly the refined types of marijuana?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can tell the noble Lord from my own personal experience that I have seen some horrific outcomes from the use of synthetic marijuana, and not only on children, with the effect on the growing brain leading to schizophrenia and other things. It can also lead on to the development of paranoia and all sorts of other things, including violence. I completely agree with the noble Lord that some of the linkages are quite clear. Of course, it is what it goes on to develop to, with the use of other drugs as well.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the pre-briefings in the Sunday paper, before the Statement was delivered in the other place, talked about middle-class drug users losing their passports. When we actually look at the Statement, we can see that it refers to there being consequences, and it talks about restrictions on movement. It does not explicitly talk about passports or, indeed, driver’s licences, as was pre-briefed. Can the Minister tell me whether that is part of something that the Government are considering and, furthermore, whether they have considered the fact that some people have passports for more than one nationality, so people who only have British passports would suffer further from this? Furthermore, how might not having access to ID such as driver’s licences and passports affect people who have problematic drug use and are struggling to get their life on track?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Well, I guess if you do not have a driver’s licence or a passport you cannot have it taken off you. We are considering a wide range of interventions on this. I read the article about the middle-class drug use. If there is anything I could wish for, it is that any middle-class people using drugs at weekends who think that it is a victimless crime would realise that that is absolutely wrong. It causes untold misery—and if there was a public service campaign that could be put out, I would love to see something like that.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Thursday 9th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 December 2021 - (8 Dec 2021)
Downing Street Christmas Parties
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I will now repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question made in the House of Commons:
“Mr Speaker, as the Prime Minister said to the House yesterday, he understands and shares the anger up and down the country, as do I, at seeing No. 10 staff seeming to make light of lockdown measures. I join the Prime Minister in apologising unreservedly for the offence that it has caused to people who have been through what everyone in this House knows is immeasurable pain and hardship as a result of this appalling pandemic.
The Prime Minister has been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken. However, the Government also recognise the public anxiety and indignation about this, which I share, in that it appears as though the people who have been setting the rules may not have been following the rules.
Now, as the Prime Minister confirmed to the House yesterday, he has asked the Cabinet Secretary to investigate the facts and I would like to update the House now, if I may, on the details of this investigation. The terms of reference for the investigation are being published and I will lay a copy in the Library later today. I can confirm to the House that the Cabinet Secretary’s investigation will establish the facts surrounding the following allegations: a gathering at No. 10 Downing Street on 27 November 2020; a gathering at the Department for Education on 10 December 2020; and a gathering at No. 10 Downing Street on 18 December 2020.
The primary purpose of the Cabinet Secretary’s investigation will be to establish swiftly a general understanding of the nature of the gatherings, including attendance, the setting and the purpose, and with reference to adherence to the guidance in place at the time. If required, the investigation will establish whether individual disciplinary action is warranted. The work will be undertaken by officials in the Cabinet Office at the direction of the Cabinet Secretary, with support from the Government Legal Department. Those officials will have access to all relevant records and be able to speak to members of staff.
As with all internal investigations, if during the course of the work any evidence emerges of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence, the matter will be referred to the police and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused. In conclusion, I must emphasise that matters relating to adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate, and the Cabinet Office will liaise with the police as appropriate. All Ministers, special advisers and civil servants will be expected to co-operate with this investigation.
Finally, I can confirm, as I have said, that the findings of the investigation will be provided to the House and made public. Following the long-standing practice of successive Administrations, any specific HR action against individuals will remain confidential.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reading out the Answer to the Question. I know him to be a decent and honourable man, so I do feel for him that he so often has to come to this Dispatch Box and defend the Prime Minister’s failings.
The picture emerging of the attitudes of staff working for the Prime Minister at No. 10 is pretty unedifying. While the Government were instructing the rest of us not to spend Christmas with loved ones and not to spend time with friends and family who were frail, sick or even dying, back at government HQ, at No. 10, it was party time. Across the country, we stuck to the rules—not just for ourselves, but to protect others. So we have a tale of two situations: the best of times for the PM and his friends, and the worst of times for everybody else. It is a total and utter disgrace.
I have two questions for the noble Lord, aside from the fact that I find it quite bizarre that we are having an investigation as to whether there was a party—just ask the people who were there. The Prime Minister has been forced to announce that the Cabinet Secretary, who himself is rumoured to have been at this party, will carry out an inquiry into those events. In the House of Commons, the Paymaster-General, as we heard in the Statement just now, said that any evidence of criminal behaviour will be passed to the Met. Given the public’s absolute lack of confidence that the Prime Minister has been telling the truth, surely it is for the Met to decide what is criminal behaviour and what is not. Can the noble Lord confirm that all information will be passed to the Met, not just that which is filtered through government? Secondly, can he confirm whether any members of the Government from your Lordships’ House were either in attendance or even invited to the parties and other social events at No. 10 last December?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I reject the characterisation of both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the many people who work in No. 10 Downing Street and elsewhere, whether political employees, political figures or civil servants. Whatever emerges from the findings of these alleged events, I think it is quite wrong to extrapolate from that to besmirch a whole class of people who are seeking to do their very best for this country.
So far as the facts are concerned, as I have said, the Cabinet Secretary will investigate. As the noble Baroness said, matters relating to adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate, and the Cabinet Office will liaise with them as appropriate.
I believe it is best that we should now wait for the findings of this inquiry, which the Prime Minister has directed should be produced as soon as possible.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that the morning newspapers and the other blogs that many of us have read now list a good deal more than three parties as having broken the rules at that time. Do we have a guarantee that the findings will be published in full when they come out?
I turn to what I think is the most important thing for all of us now. Public trust and public confidence in the rules to beat this pandemic have clearly been very badly damaged and need to be re-established, particularly as the new variant is sweeping through the country. How do the Government plan to ensure that public confidence and trust in the rules can be rebuilt? Are the Government providing a strategy on that? Do they think, for example, that, in the current circumstances, the Prime Minister is the best person to lead that, or that perhaps another Minister might be more capable of commanding public confidence for the next few weeks?
Lord True (Con)
As a preamble, I failed to respond to the noble Baroness opposite on who might have been at any of these alleged events. I can assure her that, obviously, that is part of the investigation and report that the Cabinet Secretary will complete, but I am not in a position to make a statement on that myself.
So far as what the noble Lord has just said, I do not believe that this should damage trust. Obviously, there are several strands here. There is proper public concern and indignation, which I referred to in the Statement, about the tape that came out, and a proper wish to establish the facts on these events. We have to be candid that, separate from that and wider than that, there is a persistent political campaign against the Prime Minister to besmirch his character—
Lord True (Con)
Those who participate are very vocal on the matter.
The third factor, in response to the noble Lord, is that there is a vital task—which the Prime Minister is engaged on and has been engaged on from day one—to address the challenge of this pandemic. That work goes on. I suggest respectfully to all noble Lords that mixing one of those strands with another of them also undermines public trust. We are all committed, I hope on all sides, to defeating this pandemic, and we should focus on that.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Minister failed to answer my noble friend Lady Smith’s second question on whether any members of the Government from your Lordships’ House were either in attendance or invited to attend these parties.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I just responded to that in answering the question from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister confirm that deliberately misleading Parliament and the House of Commons is contempt under the rules of Parliament? If it is shown that the Prime Minister deliberately misled Parliament on what he knew, he would be in contempt of the House of Commons, and he would have to resign. Will the Minister confirm that that is the position?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the rules of the House of Commons are for the other place. As far as I am concerned, every Minister acts on his or her honour to be truthful to whichever House they are a member of.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister confirm that anybody who works in No. 10, or elsewhere in government, who was or was not invited to that party, will not have their career prospects jeopardised by giving evidence to the courts, the police or indeed this inquiry?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I sincerely hope that that would be the case. Obviously, the Cabinet Secretary is responsible for the conduct of the inquiry. He is the senior civil servant and will own the responsibility to which the noble Baroness referred. I should make it clear—following on from something that I did not reply to from the noble Lord—that the terms of reference, which I will lay in the Library of your Lordships’ House later today if they are not there now, will make it clear that where there are credible allegations relating to other gatherings, these may be investigated.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I suppose that it is really not surprising that the Labour Party should try to make so much political hay out of this, as it has done this afternoon. But in this House we can take a more measured view of these events. As my noble friend the Minister has just announced in his repeated Statement, the Cabinet Secretary has been asked to make an investigation, where he will come out with the full facts. Therefore, the allegations that have been made cannot really be relied on until we have seen the results of that investigation. Would it not be a good idea for everybody, not least in this House, to wait until we have seen the results before making any more comment?
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend is entirely right—he perhaps put it more elegantly than I did—that there is a political strand to this. In this country, there is an ancient presumption that people are innocent until proved guilty, and I believe that it would not be appropriate to comment on or prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. I will hold to that position.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am sorry, but the noble Baroness cannot speak from that Bench. If she would like to move to the Bench behind, she may speak from there.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
The Minister referred to everybody being required to make their records available to the inquiry. Will that include their electronic records, such as their mobile phone and email system, so that those are available for the benefit of the inquiry?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I said, the terms of reference will be published by the Cabinet Secretary later today. If that is not clear in the terms of reference, I hope that it will be made clear. We are asking all Ministers, all special advisers and all civil servants to co-operate fully with the investigations. Any staff with information relevant to the investigations should provide it.
Extraordinary Funding and Financing Agreement for Transport for London
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will announce the details of any further Extraordinary Funding and Financing Agreement for Transport for London for the period after 11 December.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I should perhaps mention, in the interests of full disclosure, that I live in London and am the proud holder of a Freedom pass.
My Question is of course highly topical; the deadline is tomorrow for the Government and TfL to reach an agreement on the future funding of transport in London. That is not just the Underground and the buses; it is the roads and the whole transport system for London.
My intention in raising the matter is not so much to discuss the details of a possible agreement as to ask about the process and timing by which such agreements are reached. In short, what my Question is really asking is whether the Minister agrees that there must be a better way of doing this and, if so, what the Government propose to do to bring it about. Perhaps there has been some news since I last checked, by my Question still stands. Even if an agreement is reached tomorrow, we still need the Government to tell us what steps they will take to improve the system by which such agreements are reached.
By way of background, in addition to the excellent brief produced by the Library, it is worth emphasising that this will be the fourth in this series of deals for relatively short periods since we were struck by the pandemic. There was May to October 2020; there was October 2020 to March 2021, subsequently extended to May 2021; and, most recently, there was May to December 2021, which expires on Saturday. Obviously, part of the reason for this pattern has been the unknown and unknowable progress of the pandemic, emphasised most recently by the Government announcing yesterday that everyone should, where possible, work from home. We simply do not know how people will react and how this will affect ridership.
I therefore welcome the Statement made to the Evening Standard by Paul Scully MP, the Minister for London, that the Government remain committed to make up TfL’s loss of fare revenue from Covid. It would be good and appropriate if the Minister could make a more formal commitment to that policy from the Dispatch Box.
The problem, however, is that short-term fixes to cover lost fare revenue simply do not work for Londoners. Those who travel on TfL services deserve something more certain in the longer term in terms of both revenue and capital. It is important to understand that TfL’s budget does not just cover day-to-day running of services; it must cover the capital needed to maintain and, where necessary, update services to deal with the changing needs of both Londoners and the visitors whom we welcome to our great city. For example, some of the rolling stock is near or at the end of its working life and its replacement simply cannot be deferred.
The practical difficulty is that TfL is, in effect, a local authority and is bound by the rules that govern local authority finance. What this means in practice is that it cannot budget for a deficit and is legally required to plan for the worst-case scenario. Consequently, unless and until a formal agreement is reached on additional funding and signed on the dotted line, TfL has to plan for substantial cuts in expenditure, both in services and capital, in case a deal fails to materialise.
Perhaps other noble Lords will mention the sorts of cuts that TfL has had to consider; I want to make just one specific point about any possible deal. It would be totally wrong to make TfL’s staff, who have served us so well during the pandemic, facing real danger in their day-to-day work, pay for the problems that have arisen. They should not have to pay now through real- terms cuts in their pay and conditions or cuts in their future pensions—there is always a pensions angle.
It is a shame that speakers in this debate are so London-centric, as one important point I want to emphasise is that this is not just an issue for London—I look forward to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The Government’s own statements make this clear. In their Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands, they refer explicitly to London’s transport system and state:
“Bringing local transport systems outside London to the standards of the capital is a critical part of levelling up, driving growth and prosperity.”
Two things flow from this statement which are relevant to London. First, London and TfL set the standard to be achieved, and cutting back on services in London has no part in the Government’s trumpeted policy of levelling up. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case?
Secondly, the growth and prosperity of London depends as much on having a good transport system as it does in the north and the Midlands. The point that is too often missed from debates about levelling up is that this is not a zero-sum game; growth and prosperity in the north and Midlands depend to a significant extent on growth and prosperity in London. It is worth noting that London currently has the highest unemployment rate of any UK region. This is bad news for everyone—not just for Londoners but for the whole country and our economic prospects. The Government must recognise that London has a critical role to play in the nation’s economic recovery. I am sure that the Minister knows all this but, for whatever reason, we have ended up in this absurd situation where there is no certainty about TfL’s funding in two days’ time.
To return to my original question, does the Minister accept that the Government have a responsibility to avoid this sort of brinkmanship in these negotiations? She may well blame the mayor, but does she accept any responsibility? In any event, what constructive steps will the Government take in future to achieve the necessary longer-term agreement that should be put in place?
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I will follow his excellent example by also declaring my interest as a resident for the whole working week in London for many years and a regular user of the District and Circle lines and the cheerful 507 bus service from Waterloo.
That said, and to pick up the noble Lord’s last point and the point he made about how important London is to the national economy, I think the Government have stepped up to the plate, keeping TfL running not with Londoners’ money but with more than £4 billion and counting of taxpayers’ money, gathered from all over the country—national money, in other words. So it is to me a considerable paradox that Members of our national Parliament cannot usually put down, say, a Written Question about TfL, because we are rightly told by the Table Office that it is independent and nothing to do with Parliament. Shedloads of money is going into London and TfL, but we cannot even have a Written Question such as the one noble Lords have tried to table in recent weeks on what is happening about the wearing of face coverings in London, because that is said to be something that is not for Parliament. So it is very hard for us to know, on behalf of national taxpayers like me, what is going on within the Bermuda Triangle that seems to me to characterise TfL accountability.
It is clear that the mayor should have done much more about the wearing of face coverings on the London Underground over the last few months and encouraging it. It is equally clear that the mayor and his team have made scant efforts to attend even to the basics in TfL, such as seeing that fares are properly collected and that fare dodgers are reasonably, properly and carefully brought to account. I hope that is something that everyone in this House would agree with.
The money to keep services running is being provided by national taxpayers, so the mayor now needs to show much more leadership and to take more financial responsibility himself. He needs to look at everything that could raise more funds to help run TfL from, for example, road users paying per mile to widening the congestion zone, however unfortunate and unpopular that might be to some, lest we be stuck into infinity with an annual round of campaigning from the mayor to cover up bus signs and shut down Tube lines in a fashion that even the late Dr Beeching would not have dared to do.
All that said, it is pretty obvious to the attentive noble Lord that I am a supporter of the Government in this, so I will save my last word for them. I certainly strongly support the Government—although I might be something of an endangered species, if you read the morning papers. As soon as the latest pandemic threats are evaluated and things get back to whatever the new normal is, I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will adopt an attitude or even a policy of creative courage where they can in order to, without any cost at all, bring passengers back into central and outer London.
One way of doing that is to bring civil servants back to their offices again, as soon as possible, for the good of the nation, London and the Civil Service itself. Bringing civil servants back to their expensive and now too often white elephant office blocks, to seeing and talking to colleagues at the coffee point and to helping and encouraging new joiners; all these things are critically important. To parody the old saying “Get on your bike”, it is more a case of “Get off your Pelotons” at home and get back into the office in the cause of a better Civil Service.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that, once we know what the new normal is, we need to think boldly and creatively about the long term. However, everyone accepts that we have no idea what the new normal will be at the moment, because we are still in the pandemic. We have just gone into another wave, which is having a further negative impact on traffic levels.
It is utterly ludicrous for the Government to be forcing TfL into short-term, acrimonious funding agreements, as they have been doing every three or six months, when everyone knows that the problem is the pandemic. It is rather like denying a heart replacement patient blood on the grounds that they do not have a long-term plan for improving their fitness. Until they have survived the operation—got through the pandemic, in this case—we cannot look at these longer-term issues.
My noble friend’s strictures at the beginning were well made. Unless the Government want to kill the national economy, which I do not think they do, they simply will agree to roll on the funding; there will be an agreement tomorrow and it will be similar to the one that went before. This is wasting a huge amount of time and energy among the senior management of TfL and in the Department for Transport, where I know officials are at their wits’ end, having to go through this charade of negotiations, knowing that the status quo will be the status quo ante until we get to the end of the pandemic.
When we get to the end and know what the new normal is, some very hard questions will of course need to be asked. But we need to know what the new normal is in terms of traffic levels, and these are very hard to predict; I have seen a whole range of potential traffic levels. The report done for the mayor, the TfL independent review of a year ago, suggested we might get to about 80% of traffic levels. I have looked at the sourcing for those estimates and, to be frank, this is fingers in the air stuff—the Minister will probably agree with that. We simply do not know what the new normal will be.
It was very striking that, when so much encouragement was given to people to come back to the office and resume normal activity after the second lockdown, traffic levels were restored remarkably quickly. The idea that there is somehow going to be a systemic loss of traffic may be far too gloomy a prediction.
When we do know what the new normal is, we obviously need to address this. I will highlight very briefly four issues that we should address. The first has to be bus priority. If buses in London went, on average, 1 mph faster than they do at the moment, it would save TfL nearly £200 million a year in the running costs of the bus network, with fewer buses, much more efficient operations and so on. It should not be beyond the wit of good transport managers in TfL to ensure improved bus priority to get buses moving faster. There has been a significant reduction in average bus speeds in London over the last 10 years, because of a failure to join up policy properly when we are all in favour of faster buses in principle—
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My noble friend says that priority cycle lanes are a problem; we can debate that issue, but there needs to be much better joining up and we should encourage the mayor to look at that as a key priority.
The second issue has to be the future of congestion charging and road pricing in London. At the moment, we have a hybrid system of a low emission zone and a small congestion zone for which prices have gone up a lot. We need to join up and look at the longer-term role of congestion charging.
I will mention two other points and will be very brief, because my time is nearly up. We need to look at reform of council tax arrangements as part of future arrangements. There is a very strong argument for an additional council tax band, given what has happened to property values in the capital over the last 30 years, and that could help to fund Transport for London.
Finally, when Crossrail and the Elizabeth line open, I hope, next year—we are looking forward to it—a big issue will be the interaction between the transformational additional capacity of Crossrail, with its 10% of additional transport capacity in London, and new housing, which will also produce new council tax revenue. So, there are four big things that should be looked at, but not this short-term, ludicrous funding crisis that we have been going through during the pandemic.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I live in London. I have a 60-plus Oyster card. I was a TfL board member for eight years and deputy chairman for half that time. I have great affection for Transport for London. Nobody wants to see a long-term settlement for it more than I do, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, just explained, it is impossible to put one in place at the moment.
A comparison is sometimes drawn with the train operating companies, which have been funded. Politically, constitutionally and legally, they are agents of the Government. The difference is that, politically, constitutionally and legally, TfL is an agent of the mayor. To understand the Government’s anxiety about entering into a long-term settlement with the mayor, one needs a forensic understanding of his financial responsibility over the past four years. He was elected in May 2016. The pandemic hit in March 2020, almost exactly four years later. I want to concentrate on those four years.
Before the pandemic hit, the mayor came into office with two dangerous pledges. One was a fare freeze at a time when public transport was heaving with people and there was money for him to collect. As he has accepted, the cost of that fare freeze over a four-year period was £600 million; that is £600 million forgone. He added to that the Hopper fare on buses, allowing people two rides in an hour. TfL budgeted £35 million per annum to fund that, only to find after a year that there were 100 million usages at £1.50 a pop. That is a top figure; TfL will not give an estimate. It is a bit complicated—some people might have hit the daily cap, for example—so let us be generous and say that this represented only £130 million forgone per year. That means another £600 million forgone over four years, adding up to £1.2 billion left on the table by the mayor in the fat years. The result was a subsidy for the buses, which hit £600 million under Ken Livingstone. Under Boris Johnson, that was brought down to £450 million with no loss in bus mileage. Under Sadiq Khan, before the pandemic, it rose to £750 million a year, with a 7% cut in bus mileage to go with it.
The mayor’s second pledge was that there would be no strikes on the Underground. That is an easy, but expensive, pledge to fulfil: you just give in to the unions. Until recently, that is exactly what he did. One consequence of that has been a considerable growth in the number of Tube drivers. The system needs about 3,000 as a minimum to run. When I last looked, before the pandemic hit, there were in excess of 4,000. Let us say that there are 1,000 excess posts at roughly £50,000—possibly £60,000 now—a year. That is £200 million over four years, which brings us up to £1.4 billion forgone. To his credit, the mayor embarked on a reduction in the management head count but, given the generous severance packages negotiated by the unions, it will take several years for TfL to see the cash-flow benefits of that come through.
There is little to say on Crossrail, given the time. According to the mayor’s own account, he was totally surprised and shocked when it blew up in his face—presumably because he had taken no interest in it up to that point.
Of course, from his own resources, the mayor could not have coped with the pandemic. Nobody is suggesting that, even if that £1.5 billion or so was in the bank waiting to help him through, he could have got through a pandemic of the length we have seen without government subvention. However, it is hard to discern how he has faced up to the hard choices that this sudden, possibly continuing, loss of income has made for TfL. There is a lot of pleading for money from him but very little leadership; this is consistent with his behaviour in the fat years.
My noble friend the Minister will have her own view but, having myself struck long-term deals for TfL with, among other people, Conservative Governments and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who just spoke, I well understand the difficulties that the current Government have in doing so now.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the debate so far has been very interesting, but it all started because the income that TfL gets from its passengers has gone down due to Covid. There is no argument about that. What is worrying is that it has affected TfL much more than it has transport in other cities. London First has said that 70% of TfL’s income in London comes from fares, compared with 38% for authorities in New York and Paris, so it is much more reliant on fares. As noble Lords have said, there is not a lot that we can do about it at the moment.
This has got worse because we have many more people using public transport in London than in other cities—about three times as many. However, it is worse than that because, so far, London has been given about three times the income per head of population than other cities in this country have been given. What comes out of this debate and the comments made is the question of who is in charge, and of devolution. Many noble Lords have criticised the present mayor; I could criticise the previous one, who did one good thing in producing more bus lanes but did many other things that I could criticise heavily. We criticise them but, after all, the mayors are elected.
The Government are now saying that there will be more devolution, particularly for transport in the north and the Midlands—we can debate another day whether it is the northern powerhouse or something else—but if these organisations, including TfL, are elected or come about as the result of an election, we have to allow them to get on and win or fail, depending on what the electors think.
What really got me about this debate was the letter from the Secretary of State for Transport to the mayor, dated 1 June this year. It set out six months of settlement and was 20 pages long, with enormous detail about how many driverless trains there should be and all sorts of other things. I will not go through it now, but does a mayor really need a 20-page document with a lifespan of just six months—it will run out tomorrow—telling him in detail exactly what to do for an authority that is supposed to be devolved?
I do not know what the Government are going to do to sort this one out—noble Lords have given them many ideas; I have a few myself, although I will not come on to them today—but this is the kind of thing that northern cities, such as Manchester and Leeds, will want from devolution. They will want someone to say, “Right, here is your scope of work. This is the amount of money you’re going to get—now get on with it.” But that is not what is happening up there at the moment; it certainly is not happening in London, either.
I hope that, when she responds, the Minister will say, “We do believe in devolution. We are going to let go and, in the end, let the electors decide who is doing well and who is doing less well.”
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has asked me to present her apologies for not being able to speak this afternoon. However, I think she would agree with me that the problems of TfL have been well reported and debated in recent weeks. From the perspective of the travelling public, the commitment of Ministers in principle to find a long-term agreement that will enable TfL to plan for the future is most welcome.
I do not want to repeat the history of TfL’s financial problems, so clearly explained by the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Moylan, and others. Clearly, the huge reduction of journeys from 120 million on London Underground in a five-week period in autumn 2019 to 39.5 million over a similar period a year later means severe financial dislocation, given that fares represent a high proportion of overall income for TfL.
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, suggested I might, I want to broaden the issues a little because the problems of financing in London, while not quite the same, are similar elsewhere in England. Many areas will face managed decline in service provision unless further financial support is forthcoming. In the case of the Tyne and Wear Metro, which I use regularly, the Government have confirmed that emergency Covid-19 payments, which have been paid through the pandemic, will cease at the end of March 2022. If this situation continues, there will be a major shortfall of just over £20 million in the 2022-23 financial year, most of which is caused by the impact of Covid on ridership. Given yesterday’s announcement asking those who can to work from home, ridership will now fall further, having got back to 85%—although not 100%—of pre-pandemic levels in recent weeks.
To make up nearly £21 million on Metro income, support for bus services will have to fall significantly. That means reductions in concessionary bus fares and in secured services, and this will impact in turn on bus company income. Stretching income—which is the intention—will be extremely hard given the long-term nature of the pandemic and its impact, and use of reserves is of course finite.
Lack of further support for Metro will lead to major cuts in bus services, particularly in those areas without Metro. In view of yesterday’s announcement, it seems essential that this matter is urgently reviewed. Perhaps underground and light rail should be treated the same as the national rail network. Metro is an essential transport system supporting the economy of Tyne and Wear, and the financial shortfall is caused by the pandemic. I hope the Minister can agree that an extension of help after March next year would now be justified, as it would be for all areas suffering income loss on light rail.
As we have heard, for the sake of the economy we have to keep the country moving. Decisions are becoming urgent since budgets will need to be set four weeks from now in mid-January.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I too declare an interest as a Londoner and a Freedom pass holder. I am also standing counsel to the RMT, ASLEF and Unite, which means that from time to time I advise and represent those unions. I have not been called on in relation to the issue now before the House and, needless to say, I represent nobody but myself.
The interests of the Government, the Department for Transport, the mayor, TfL, Londoners and visitors are obvious. My concern in the present negotiations between the DfT and TfL is: what about the workers? These are the people who, as essential staff, kept Londoners working and travelling during the pandemic. Almost 100 workers on London’s transport died because of Covid, together with an unknown number of cab drivers, private hire drivers and delivery riders.
Uncertainty of funding means uncertainty of employment. We understand that TfL must prepare for the worst as the current funding package runs out, but whether its worst-case scenario of an 18% cut in bus services and a 9% cut in Underground services turns out to be too pessimistic, the staff working the buses and the Tube are left anxious and worried that some of them may lose their livelihoods and others have their hours and/or pay cut. This is no way, as they say, to run a railway. Nor are cuts to jobs in London transport, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, implies, any way to build back better or to prepare for a green transition.
Just as TfL—and indeed the Government—needs long-term planning, so do the individual members of its staff and their families. I ask the Minister to assure the House that when agreement is reached for funding past 11 December, the department will then sit down with TfL to agree a long-term plan for funding so that finances do not lurch from one half year to the next. I ask her too to undertake to ensure that the unions are at that negotiating table. Staff are entitled to have their voice heard on long-term strategy as well as day-to-day issues.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton on securing this very timely debate. We well remember Mr Chris Grayling when he was Secretary of State for Transport making it clear that he was not handing over responsibility for any rail services to TfL because that would mean giving them to a Labour mayor—full stop. There was no consideration of what was logical or in the best interests of London and Londoners, just a crude display of party-political antagonism on his part. The next few days will show whether we are going to see a similar approach to determining policy on TfL from the current Secretary of State for Transport.
Since the onset of Covid, Transport for London and TfL staff have kept London’s transport network going at the behest of the Government and in line with government guidance, thus enabling key workers in particular to get to and from their vital work—vital work that cannot be carried out from home. Inevitably this has led to a major hole in TfL’s finances, as numbers of passengers travelling during the pandemic— and therefore income—fell dramatically and still remain well down on pre-pandemic levels. If Sadiq Khan had been as profligate as his immediate predecessor as mayor, under whom debt increased fourfold, the financial position would be even worse. The latest confusing announcement from the Prime Minister yesterday on new Covid restrictions—which by an interesting coincidence was made on the same day that the main news story until then had been the Christmas party at 10 Downing Street—is almost certain to have a further adverse effect on TfL revenue, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said.
Previous financial settlements during Covid have all been, at the Government’s insistence, on a short-term basis, and the necessary financial support has been forthcoming only with strings attached, with the Government telling the London mayor—a mayor with a recently renewed mandate from the people of London —what policy changes he must accept before that financial support will be provided.
We now appear to be going through the same process again, with the deadline just a couple of days away. The Secretary of State does not seem keen to work with the mayor in the interests of Londoners and the London economy. Perhaps like Mr Grayling, this is because he is a Labour mayor, and the Secretary of State, one suspects, wishes once again to use the considerable leverage he has to in effect impose policy changes.
The Government argue that they act in the interests of all taxpayers. This is a surprising claim from a Government who wasted billions of pounds—way in excess of anything that Transport for London needs to keep its vital transport network going—on a largely failed test and trace system, and who handed out major contracts to political sympathisers without competitive tendering.
The Government claim that TfL has more than enough money to keep services running at their current levels, when the reality is that TfL needs at least £245 million for the rest of this financial year and £1.1 billion for next year. That is based on a “managed decline” scenario in investment and services which will only make the situation worse in the future. As it is, TfL has already reduced its planned spend on enhancements and extensions by £5.7 billion over the next 10 years. The Government seem to think that there is no link between running services and capital funding. Government support has to cover both. Investing to maintain and improve the transport infrastructure is vital to sustaining the quality and reliability of rail and bus services.
The Government claim that they want to give TfL a longer-term deal. But in the October 2020 funding deal the Government said that:
“During the course of the H2 Funding Period, HMG want to work with TfL on long-term plans with an aim to be in a position where a longer-term settlement is possible from March 2021 when this funding package expires.”
Needless to say, with this Government, a long-term settlement did not materialise in March 2021 or any time since, and the spending review did not grant any of the funding TfL requested.
TfL, the mayor and London’s businesses have been clear that TfL has been playing, and continues to play, a central role in the economic recovery of London and the UK as a whole. We shall find out in the next day or two whether the Government can finally bring themselves to recognise that too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a Londoner. Sadly, I am not a Freedom pass holder. I do not even get one of those free chitties for the over-60s, but my husband does; he is in full-time employment and yet he has free travel—go figure.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for securing such a very timely debate on the important issue of extraordinary funding and financing for Transport for London. I think we would all agree that London has one of the best public transport systems in the world, and the Government recognise how crucial it has been throughout the pandemic and how important it is to our capital and country.
The onset of the pandemic had a devastating impact on TfL. Ridership was absolutely decimated. In spring 2020, passenger journeys reduced by 95%, almost overnight. When TfL’s income plummeted, and as the Government advised people to stay at home to curtail the spread of the virus, we necessarily stepped in to ensure the continued provision of essential transport services in London. By supporting TfL, the Government ensured that essential transport services were available to key workers, including nurses, teachers and retail staff, at all times. I am enormously grateful—I have said this many times before—to all the TfL staff for their incredible service during the pandemic, and of course I too mourn the loss of life among transport workers, both in London and beyond.
However, it is appropriate to note at this juncture that transport in London is devolved to the Mayor of London—this was noted by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The mayor is responsible for service levels. He can decide which buses and tubes he runs, as well as asset maintenance and enhancements, fares and much more, as noted by my noble friend Lord Moylan. The mayor must take decisions relating to transport in good times; for example, when the mayor decided that a multi-year fares freeze was a great idea, despite it costing hundreds of millions of pounds. He must also take those decisions when times are a little more challenging, as they are now.
What should the Government do in all this? In normal times, the Government would agree a settlement with any devolved area, whether that be London, Manchester or Liverpool, and there is a package of powers and responsibilities, local fundraising routes and a contribution from central government. Many noble Lords have commented on the lack of a great handover of cash from central government, but that is not entirely the case. We are slightly missing the fact that some of London’s business rates, instead of being paid to the Government, go to the Mayor of London. That funding is essentially made by the Government, and it replaces the grant that went before.
Since the outset of the pandemic, the Government have consistently recognised the financial distress that has affected TfL as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, and we have continually demonstrated our commitment to supporting TfL. To date, the Government have provided more than £4.1 billion to TfL in emergency funding over the last 18 months—that is a considerable amount of money in what are, quite frankly, very difficult times. The current emergency funding settlement for TfL went from June to December and is worth just over £1 billion. If you add that to the two previous bailouts, in May 2020 and October 2020, that takes you up to the £4.1 billion figure.
This emergency funding is separate from other funding that TfL gets. It gets £1 billion a year towards capital investment. Noble Lords were decrying the lack of long-term certainty of funding, but that £1 billion a year was announced at the spending review and will continue up to 2024-25. That is, in fact, the same amount of funding that TfL got the previous year. I should say again that the pressures on the nation’s finances are very significant.
It is worth noting, although I cannot go into the detail that my noble friend Lord Moylan did, that even before the pandemic TfL was in a precarious financial position, with a funding shortfall of approximately £2 billion—perhaps indicating that those fares freezes were not wise. Events since March 2020 have exacerbated and highlighted TfL’s financial difficulties, so the extraordinary financial support that the Government have provided must be considered—and in the Government’s mind is always being considered—in the light of the longer challenge of how we ensure that London’s transport system is funded for the longer term. Here I slightly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who seemed to say that we just have to get through the pandemic and then we will sort it out. There is a good opportunity to provide a framework for sorting it out now, and that is exactly what these funding deals do.
TfL’s own independent review—again, noted by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—published in December 2020, recognised that TfL has a continuing funding shortfall. It considered a range of options to close the funding gap, including increasing fares and removing concessions; all of these are matters for the Mayor of London. TfL’s own financial sustainability plan, published shortly afterwards, in early January this year, set out, to some extent, TfL’s ambition to become financially sustainable. But TfL’s plan lacked a clear and decisive road map, which would have required difficult decisions at TfL and in City Hall, to achieve that longer-term financial sustainability.
In supporting TfL, the Government have been very focused on how to provide a framework in which TfL can become financially sustainable. By that we mean that TfL should be able to cover, without government support, its operating expenditure, capital renewals and enhancements, servicing and the repayment of debt. We certainly would not expect it to cover major capital infrastructure, such as Crossrail or potentially Piccadilly line signalling and those sorts of things, but we would expect it to cover the day-to-day capital expenditure. We are very clear that endless short-term bailouts from government is not a sustainable situation. TfL needs to be financially sustainable, ideally by spring 2023. It is now up to the Mayor of London to set out in detail how TfL should get there.
I absolutely pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis —I thought he had some cracking tips in his speech on how the mayor might get there. Perhaps he might get himself a new job in the mayor’s office.
Part of this framework, and the way that we have been dealing with and encouraging TfL to become financially sustainable, is all about the conditions and scrutiny that we are able to put on, because of course we have to protect public money. This is national taxpayers’ money from the national taxpayer.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, if the noble Baroness says that a long-term settlement should be put in place now, can she tell the House—because it is an absolutely crucial issue—her estimate of what traffic levels after the pandemic will be, relative to traffic levels before it?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will come on to longer-term funding, if the noble Lord will give me time—although I might now run out of time. I will skip on a weeny bit.
We have required the mayor to make much-needed efficiencies and savings in the TfL cost base. It is funny, when you turn the spotlight on, how much money you can find in there: £720 million in ongoing savings. That is quite a lot of money—I am not sure we would have found that had we not gone through the pandemic. Obviously, work continues. We are reviewing the TfL capital programme to draw out the efficiencies and we have asked the mayor to look at new income sources to raise between £0.5 billion and £1 billion and to report regularly on the financial position.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, will know, if he looks back through the deal letters, that it is the case that the Government have committed to a review of the future funding of TfL, and that work is ongoing. We will not suddenly have a long-term deal for the next five years from Saturday. I think all noble Lords recognise that, in the midst of a pandemic, that would not be wise. We have also required TfL to initiate other necessary reforms, such as to the TfL pension scheme, so that it can transform into a modern and efficient transport operator, fit for the future of London.
I turn specifically to the pensions issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, there is always a pensions issue. TfL’s own independent panel recognised that TfL’s pension scheme was outdated and in need of reform. It is not the Government saying that but its own independent panel. So we agreed with the mayor in the funding settlement that a process would be put in place in order to modernise and reform the pensions, and we will have a report from Sir Brendan Barber by 31 March next year.
On capital, the Government are contributing capital as well as income. There has been the £1 billion of capital a year, which I have mentioned. On top of that we have had to provide further funding for Crossrail—and I am very excited that it is opening soon. There has been funding for Hammersmith Bridge. However, TfL has made an announcement via its financial committee—and this is where we start getting into the PR and spin of TfL, or the “mayor’s world”. This level of funding means that TfL now has to implement something called its “managed decline scenario” for capital investment. Let me be absolutely clear that that rather unambitious phrase comes from the Mayor of London playbook. It is not what we want or expect to see for London, and we will continue to work with TfL to fully understand the detail of the future capital programme.
On new income, noble Lords may be asking: what is holding up the current deal? The plan is. Before the pandemic, 70% of TfL’s revenue came from fares. TfL’s finances need to be more resilient, and again this was noted again by TfL’s own independent panel. Work therefore had to commence to find new income sources, some of which had been identified by the independent panel, so a fair amount of work had been done. The mayor was given a deadline of mid-November, so that we would have the plan in good time before the deal ends. He failed to deliver the requisite document. He was then given an extension until 8 December—yesterday. We finally received a submission from the mayor yesterday at 8 pm. We are urgently considering what he sent us late last night, but we are very clear that it is for the mayor to decide new income approaches.
We know that omicron may provide an additional level of uncertainty. We know that TfL had started to recover and that things were looking better for London, but we are not sure where things will go over the coming days and weeks. The Government remain on-risk for revenue under the current funding settlement and use the top-up mechanism to protect TfL from exposure to unexpected changes in passenger demand.
On the point about Nexus made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, all that I will say is that I met Nexus earlier this week—so everything he said, I already knew, and I have heard its pleas.
In conclusion, the Government will continue to support TfL in a way that is fair to the UK taxpayer and ensures continued services on London’s transport system. In return, the Mayor of London must step up and lead from the front by making potentially difficult decisions in difficult times. At the moment, we are seeing a PR blitz of overexaggerated claims of doom, which he blames on others. We as central government have not been able to swerve difficult decisions, and neither should he. We look forward to working with the mayor in the coming hours, days, weeks and months to ensure that the capital has the modern, efficient and sustainable transport system that it needs and deserves.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I am afraid that my actual Question in the way I phrased it in my introduction was not answered. Effectively, reading between the lines, the Minister is saying that it is totally the mayor’s fault and the Government are not prepared to do anything to avoid this situation arising in future.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am over time, but I will respond. I am saying that there is definitely fault on the mayor’s side, but I am saying that we have had to be very flexible in this process all the way through. I have been deeply involved in it for the past 18 months or whatever. We have always had to be very flexible, because things change. That has always been our goal. However, at the core of all that is the direction of travel of making TfL financially sustainable and understanding what it would look like by April 2023 and, thereafter, what a longer-term future for TfL looks like. That is our prize and what we have our eyes on. We would like the mayor to join us on that journey. He is not quite there yet, but I am forever hopeful.
Energy: Civil Nuclear Power
Lord Howell of Guildford
That this House takes note of the role of civil nuclear power in meeting the United Kingdom’s electricity needs and energy security.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring interests advising energy-related companies, as detailed in the register, and as chair of Windsor Energy Group, as former president of the Energy Industries Association and the British Institute of Energy Economists, and—rather a long time ago—as a former UK Energy Secretary, although I must say in very different times from those we now face.
I am going to start with the civil nuclear future rather than the present, because I do think it is possible to strike a very positive note there. In fact, I do not disagree totally with those who say that the whole civil nuclear power industry could be on the verge of a spectacular new birth. I shall come later to the immediate state of nuclear power in the UK where, I am afraid, the situation is far from positive and some very serious issues demand extremely urgent government attention.
However, further ahead, we can see the outlines of two important advances. First, there is the prospect of building smaller modular reactors in place of or supplementing the giant plants that we know today. This has long been talked about but is now becoming genuinely within reach. Smaller modular reactors, as we all know, can be built far quicker, fabricated in the factory and, because of the speed of construction, are, importantly, far more attractive to private finance, which is one of the keys to progress. Rolls-Royce tells us that commercial models are now in sight, will deliver about 470 megawatts each and cost around £2 billion—starting higher than that but ending lower. This compares with the giant EPR nuclear station being built here in Britain at Hinkley Point C, with a capacity of 3,260 megawatts and at a cost—still climbing, I fear—of around £23 billion. The new, smaller machines would be located on present or older mothballed nuclear station sites.
Obviously, we are not the only people pursuing this avenue. China, America and France all have working models, and Japan is ahead on its new high-temperature gas-cooled advanced reactor, which is also smaller but not quite as small as the Rolls-Royce models. But, with considerable renewed government support, Rolls-Royce now has a war chest of about £490 million with which to build its business case, and that is what it is doing with some vigour.
The second new prospect for nuclear power is fusion, or
“putting the sun in a bottle”,
as the late Walter Marshall described it to me when he was mentoring me in these areas. I know that this has always been a sort of holy grail, just out of reach tomorrow and never quite there, but things are changing there, too. Just outside Oxford at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, they are getting to that crucial point where the fusion process, which requires unimaginably large amounts of electricity to make it work at all, may nevertheless be producing more power than it drinks in, thus making it a net, completely clean and mercifully waste-free electricity source on a vast and cheap scale. It is a truly international operation called ITER, in which France, America and, indeed, Russia are playing a role, along with 32 other countries. In fact, the original design of the fusion machine—the so-called Tokamak fusion reactor—was Russian.
So all this is quite promising for the future of nuclear, and it is cleaner in every way. But when we scroll back to the present situation here in the UK, I am afraid that it is an entirely different story and the negatives really begin into appear. First, we need to face the fact that we are all going to need a lot more electricity in a cleaner, greener world ahead. The best estimate is that by 2050 the world will be needing about 12 times the present flow of clean electric power. Even by 2030 to 2035, the increase will be enormous.
Secondly, if we want to curb climate extremes and emissions growth as hoped and planned, there is not the slightest hope of doing so without a solid base of renewable, firm, low-carbon nuclear power serving as both a back-up and a baseload. However efficient we are at conserving power and insulating homes, our now entirely computerised world and our capacity to feed 7.5 billion or 8 billion people rests on secure electric power supply. Quite aside from that, nuclear power will be a major source of clean electricity for hydrogen.
Thirdly, if we want an orderly energy transition without wild instability in the system, a substantial nuclear section of reliable 24/7 electricity is vital. Strong renewable flows demand strong nuclear back-up if they are to deliver without vast disruption and hardship. It is not just that the wind sometimes drops for long periods; there are always events, sometimes quite unforeseen or related to faraway distant disorder or conflict, that can hit any energy system, where strong back-up and swing supply sources are absolutely essential to maintain the current.
Here in the UK, our old original fleet of nuclear power stations is wearing out. They will all be closed by the mid-2020s, except the one that I had the privilege of authorising, along with eight other pressurised water reactors, in October 1979, at Sizewell B. That finally began operating in 1995—quite a long time later. The only new replacement since then has been the 3,260 megawatt giant at Hinkley Point, built by the French and the Chinese, with EDF and the China General Nuclear Power Group having the major shares in it. The EPR design they are building now, which is a sort of great-grandchild of PWR, might well encounter faults. Indeed, it has encountered quite a few already, as has every other EPR built around the world, including the one in China, which has very recently gone wrong.
Of course, we should have planned a replacement fleet much earlier, but the mood turned against nuclear in the 1990s. My personal dream was to follow part of the amazing French example. They built 58 PWRs in the 1970s. To get on that track, my first task was to get the quarrelling nuclear scientific establishment to agree on a single design after years of CP Snow-like back-room bickering outside the corridors of power. Eventually, after some difficulty, we chose the PWR route as well. I sought advice from the formidable French Industry and Energy Minister, André Giraud, but it was too late. The eight more I hoped for were never built. Cheaper oil and gas undermined the economic case completely, and long-term national security was not considered worth the enormous cost.
We had to wait another 20 years until the Labour Government, having been totally against nuclear, gradually came round to it and started talks with the French and the Chinese, which led to the 2008 agreement for CGN to take a third interest in Hinkley C. But this is where geopolitics and technology collided. The original new plan was to build one large twin reactor at Hinkley, another at Wylfa in north Wales, another at Moorside in Lancashire, another still at Sizewell as a replica of Hinkley, and possibly one at Oldbury. To this end, Chinese participation—mainly financial—was invited at Hinkley and Sizewell, but with the enticement of a further all-Chinese project at Bradwell in Essex, which would be the springboard for world sales of the Chinese model.
That was the plan, but it is not how things worked out all. Toshiba withdrew from Moorside, Hitachi withdrew from Wylfa over difficulties on pricing, and of course the mood towards China changed through 180 degrees, from a love of everything Chinese 10 years ago to dislike and suspicion towards everything Chinese now. Having invited the Chinese in, the Government now seem determined to get them out, withdrawing the precious offer to the Chinese of their new station at Bradwell and keeping them out of Sizewell C as well.
The obvious danger is that CGN will get the message of being unwelcome and pull out of the one station that we are actually constructing at Hinkley. That would bring our great replacement programme to a sickening halt. We would like to know from the Minister this evening about the state of play on that delicate and difficult front. We would also like to know whether anything can be revived at Wylfa—this time with Westinghouse, with perhaps a set of small reactors on the same site.
Meanwhile, our own nuclear supply has shrunk from a peak of 30% of our total electricity to 22%, and now 17%, and it is heading for 7%. Of course, gas has swollen to fill the gap, from 1% in the 1980s to 43% now—actually, last month, it was as much as 55% of all our electricity. This of course creates its own problems, as overdependence on any one fuel and power source always does, and as we have seen from the current astronomical rise in gas prices. When the cap is lifted in April, this will strike home with deadly force and torpedo millions of household budgets. We simply cannot afford to conduct our energy policy in this way, as a great high-tech, modern nation.
We are not the only ones in trouble: the Germans are in a fix because Mrs Merkel—so wise in some areas—decided to drop nuclear power but forgot to fill the gap. It ended up being filled by coal and Russian gas—the two very worst solutions on climate and security grounds. This explains why, today, German carbon emissions are 8.4 tonnes per head, compared to 5.4 tonnes here and 5 tonnes in France. That is what you get if you reject nuclear power altogether. We must escape from this quagmire, and we can do if we act firmly and decisively now.
I end by putting two key questions to my noble friend the Minister. Who pays if the Chinese go? If CGN takes its support away not just from Sizewell C but perhaps even from Hinkley, who fills the hole of £20 billion or so in each case? Secondly, are we still committed to giant plants, or will we wait for the SMRs, which are cheaper and quicker and have lower waste? Will we still depend on public finance and enormously heavy and complex charge burdens on consumers, who are already paying some of the highest energy bills in Europe, or can we shift to smaller plants financed by private investors? Decisions on both these central questions cannot be escaped much longer.
Lessons from the current experience of chaos in the energy markets is that orderly energy transition to a low-carbon world must have back-up, and a large part of that—if it is to be low carbon and in line with climate goals—has to be nuclear. Without that, and with more delay—you cannot just demand a close-down overnight of investment in all fossil fuels at speed—we will end up with horrendous spikes, blackouts, outages, suffering and political revolt, which of course ends up undermining all popular support for the very climate policies that we are trying to achieve. That is the nuclear power dilemma of the age, and it must now be resolved.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, the Government believe, despite compelling evidence to the contrary, that private investors can be relied on to create and maintain our industrial infrastructure. This delusion is threatening our energy security and it may subvert the attempt to staunch our emissions of carbon dioxide. The belief is due, in part, to the Government’s political ideology, which favours private enterprise and is averse to state interventions in industry. It is also due to a misinterpretation of the recent history of the electricity supply industry. The successful investment of private companies in gas-fired power stations, which have largely replaced coal-fired power stations, has encouraged the belief in private investment, and the faith in the electricity industry has been strengthened by its ability to invest, subsequently, in wind-powered electricity generation.
No more than three years were required for the construction of gas-fired power stations. Such power stations were able to exploit a cheap and plentiful supply of North Sea gas. Nowadays, the available gas is expensive and its supply is insecure. The replacement of coal by gas has been responsible for a considerable reduction in our carbon emissions. An accompanying process of deindustrialisation has also reduced the energy demands of the economy and its use of fossil fuels. From 1990 to 2020, the UK’s emissions of carbon dioxide fell from 800 million to 420 million tonnes per annum, a two-thirds reduction of its former amount. These reductions cannot be expected to continue. Nevertheless, they have provided the basis for a proud assertion that Britain is leading the way in its process of decarbonisation.
The Climate Change Committee has warned repeatedly and with increasing urgency that we are liable to miss the targets that we have set to decarbonise the economy. This reflects the realisation that we have no adequate means of supplying the power that could sustain a green industrial revolution. Abundant electricity will be required to power our transport and heat our buildings. It will also be required to replace the fossil fuels used in the production of such basic materials as steel, bricks, glass and cement and in the manufacture of chemicals. The list can be extended. It seems that the Government have greatly underestimated the magnitude of this demand. There is a growing realisation that nuclear power is the only appropriate means of satisfying the need for a secure and abundant supply of electricity.
Britain’s original nuclear power stations relied on finance from the Government. The present Government have insisted that a new generation of nuclear power stations must be financed by private capital. The demand has been difficult to meet and there has been a succession of failed projects. A problem affecting private sector projects to build nuclear power stations is that no revenue will be forthcoming for as long as it takes to complete the construction, which may be as long as 10 years. The firms and the consortia that have been proposing the projects have been unable to raise the necessary capital from the financial markets to supplement their own limited resources. The high rates of interest charged for borrowing the funds are liable to make the projects to build nuclear power stations unsustainable. The capital funds that are borrowed from the financial markets must be repaid eventually, and the repayments are burdened by surcharges comprised within the rate of interest.
The first of these arises from a discount factor that is applied to future repayments that are valued at less than present payments. The second surcharge is a risk premium that is charged by lenders as an insurance against the eventuality that the repayments will not materialise. Finally, to encourage the funds to be forthcoming, it may be necessary to pay a scarcity premium. These three surcharges can be reduced, if not eliminated, if the Government undertake to finance the project. The Government will be able to borrow the funds without paying a risk premium, under the supposition that they do not default on their debts. If the funds are not readily forthcoming from the financial markets, the Government may resort to creating the money to pre-empt the resources that will be demanded by the project. Finally, a Government who are intent on an enduring social investment may wish to discount future benefits, if at all, to a far lesser extent than lenders within a financial market would discount them.
The only project to build a nuclear power station that is currently under way in Britain is Hinkley C. It has been undertaken jointly by EDF and CGN, which, as we have been told, is the Chinese General Nuclear Power Group. CGN can rely on the Chinese state to provide its funds, whereas EDF has to supplement its funds with money raised from the financial markets.
It is commonly supposed that the markets are charging EDF a 9% interest rate. Borrowing £100 at this rate of interest will require a repayment in 10 years’ time of £236. Conversely, a discounted present value of £100 to be received in 10 years’ time is just £42. It is not possible on this basis to finance a large-scale infrastructure project with a lengthy gestation period via private capital. If such projects were to be financed by the Government, both the scarcity premium and the risk premium could be stripped away, leaving only the discount factor to affect the present value of the future benefits.
The Green Book, which is the Government’s manual for cost-benefit analysis, declares the social rate of time preference, which is the rate of interest to be used in their project appraisals, to be 3.5%. On this basis, the present value of £100 to be received in 10 years’ time would be £71. Borrowing £100 at this rate of interest will require a repayment in 10 years’ time of £141. This implies that a nuclear power plant financed by the Government should be eminently affordable.
However, one is inclined to ask why a discount rate should be applied to the future benefits of a nuclear power station, which will constitute a carbon-neutral source of electricity. If the Government are to be seen as a custodian of our future, they should not be discounting the benefits of a project that might be safeguarding us against the discomforts of global warming, if not against a future catastrophe. An implication of applying a discount rate corresponding to the commercial rate of interest of 9% might be that it is too expensive to undertake measures to save the planet. There are surely times when such commercial logic should go into abeyance.
Nevertheless, the Government have tried to create sufficient inducements to encourage the private sector to undertake investments in nuclear power. A first attempt at creating the necessary inducements was via a system of so-called contracts for difference, which promised sufficient payments to the constructors and operators of nuclear power plants to cover their costs. Guaranteed payments were entailed in the so-called strike price. Any returns to the investment below the strike price would be supplemented, and any returns that were above it would be taxed.
The system of contracts for difference has failed to bring forth sufficient investments and is due to be replaced by another system, known as a regulated asset base. This new regime, which has yet to be enacted in law, will allow the constructors of nuclear power plants to impose a levy on consumers of electricity during the period of construction, when there will be no other returns. Under such a regime, the capital funds would be supplied by the financial markets. The charge levied on consumers would represent a subsidy paid to the providers of capital, and would serve to alleviate the debts of the contractor. It remains to be seen whether this inducement will be sufficient to provide the funds for the construction of a nuclear reactor at Sizewell, which has been proposed by EDF.
Alternative ways to finance the projects that do not appear to have been considered by the Government are either to issue designated bonds, backed by the security of the Government, or to create a supply of funds to enable the projects to pre-empt the necessary resources by increasing the supply of money. Now is the time to adopt one or other of these recourses.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on their excellent speeches.
It is now accepted that the relentless increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is a serious problem that needs urgently to be stopped because the greenhouse heating effect that it causes results in sea-level rise and climate changes that are intolerable. To do this, we must reduce and, preferably, eliminate man-made CO2. The only way to do this, at present, without making major changes to our way of life or reducing the world’s population, is to use truly carbon-free means of generating power and heat. Unfortunately, at present, there are no such sources.
Wind, solar, and nuclear fission sources can be close to carbon-free once they are built and installed, but carbon is released in their construction and installation. Wind and solar sources are inherently intermittent in their output and must be backed up with continuous sources or used in conjunction with mass storage. The two leading options for backing them up are nuclear fission—the subject of this debate—and fossil fuel plants that capture and store the CO2 that results. The capture and storage of CO2 is yet to be demonstrated at scale, and its use continues the burning and consumption of fossil fuels, which I regard as unacceptable.
Many means of storage are being explored, such as batteries and pumped-water storage, but so far none has been demonstrated at scale; they will add significantly to the cost of the power produced. Hydroelectric sources are ideal but available only in certain geographical locations.
Nuclear fission has been used for generations. For example, it has allowed France to produce essentially carbon-free electricity for decades. However, it is thought by many to be unsafe and too expensive, and there are no practical ways to dispose of the radioactive waste it produces. I believe there are solutions to these three drawbacks that make nuclear the best option for backing up wind and solar power and allowing us to meet our 2050 obligations. I will treat them in turn.
First, on safety, the safety record of nuclear power in terms of fatalities has been orders of magnitude better than that of any fossil fuel sources, but several people died directly because of radiation illness in the accident at Chernobyl in 1986, and there is speculation that many may subsequently have died of cancer induced by the radiation. However, the plant at Chernobyl was regarded by nuclear engineers in the West as an accident waiting to happen. The design of the plant was known to be inherently flawed, and its operation should not have been allowed. Modern plants are designed to be proofed against such accidents.
The more recent flood damage to the Japanese nuclear plant at Fukushima caused by the giant tsunami has not yet resulted in any fatalities and would not have occurred if the flood barrier around the plant had been higher. The building of adequate flood protection is possible for all nuclear plants at a relatively modest cost, and is included in the design of modern plants.
Most recently, there has been a leak of radioactive gas at one of the new EPRs in Taishan, China. These reactors have been designed by EDF in France and are the same as those being built at Hinkley Point. Gas leaks from fuel rods have occurred at other nuclear plants around the world over the years, and the situation is handled by removing and replacing the rods. It is not a serious disaster as such. However, this process is expensive and time-consuming, and the situation in Taishan needs to be monitored carefully to make sure that similar leaks are avoided in other EPRs.
Despite these issues, the risk of accidents associated with nuclear plants is lower than that from other power sources. In 2020 there were 442 nuclear plants operating around the world, so the statistics are there to look at.
I will now discuss cost. The cost of modern full-scale nuclear plants has increased because of the extreme measures taken to avoid accidents and to take account of the perceived political and practical risks in their construction. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, mentioned financing costs. The financing cost of the new reactors being built at Hinkley Point has been said to be almost half their total cost, with the result that the cost of the electricity they produce rose to more than £90 per megawatt hour. The Government have now proposed that the regulated asset base model be used for nuclear plants. Combined with the efficiencies associated with building identical plants, this should reduce the cost from large plants beyond Hinkley Point to about £60 per megawatt hour.
This is still 50% above the nominal cost of wind and solar power. However, when one considers the full cost of backing up and connecting these intermittent and distributed sources to the grid and that they have relatively short lifetimes—for example, wind turbines are currently expected to have 20-year lifetimes, compared with nuclear plants that are expected to last for 50 to 60 years—the cost difference is considerably reduced. This is especially the case for small modular reactors, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. These SMRs are based on reactors that have been used in nuclear-powered submarines for the last 60 years. It is pleasing that the Government recently announced the support they are providing to the consortium led by Rolls-Royce to build SMRs in the UK. It is estimated that SMRs should reduce the cost towards £40 per megawatt hour.
Finally, I come to the storage of radioactive waste. I declare an interest: I participated as a member of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in the committee’s inquiries into the management of nuclear waste in 2004 and 2010 and chaired the committee’s inquiry in 2007. The committee’s first inquiry was in 1999.
The management of nuclear waste is a very large-scale task in the UK because of the huge quantities of waste produced by the early reactors in the late 1950s and 1960s. This waste was stored in water tanks at Sellafield and its extraction from the tanks, encapsulation in stainless steel containers and storage underground are going to take decades. This legacy waste will have to be managed whether or not new nuclear plants are built or whether or not we have nuclear power. Reactors today produce less waste and waste that is handled more easily. This is a long and complex subject with different methods being used for the various forms of waste, but there is general agreement that environmentally sound solutions can be found for the management of radioactive waste with deep geological disposal being used for the longer-term waste. There has been endless procrastination by Governments over the past 50 years in addressing this problem, but at last progress is being made towards identifying suitable deep geological sites in the UK.
I conclude that if we are to react quickly enough to avoid the imminent dangers of climate change we will have to use a combination of wind and solar power, backed up with, and the grid anchored, by nuclear power. If we do not follow this strategy we will have to continue to burn fossil fuels in the hope that we can find scalable methods for capturing and storing the CO2—or have the lights go out on nights when the wind does not blow or blows too hard.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Broers, with his lifetime contribution to engineering and his well-informed support for nuclear. I warmly thank my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford for arranging this debate on a major economic issue. He has a distinguished background in the subject. I especially agree with him on the mood turning against nuclear in the 1990s, the growing demands for electricity that we face and on the intermittency of renewable energy.
I have learned a lot from my noble friend since my short spell as Energy Minister in 2016. Nuclear was my favourite part of that portfolio. It had the longest “to do” list of any policy area, and I tried to bring my business expertise to bear in order to progress matters. We got Hinkley Point C over the line and mapped out a plan for five further such reactors so that investment could be sought, and more research funds were allocated. We strengthened the regulator and worked up the consultation on the geological disposal of waste. My regret at leaving the portfolio behind was to not have added more to the “done” list. Little did I think in 2016 that so little would be delivered thereafter in such a vital period from the point of view of both energy security and climate change.
Sadly, this echoes decades of wasted opportunities and delay. Nuclear power started in this country in the 1950s at Calder Hall, so it was a British invention and innovation. Unforgivably, it was eventually sold off to foreign interests without due regard to its strategic importance. It is still responsible for 16% of UK electricity, down from 25% in the 1990s when the Kyoto targets were set.
Renewable energy has, overall, been a success story in the UK, especially offshore wind. However, as we know from the crisis this summer, it sometimes produces only tiny amounts of power. The right sort of electricity storage, probably durable batteries, is still a generation away, and we must build more nuclear, and build it faster, to tackle the intermittency problem. That has become more important, given that we now rely so heavily on electricity in both our commercial and our personal lives. During the recent north-east power crisis, wretched customers and householders were told to log in to get help, which was difficult since computers and mobile phones themselves require electricity to operate. So investment in nuclear and, indeed, in a more sophisticated grid able to deal effectively with variations in demand and different sources of energy is essential.
I welcome the emphasis on nuclear in the Government’s 10-point plan, and the Bill we expect shortly allowing the regulated asset base financing model, which the Government say will save consumers £30 billion, mainly by reducing the risk profile and associated financing costs. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has explained that point in much more detail to the benefit of all. I thank the Library for that figure of £30 billion, quite a telling figure, and for its comprehensive note.
I also welcome the commitment to SMRs and the market that they can open up, although they are sadly many years away. Again, many years appear to have been lost since the oft-maligned George Osborne backed them on the back of our expertise in nuclear submarine technology. I also welcome the further investment in fusion, but again the timeframes are very long, and it cannot contribute to the energy mix for decades.
We must introduce the same sense of urgency that we saw on vaccines. Sizewell must go ahead now. What plans has the Minister to ease the sale down of the EDF/CGN interest, which I understand is planned? When will the foundations of that new nuclear power station go in? How will she accelerate the new investment that we need at Wylfa, Sellafield, Oldbury, Hartlepool, or anywhere else, as the existing reactors wear out and are retired? We are at last rebuilding our skill base at Hinkley, which is most welcome. Construction-related skills is an area which has been highlighted as a problem by the Built Environment Committee, which I now have the honour to chair.
Let us avoid another disastrous decade of stop-start—especially stop—and get on with bringing about the nuclear change that we need.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for tabling this extremely important debate. It is a very important topic. For too many years, successive Governments have not taken the need for a comprehensive energy policy seriously enough. When I was heading the National Security Forum for Prime Minister Gordon Brown, I said that we needed a proper energy security policy. I had great difficulty because no one wanted one, and no one seems to have wanted one for years, which is unbelievable. To compound the problem, successive Governments were also opposed to the civil nuclear problem. Having led the world in power plant technology, as has been mentioned, our nation now does not have the ability to build a large nuclear power station. A number of key figures over the years should hang their heads in shame that we have ended up in this position.
As has been said, nuclear is crucial for the provision of round-the-clock, weather-independent, low-carbon electricity, as the demand for electricity soars. It is vital if our nation is to reach its net-zero target. National daytime electricity demand is forecast at least to double from 40 gigawatts to 80 gigawatts by 2050. Nuclear will have to provide, I believe, at least 30 gigawatts of that electrical power if we are to meet net zero. The impact of lack of electricity has been shown starkly by the impact of storms over the last few days. Goodness me, people who want the environment to be lovely do not like it when they have no electricity at all, so that has really been driven home.
The current total installed nuclear capacity in the UK is 8.9 gigawatts and, if all stations were fully operational, they could provide more than a fifth of UK electricity supplies. In 2020, they generated about 16% of the UK demand. However, decades of neglect and opposition to the nuclear industry have put it in a parlous state. There are currently 15 nuclear reactors operating at eight stations across the UK, all operated by EDF. All 14 of the advanced gas-cooled reactors will close by 2030. Only Sizewell B, with its pressurised water reactor, is planned to continue generation past 2030. I rather like PWRs. When I was commander-in-chief, I had 18 of them under my command, so I have a soft spot for them. The plan is for Hinkley Point C to be generating before 2030 although, as a number of speakers have said, there must be concerns about the implications of the recent problems with a similar plant in China. Can the Minister confirm that these problems will not delay Hinkley C from coming online?
Things are far more fragile than they appear, with many nuclear power stations closing well before their planned dates. EDF has announced that Hunterston B will end generation by January 2022 and Hinkley Point B by July 2022. Sizewell B is currently offline for refuelling and maintenance work, and Dungeness B is shutting seven years early. We are rapidly heading for a situation whereby we have only one major nuclear power station online with another building. As has been said by another speaker, the building and commissioning of Sizewell C is now a matter of national emergency.
The situation is further complicated by the National Security and Investment Act, which will inevitably lead to minimal and reducing Chinese involvement in Sizewell C and probably the cancellation of Bradwell B. Could the Minister tell us where we have got to in discussions with the Chinese, who saw the building of Bradwell B, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, using their reactor design, as crucial for their future overseas sales? I have to say—although they did not say it—they also intended to dominate the nuclear supply chain in this country. As we reduce their levels of investment, is there a risk that they will pull out all their experts from Hinkley Point C? It would be useful if the Minister could tell us that.
The next question has to be whether Rolls-Royce is able to produce small modular reactors to the timescale that the Government have predicated and hoped for. As I have said, I am a strong supporter of SMRs and, indeed, AMRs. Indeed, if they were able to start producing them now, and Rolls-Royce said that it could do that today, I would have to say that I do not really want to go for any more big plants after Hinkley C. However, I think we are far from that. But with SMRs and AMRs, we have an opportunity, if we grasp it and invest sufficiently in training and recruiting scientists and technicians, to lead this revolution to become absolute world leaders. We can do this when we need to; we did it when we produced our own atom bomb—if we focus on something, our nation can do it—and this is worth doing. Does the Minister believe that Rolls-Royce will meet the timescales that the Government hope for, for SMRs?
The use of Wylfa Newydd—I never pronounce it correctly, but the noble Baroness will put me right on that—for a large small pressurised water reactor, as I understand it, from Westinghouse is good news. A large small reactor sounds lovely, and I am delighted, because that site is particularly good for nuclear. However, is there not some difficulty with Westinghouse and Toshiba? Is the Minister sure that the plan will come to fruition?
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, covered the subject of costs in great detail, and I thank him very much. I think I almost understood it, which is remarkable for a simple sailor. It is often a contentious issue. Using the RAB model to finance new nuclear makes sense, and costs of nuclear plants are beginning to be competitive with other low-carbon technologies, including renewables. Energy prices have risen recently, as noble Lords have said, and the market rate for electricity is currently more than the strike price agreed for Hinkley Point C, so that should be even better for Sizewell C, which will be cheaper, because it is exactly the same build as Hinkley Point C.
I consider that nuclear power stations are essential for our country’s energy security, not just for low-carbon electricity. We must not rely on electricity from the continent or more gas, as has already been said. We absolutely need this as a strategic security measure for the nation; it has that benefit, as well as the ability to produce electricity, which our country will need, without increasing our carbon footprint.
Lord Goodlad (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howell on his persistence in securing this debate and on the clarity with which he has analysed the role of nuclear power in meeting the country’s electricity needs and energy security. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, who addressed us with his usual polymathic wisdom.
My first role in government as a junior Whip in 1981 involved my attending ministerial meetings at the then Department of Energy in Thames House, presided over by my noble friend Lord Howell. Electricity prices were always top of the agenda. The role of nuclear power was little questioned, other than the debate on the rival merits of the PWR and the AGR, which he successfully resolved.
My next job in government, as a junior Energy Minister when the late Peter Walker was Secretary of State, carried with it responsibility for nuclear power. Faced with the fact that the existing nuclear power stations and the thermal power stations were approaching the end of their working lives, great importance was placed on Sizewell B. The planning inquiry seemed endless. I remember visiting Flamanville in France with the late Walter Marshall––he was my mentor, as he was of my noble friend Lord Howell––when he was chairman of the CEGB, and marvelling at the speed with which France had developed its nuclear power stations and reprocessing capacity. I asked one of my French interlocutors how they had managed to deal with public inquiries, to which he replied, “When you are going to drain the swamp, you do not consult the frogs.” I am not sure whether that advice has wider implications for Her Majesty’s Government at the present time, but it certainly worked for Électricité de France.
Then came Chernobyl. Public support for civil nuclear power plummeted. A few months later, thanks largely to the work of then newly established Nuclear Energy Information Group, led by the late Dr Tom Margerison, public support climbed to previously unachieved heights. I believed then and I believe now that what people want and deserve are unvarnished facts about nuclear power and clear policy options openly stated.
My noble friend Lord Howell has given us both. The role of fossil fuels has diminished and they are being gradually phased out. Renewable sources have been brought on stream with remarkable rapidity, but we have seen their inevitable vulnerability to the weather. Sources such as hydrogen are at an early stage of experimentation. Energy efficiency is greatly improved, but there will always be further to go. There is in my view no viable alternative to increasing our nuclear capacity, particularly bearing in mind the increase in demand that will accompany greater use of electric cars and the replacement of gas boilers by electric heating.
In the late 1990s, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has reminded us, 25% of our electricity came from nuclear power stations. Now it is 16% and falling. About half of our existing nuclear capacity is due to be decommissioned by 2025 and only one new plant, Hinkley Point, is currently under construction. If no new stations are built, the UK’s nuclear capacity in 2050 will be a third of what it is today.
As has been said, the Government have identified several possible sites for new nuclear power stations and are aiming to bring at least one large-scale nuclear project to the point of final decision by the end of this Parliament, subject to clear value for money and all relevant approvals. I hope that this aspiration is realised; it does not sound particularly ambitious. The Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill is a welcome start and the regulated asset financing model a tried and tested way forward. Let us hope that the development of SMRs and AMRs will be successful and speedy—good luck to Rolls-Royce.
My noble friend Lord Howell has well described the present financing questions facing the Government and I shall not repeat or question what he has said. I merely support his plea that decisions be taken as a matter of urgency. We cannot wait for more wind capacity to come on stream or more new technologies to come to our rescue while importing more gas and abandoning our net-zero commitments. Decisions must be taken and taken very soon.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad; that is the second speech of his that I have heard today. Like him, I warm to the memory of the late, great Walter Marshall.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for introducing this debate and make it clear that I speak in a personal capacity. Like most parties, my party, Plaid Cymru, has divergent views within its ranks on the issue of nuclear power. Much of this emanates from horror at the thought of nuclear war and I, along with my party, am totally opposed to nuclear weapons. I understand the arguments about deterrence, but it has to go wrong only once and the world is roasted to a cinder. But to rule out the use of nuclear energy to replace carbon sources of electricity for that reason is like refusing to manufacture steel because it could be used for guns. The case for nuclear has to be made with conviction and confidence and with some urgency.
Nuclear physics was part of my degree at Manchester University. I worked on the construction site of Trawsfynydd power station and, as an MP in Gwynedd for almost three decades, I served a county that had two active nuclear power stations: Wylfa and Trawsfynydd. The experience of living with these power stations and the well-paid employment that they provided led a majority of the people of that area to support ongoing nuclear generation—subject, of course, to the necessary safeguards. Both Gwynedd and Anglesey councils currently support proposals for further nuclear power generation at those two sites.
To turn to the context of today’s debate, the UK devours huge amounts of energy. If that energy ceases to be available, there are dire consequences in economic loss and in human misery. That energy is needed to heat our homes, to provide industrial power and to transport food, raw materials, finished products and people, and it has to come from somewhere. Currently, it is provided mainly by oil, gas and electricity; 60% of our energy comes from the direct use of such fossil fuels. The balance of the other 40% of the energy that we consume is in the form of electricity, but half of this is also generated from fossil fuels, while 30% comes from renewable sources and the other 20% from nuclear sources.
In other words, if we are to replace fossil fuels entirely to avert global warming, the UK has to eliminate most, if not all, of our current fossil-based sources, which produce over 80% of our current total energy needs. This is a gigantic task. To put it into perspective, if Britain was to depend solely on wind energy, it would need a quarter of a million offshore wind turbines—a hundred times what we have today. Or to depend just on solar energy, solar panels would need to cover every blade of grass in an area the size of Wales. Both wind and solar have a contribution to make, but it is not enough to meet Britain’s carbon reduction goals.
Another dimension that cannot be ignored is the need to ensure that we have electricity available at the time we need it. While the sun and wind cannot guarantee a timely supply, tidal power, which is more predictable, has a role to play. I am delighted that the Severn estuary scheme is now being reconsidered and I hope that barrage schemes in Swansea and off the north Wales coast can also come into play. But these will not deliver enough dependable energy to eliminate Britain’s carbon footprint.
Mention has been made of the hydrogen economy. Hydrogen has a key function in storing and transporting energy, but to generate hydrogen we need huge amounts of energy. It is not of itself the basic source of energy. Hydrogen does not reduce the overall energy demand needed to eliminate our carbon footprint. Other sources of energy, such as nuclear fusion—it was mentioned earlier today—may become available in future. Throughout my lifetime, nuclear fusion has been the bright light just over the horizon which never actually arrives. It certainly will not make a major impact for several decades. To my mind, another generation of nuclear power stations is essential if we are to be serious about eliminating our carbon footprint.
Yes, nuclear energy is expensive, but there are no cut-price options if we are to overcome global warming. The quantities of energy we will need to replace fossil fuels are enormous and inevitably come at a price, whether in the use of toxic materials in wind turbines or scarce minerals for batteries. Whatever course we follow will be expensive.
So what are we to do to reach our carbon targets? Is there a role for us in Wales? I understand that further consideration is now being given to the Wylfa site, with possible American involvement. I stress the need to get proposals on the table and for their viability, including ongoing safety and end-of-life clean-up, to be addressed with urgency. Waiting for Wylfa Newydd has, in Anglesey, been like waiting for Godot: the Government must get their act together, for the problem is not going to disappear by sticking our heads in the sand.
More immediately, there is now action on the Trawsfynydd site, where the development company, Egino, has been established, with the Welsh Government’s help, to get on with the job of developing advance nuclear technology at Trawsfynydd. Initial discussions with the landowner, the NDA, are, I understand, positive. The extensive studies which have been undertaken indicate the potential of Trawsfynydd as a site for small modular reactors, advanced modular reactors and medical isotope research reactors. Trawsfynydd would be an ideal demonstrator site for a fleet of SMRs spread across the UK. Such an SMR initiative at Trawsfynydd could generate 2,300 well-paid jobs during the construction phase and up to 450 ongoing jobs thereafter.
The associated investment of £3 billion in the region, including advanced manufacturing with a strong focus on research and development and innovation, would give a much-needed boost to local services. Well-paid jobs would help retain many of our brightest young people for the benefit of local communities. It has been assessed that this would trigger an increase in GVA of £1.4 billion shared between north Wales and the north-west of England. Last but not least, rounding the circle, such a facility would provide a source of low-carbon electricity which could well be used in a cogeneration project for the production of green hydrogen.
I hope that, in responding, the Minister gives particular attention to the opportunities of both Wylfa and Trawsfynydd: they are not rivals but partners in re-establishing north-west Wales as a powerhouse of the economy, and doing so by methods that would underpin the drive for low-carbon electricity and contribute to the world-wide challenge of heading off climate change.
Finally, I draw the attention of the House to the words of one of the heroes of our time, the late Sir John Houghton, a native of Prestatyn who sadly died in the early days of the Covid pandemic. Sir John was one of the leading scientific thinkers of his era and a founding member of the Nobel Prize-winning Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change. Like many other people appalled by the dangers of nuclear war, he was not initially attracted to nuclear power, but, like any good scientist, when the balance of evidence changed, he reconsidered his position. In his book In the Eye of the Storm, he wrote:
“Nuclear energy is, in principle, good because carbon emissions related to it are low … In the short term, it makes sense to buy time by prolonging the life of existing nuclear power stations and … making use of materials in nuclear weapon stockpiles that, under international agreement, are redundant.”
I urge the Government to consider expanding work on disposing of nuclear weapons in a safe manner, as suggested by Sir John Houghton. This should go hand in hand with a new programme on using atoms for peace. In line with the aspiration urged upon us by the Good Book to turn swords into ploughshares, let us turn the energy locked up in nuclear weapons into generating electricity and saving our planet.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I am very glad that he made such a deft connection between the underlying consciousness of the dangers of nuclear war and the debate about nuclear energy. In a strange way, it has been helpful that much of the debate in the last 30 years, going back to Chernobyl and so on, has been to make sure that people can see that there are many practical questions concerning the nature of nuclear power that are very instructive when it comes to understanding the effects of radiation and so on.
I led a delegation to Chernobyl in 1987, the year after the accident. At that time, I was chairman of the world trade union nuclear set-up—part of the consultative mechanism of Hans Blix of the IAEA. I commuted between Vienna and Moscow, meeting the Soviet—as they were then—trade unions to make sure that they were on board with the need to have mandatory safety inspections of the RBMK reactors. This was a time when it was all very difficult, and that period led—many people will be surprised to hear it put this way—to the collapse of the Soviet Union as we knew it and the resignation of Mr Gorbachev.
It is very interesting to take forward the idea that the whole nuclear debate has always been global. I noticed that the very timely debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, refers to the United Kingdom. I think that he would be the first to acknowledge that that may be putting the cart before the horse, in the sense that we have to see how we are going on a global basis and, in that connection, follow up on Glasgow and so on. I do not know whether Whitehall and Ministers have got their act together even now on how we annually monitor where we have got to on greenhouse gases—because that requires monitoring, and the nuclear debate can feed into that.
I will give noble Lords one sentence from the excellent House of Lords Library briefing, which rather shook me—but not the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, because it is more or less what he said:
“If no other new nuclear power stations are built”—
after Hinkley Point C—
“the UK’s nuclear capacity in 2050 will be a third of what it is today.”
So we are sitting here, talking as if we are on a nice road map going forward, but, frankly, we are not.
The other thing that has happened in the last few years is a gradual acceptance around the world that nuclear is a safe form of electricity generation. We learned to talk about epidemiology and loss of years from life expectancy in relation to cigarette smoking but, when we said that about nuclear and Chernobyl, people thought it was the most ludicrous piece of self-delusion. But it is an essential idea that we all have to understand. At Chernobyl, 20 people were killed, but, when people talk about thousands, they are talking about loss of years from life expectancy. Of course, many medical conditions are in the same position.
So there have been some very interesting changes of subconscious feeling around the world. The final one is that China will play an enormous role, and we have to somehow reconcile a lot of irreconcilables when it comes to the leading role of China in many of these matters.
Walter Marshall was mentioned. He was chairman of the World Association of Nuclear Operators when I was on that Chernobyl mission. I introduced him to all the Russians who made return visits London. He epitomised the fact that it is not just an intergovernmental thing that you have to look to here: the world’s nuclear operators themselves have a club, and that is very valuable. I introduced Walter Marshall to the Russians, including some politburo members when they came over here. I do not know how the World Association of Nuclear Operators fits into all these questions today but, as far as I know, it still straddles the East and the West.
In conclusion, the political dilemmas that we face include educating the public on the cost of electricity. I have forgotten who it was but, 100 years ago, someone said that electricity would be more or less free. I think that was the biggest piece of self-delusion that one can imagine. However, it is a fact that, with the strike price and so on, real money is involved; £100 billion here and there soon adds up to real money. There may have to be some sort of world understanding about how we subsidise nuclear energy or else we will get ourselves into a bit of a pickle over how dangerous it is for China to have this share of the market, the US to have that share of the market, and so on.
Although we have a huge debate before us in Britain, everywhere you turn, you cannot hide away from how it fits into the global debate. In the TUC and the Labour Party, these shocks in the 1980s transformed the policy on nuclear matters. That remains the case, just as it remains the case on Brexit—but that is another story. As I understand it, legislation on the question of financing is already going through the Commons, is it not? When will the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill come to this House? Will the Minister give some thought to how we could be better equipped to address the issues in it when it comes here?
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford for introducing this timely debate. I declare my interest as a consultant to the Japan Bank for International Cooperation and a member of the advisory board of Penultimate Power UK Ltd.
Those of us who regret our surrender of the leading position we once held in nuclear energy technologies and had eagerly awaited the publication of the oft-delayed energy White Paper, Powering Our Net Zero Future, in December 2020 were disappointed at the rather reluctant and understated recognition of the part that nuclear energy needs to play in our future energy mix. It appeared almost as though the paper’s authors hoped that people would not notice that nuclear forms any part of our energy plans at all. Indeed, the ministerial foreword by my right honourable friend Alok Sharma, the Secretary of State at the time, does not mention nuclear even once. Nuclear is first mentioned on page 9 of the White Paper where, together with renewables and hydrogen, it is described as “clean”. At least nuclear power is mentioned as one point in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, which states:
“We are pursuing large-scale nuclear, whilst also looking to the future of nuclear power in the UK through further investment in Small Modular Reactors and Advanced Modular Reactors.”
However, the section headed “Transform Energy” on page 16 of the White Paper commits only
“to bring at least one large-scale nuclear project”,
beyond Hinkley Point C,
“to the point of Final Investment Decision”
within the current Parliament, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Goodlad. The main section dealing with nuclear is on pages 48 to 50 of the White Paper, but the tone in which the strategy regarding nuclear is explained seems to lack enthusiasm and does not stress enough nuclear’s key advantage over other forms of green energy; namely, its reliability as a core part of a baseload energy supply.
Under the section “Advanced Nuclear Innovation”, the White Paper informs us that the Government will provide up to £385 million in an advanced nuclear fund for the next generation of nuclear technology, aiming by the early 2030s to develop an SMR design and to build an AMR demonstrator. By “SMRs”, I think the Government mean reactors employing generation 3 technologies based on pressurised water reactors, such as the UK SMR based on Rolls-Royce’s technology. Rolls-Royce’s long experience as the manufacturer of the nuclear reactors powering our Trident submarine fleet well qualifies it for the £210 million grant announced by the Secretary of State during the COP 26 conference. This grant will unlock a greater amount of private sector funding.
The Government’s approach to nuclear energy has moved in a positive direction since the White Paper. Besides the Rolls-Royce announcement, they deserve credit for the leadership on nuclear they displayed during COP 26, especially given the intransigent opposition to nuclear still deployed by Germany and some other countries. I ask my noble friend the Minister: are the Government now willing to reverse the specific exclusion of nuclear from their green financing framework published in June? This unfortunate decision raises the cost of financing nuclear energy projects and prevents developers accessing funds raised by the issuance of green gilts and green savings bonds. The Government need to show leadership on this matter, because the exclusion of nuclear does not encourage those investors who might otherwise be moved to change their ESG policies to include nuclear.
However, the speech made by my right honourable friend the Energy Minister on 2 December at the annual conference of the Nuclear Industry Association was most welcome. Mr Hands clearly stated that “net zero needs nuclear.” He explained that, following evaluation of the responses to the call for evidence on the AMR research, development and demonstration programme, the Government have decided to focus on high-temperature gas-cooled reactors as the technology choice moving forward, with the ambition for this to lead to a demonstration by the early 2030s.
This technology, which would be complementary to Rolls-Royce’s SMRs, has been operated safely and efficiently in Japan for some 10 years. This is the high- temperature gas-cooled reactor—or HTGR technology —developed by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. The JAEA switched off its prototype reactor, called the high-temperature engineering test reactor, following the Fukushima incident in 2011, but was permitted to restart operations in July.
The National Nuclear Laboratory has had a technical collaboration agreement with the JAEA since 2001, and in October 2020 this was broadened specifically to cover the HTGR technology. This technology is categorised as a generation 4 technology but is already developed and walk-away safe. Does the Minister agree that, since it is already fully developed, it can be rolled out much sooner than the White Paper suggests? I understand that the Japanese Government are waiting for ministerial endorsement of the Government’s backing for the early introduction to the UK and commercialisation of this technology.
There are, of course, other HTGR-type technologies, but I think that JAEA’s is the most suitable, for a multitude of reasons. It is based on an early British design, the Dragon reactor, which was developed by the former United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Winfrith in Dorset in 1965. As my noble friend Lord Howell explained, both major new nuclear power station projects on which we had intended to collaborate with Japanese companies—the NuGen project at Sellafield Moorside with Toshiba, and the Horizon project at Wylfa, Anglesey, with Hitachi—collapsed due to a failure to raise the large amounts of equity finance required. Does my noble friend the Minister not agree that it would be a very encouraging development if we could work with the Japanese on this HTGR project, which would mitigate the disappointing setback resulting from the cancellation of the two large nuclear projects?
Furthermore, this technology has several advantages, even over Rolls-Royce’s technology. The reactors are very much smaller—producing 50 megawatts thermal or 22 megawatts electric—and therefore much more flexible. They also should provide much better value for money. Importantly, their output is expected to produce industrial heat energy, now largely supplied by natural gas as well as electricity. Renewable energy cannot replace fossil-fuelled industrial heat. In the past, policy errors have arisen as a result of the incorrect assumption that energy and electricity mean the same thing. Energy describes the work and heat available from all energy carriers, from the point of supply to consumption, whereas electricity is only one of those carriers. Currently, electricity represents only around 20% of the UK’s energy demand. While laudable progress has been made with reducing electricity emissions, less than half of that 20% is low carbon. Energy, transport and industrial processes take up 80% of the UK’s energy demand and account for 50% of the UK’s emissions.
HTGRs have yet another advantage. They will produce large quantities of green hydrogen. As announced in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, the Government will work in partnership with industry to evaluate hydrogen as an option for heating our homes and workplaces. The rollout of HTGR reactors should assist the Government in their aim to create 5 gigawatts of low- carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030.
I look forward to the Minister’s winding-up speech and very much hope she will agree with my suggestion that we should speed up our discussions with the Japanese on introducing this technology to our country, as it can play a very important part in achieving a clean energy strategy. Can she also tell the House how the Government will determine which HTGR technology will be supported and when? HTGRs can make a significant contribution to industrial decarbonisation, as long as timely decisions are made both on support and on an enabling policy framework.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the advisory board of Weber Shandwick UK, as set out in the register. I thank the Library and the Nuclear Consulting Group for their briefing material and the various industry representatives, including from the nuclear industry and NGOs, who I have discussed these matters with previously.
I commend all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to what I think I would describe as a fascinating discussion of mutual agreement, rather than as a debate. Perhaps I can provide a service by giving another side of this argument. I do so with some trepidation as the only person to speak in this debate on that side and in light of the eminent people who have spoken already. But when I joined the Liberal Party, as it was then, I did not do so because it was necessarily the popular path to follow but because I thought I had important beliefs that should be articulated, so I shall follow that vein.
I also draw strength from the fact that, in the late 2000s, in the run-up to the 2010 election and during the coalition, Liberal Democrats were derided as fantasists when we talked about a policy of net zero. We were told that this could never happen and that it was ridiculous and unworkable. It was introduced by a Conservative Government, as it happened, and I commend them for that. We were also rubbished on our belief that, through contracts for difference, we could really drive renewables forward. That was constantly obstructed by George Osborne in the Treasury, who was an absolute disaster as far as climate change was concerned. I take heart that those people have not always been right.
I wonder sometimes, with all this focus on the nuclear industry, whether the fantasy is still there. There is this idea that it could deliver, like some magic bullet, all that people have talked about. The promises of the nuclear industry may be many, and its advocates are undoubtedly articulate, but at the heart of their argument today lies the same fantasy that has shaped the argument around nuclear power generation since its inception: that it will be a source of cheap, clean and almost limitless electricity.
Of course the reality recorded by history is rather different. Instead of cheap power, we got eye-wateringly expensive electricity; instead of clean energy, the nuclear industry delivered deadly waste which, 70 years from the start of the civil nuclear programme, we have yet to find a solution for. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Broers, but the fact is that this deep repository has not been built. It has been talked about for decades but, despite that talk, it has not provided the solution but has burdened the taxpayer with staggeringly enormous decommissioning costs. If you want to descend into the world of fiscal nightmares, just pick up a copy of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s annual report; it will give you a few sleepless nights.
New nuclear, we were told, would be different. I remember being reassured during the days of the coalition that, this time, the industry had come up with new reactor designs which could be more easily built, would avoid catastrophic project overruns and ruinously expensive electricity prices, and would provide a model which would not leave the taxpayer carrying the same enormous decommissioning costs as last time. As to the morality of creating yet more high-level nuclear waste with no solution for the existing waste, we were told by the industry—we have heard the same argument again today—that the solution is nearly there. It is just over the horizon, where it has been for the last few decades and more.
Let me deal with three of the principal issues raised in this discussion: cost and practicality, baseload support, and safety. During the coalition Government, funding for nuclear power was placed within the contracts for difference framework pioneered by my right honourable friend Ed Davey as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change—a policy which, it should be noted, has led to a quadrupling of renewables and massively driven down their costs. Sadly, despite the nuclear industry’s many promises, it could not deliver the same. Nuclear is about the only form of energy that has not been able to deliver these sorts of cost reductions. Despite a strike price set at what some thought was an extremely high level, the nuclear industry could not even deliver on that.
In coalition, the Liberal Democrats insisted on the principle of no subsidy for the capital cost of construction for nuclear which, as far as I am aware, remained government policy until the Government decided to introduce the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, which was put before the House of Commons last month. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said, this Bill offers the nuclear industry the supposed lifeline of a “regulated asset base” model of funding, which effectively passes on much of the risk of nuclear construction directly to the public and consumers. This is necessary because the private sector, having looked into these things more closely than the public are obviously able to, has decided that it has no intention of shouldering the risks itself. In effect, if these plants are to be built, the Government have to intervene to rig the market.
During the Second Reading of the nuclear energy Bill, the Minister, Greg Hands, told the House of Commons that RAB is a “tried and tested method” of funding major infrastructure projects. It is true that it is used to fund monopoly infrastructure assets such as water, gas and electricity networks. However, first of all, power generation is not a monopoly activity, and the construction of nuclear power plants is fraught with far more risks.
The United States, which made a similar attempt to rig its market in favour of nuclear through a version of RAB known as early cost recovery, has found that it has proved an abject failure. At its peak in 2009, the US so-called nuclear renaissance consisted of applications to build 31 plants. Despite spending more than $20 billion, no new plants have gone into service. The plants in the states that did not have ECR, the RAB equivalent, were cancelled before too much money had been wasted, but in the states that had the RAB equivalent, owners were far more willing to incur risks. For example, in South Carolina, $9 billion was spent before Westinghouse went bankrupt, causing the project to be cancelled. In Florida, also an ECR state, more than $1 billion was spent. In total, US electricity customers are burdened with paying more than $10 billion for cancelled nuclear plants and another $13.5 billion in cost overruns. RAB is likely to have similar consequences for consumers here in the UK.
The Labour manifesto of 1997—one of its better ones, if I may say so—concluded:
“We see no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations”.
Nearly a quarter of a century on, the economic case is, if anything, weaker. In the absence of an economic case, a Conservative Government are, as I said, rigging the market at the cost of the consumer. Sadly, it appears —although we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in a minute—that this is with the support of the official Opposition, who seem to have lost their good sense on this matter.
The nuclear industry is smart enough to know that it cannot win on cost, so it is reinventing itself as the new superhero which will save us from climate change by providing the baseload capacity to underpin renewable generation. The problem is that the billions that we seem to be intent on spending to provide excruciatingly expensive nuclear energy could be much more effectively deployed.
That could first be done through demand reduction. For the price of Hinkley Point C, you could retrofit enough homes to save all the energy that that plant will produce, not just for its 60 operational years but for all time. That would make much more sense than spending billions to generate electricity which will then escape from our homes. Secondly, we could reduce the capacity required in the energy system through much smarter use of demand management technologies. Thirdly, we need a much more thought-through policy on energy storage and release. The Minister can perhaps tell us in his winding up how much we spent on abating renewable energy in the last year—I think it was in the region of £1 billion. If we had a coherent plan for the storage of excess energy, we could stop paying people to cease generating and start paying them to store it instead.
My time has gone. I conclude by saying that the issue of safety is not about nuclear weapons; it is about the waste that is created. How is it that we are engaged in the construction of new plants that will create yet more deadly waste, when we have no solution to the deadly waste that we have already recklessly generated? In her response, I hope that the Minister will try to give us a morally coherent answer to that question.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for returning with this subject for debate after its postponement last month. It is a very important area of energy policy that has perhaps been in the too-difficult box for some time, due to its long timescales and expensive price tags. All speakers in the debate, with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, have underlined that new nuclear has an important role to play in the energy mix of the future, alongside the decisive shift to renewables that is needed, both to deliver a response to the climate emergency and to ensure the UK’s energy security. Both present threats such that no part of the UK can afford to reject viable zero-carbon sources of power.
I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate for their insights into how best to utilise the technology more effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke about how difficult it is to get the balance right in the public’s consideration of the issue. Nuclear jobs are high skilled, well paid and effectively unionised, but without new investment will inevitably slip away, overseas, from the Government’s dither and delay, leaving the UK so exposed and vulnerable to energy price spikes hitting families and businesses.
The problems that result from the Government’s lack of commitment to necessary timescales stem from the reluctance to fund adequately the range of nuclear technologies that are mostly untried, untested and underresearched. This has understandably arisen from nervousness following notable disasters and a lack of nuclear waste answers. However, my noble friend Lord West underlined the case for nuclear as crucial for low-carbon power.
Your Lordships’ House will shortly consider the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, presently in the other place, introducing the regulated asset base financing model, with cost sharing—consumers paying through their bills—to reduce the cost of capital and build time. If everything is successful, with accurate estimates of build cost and development time, this may seem attractive. However, the experience of the United States with its version, called early cost recovery, has not resulted in any new US nuclear plants coming into service. Consumer risk could not easily be contained in the event of failure or abandonment. Has the Minister any firm estimates of the size of the long-term levy on customer bills that will result from powers to be granted under this Bill, should there be no prospect of retrieval of costs from production?
Much of the debate focused on the proposed RAB system for financing Sizewell C. This raises the issue of critical national infrastructure and possible overseas threats. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned this in his opening remarks. The agreement drawn up in 2016 between the UK Government, the Chinese Government and EDF allocated China General Nuclear a 33% stake in Hinkley Point C, 20% in Sizewell C and permission to build its own nuclear reactor in Bradwell, Essex. China’s involvement no longer has general support. Can the Minister update the House with any proposals to renegotiate this contract to ensure that there is no Chinese involvement in new nuclear in the UK, with a particular focus on ensuring that Sizewell C does not go ahead with the projected amount of Chinese involvement in its construction?
These problems stem from a lack of ownership control of the present major sites. The ownership of various sites may not coincide with the technology proposals that suit the Government’s preferences and investment focus. Can the Minister say whether the Government are giving any thought to this, especially when it is understood that one of the sites may be becoming available?
The Government can be congratulated on their funding to advance their nuclear goals. In July, they stated their preference to explore high-temperature gas reactors for their advanced modular reactor programme. This, effectively selecting a technology and identifying it as a proposed winner, would appear a radical departure from the Government’s previous position of being technology neutral. While high-temperature operation and heat supply has game-changing commercial importance in efficiency and a much broader industrial use case, this choice by the Government would ignore other fourth-generation systems being developed by the international industry and effectively close down UK participation in other AMR systems. This may have extensive national nuclear establishment backing in the UK, but it may not have the best economic potential to meet competitive commercial energy market needs.
Are the Government concerned that they will be putting their support into one basket that would entail a state design competing against other technology developers and crowd out other capital investors engaged in other AMR technologies? The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, mentioned others. Do the Government have potential collaborators and partnerships in mind for UK AMR deployment if they are not to maintain a more level playing field for non-incumbent players? Could Japan Atomic Research provide the sort of partnership that they would be comfortable with?
Speakers in the debate also considered the potential long-term size of and requirement for new nuclear power. The ultimate backcloth to this consideration revolves around the size of the capacity margin. This has caused anxiety in the past, as the capacity margin has been shrinking—down to 27% in 2016-17. However, more recently, the success of the CFD scheme has brought forward more renewable generation capacity, rising to 43% before falling back to 32% in 2020-21, due to the closure of many coal-fired plants.
Have the Government become more relaxed towards the margin projections, so that they have confidence through interconnectors and renewable developments to determine the baseload requirement for new nuclear? The Climate Change Committee, in its balanced pathway to meet electricity demand, estimated that a nuclear capacity of 10 gigawatts would be required. Alternatively, it presented four other scenarios, and the National Infrastructure Commission has been sceptical that any further developments beyond Hinkley Point C would be needed or cost-effective against renewables, which are likely to continue to fall in cost against a nuclear trend of ever-increasing costs and timescales.
Can the Minister confirm the Government’s agreement to the Climate Change Committee’s balanced pathway and that further new nuclear power generation beyond Hinkley Point C will indeed go ahead, and provide assurance that the 60,000 highly skilled nuclear industry jobs will remain, as the pipeline of activity must continue at pace? Under the Government’s watch, three large-scale nuclear projects have been abandoned due to the lack of certainty about the Government’s commitment. There are other ways, in addition to the RAB funding system, to de-risk the costs of capital. Can the Minister today provide further certainty on the many anxieties and questions raised about Sizewell C and the replacement for China’s stake? The National Security and Investment Act now enables the Government to consider this carefully.
What plans do the Government have for future development of the Wylfa site and how to use it following the failure to come to an agreement with Hitachi? Do they include either the Bechtel proposals, or the hybrid plans for SMRs and a wind farm from Shearwater Energy?
Labour is determined to do much more to help keep energy bills down, tackle the cost of living crisis and help the more vulnerable, calling for VAT on fuel to be cut to 0% and the reinstatement of the £1,000 a year universal credit uplift, and putting forward a plan for £28 billion extra investment every year to 2030 to implement a green industrial revolution, locally led, house by house, street by street. This commitment is matched by the determination for action in this decisive decade towards decarbonisation and net zero. The danger is of more dither and delay. We need reliable, secure and affordable energy that includes nuclear power.
Are the Government satisfied that they have the institutional arrangements to enable swift, decisive decision-making and implementation? They have grand plans, often without substance or coherent policy. They have many regulators and advisory bodies. There was a Nuclear Development Authority. Now, with the same initials but with its name changed, there is a Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Have the Government turned their mind towards that important aspect?
Should now not be the opportune time to get on with it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, concluded, to make progress and to consider delivery and implementation? Can the Minister say what plans the Government have in this respect? Civil servants are not generally known for their delivery prowess. Does nuclear now need a delivery agent to meet the challenge for implementation? Could its role be extended, with considerations to make SMR into a leading UK industry, for example, following investment in Rolls-Royce?
This debate has been fascinating, and there are many aspects I have not addressed. However, the Minister now has the opportunity to address and answer the many fundamental questions concerning new nuclear today. Can she inject some urgency and action into the Government’s proposals?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for securing this incredibly important and timely debate, and for his thoughtful and thought-provoking speech drawing on his wealth of experience in this sector, gained over so many years. I am also grateful to all noble Lords for adding to the excellence of this debate. We are fortunate indeed to have so much experience in this House; polymaths indeed. I say to the two noble Lords who were wrongfooted by the timings of today’s business that I will be happy to respond to their speeches if they will forward them to me in due course.
My noble friend Lord Howell and other noble Lords raised the important question of the role of nuclear power in this country’s energy system, at a most important time for energy policy—a time when people and businesses up and down the country are worrying about the cost of their energy and the health of the companies that they rely on to provide it. The debate is also timely for another reason that gives a crucial context for our deliberations. We recently published our Net Zero Strategy, a milestone document that sets out the UK’s path to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The UK was the first major economy to make net zero a target, enshrining it in legislation in 2019. There is no doubt that climate change is one of the greatest global challenges that we face, and that action and leadership are urgently needed in the UK and across the world. In committing to net zero, and now in publishing our plan of action to help us get there, the UK is showing global leadership in a battle that we simply must win.
Everybody acknowledges that net zero is an enormous challenge. To ensure that we are on track to meet that target, we have set the UK’s sixth carbon budget in line with recommendations from the Committee on Climate Change. We must reduce our emissions of harmful greenhouse gases by 78% against 1990 levels by 2035. This will require all areas of our economy to play their part.
The power sector’s effort share in this mission amounts to an 80% reduction in emissions by 2035, the mid-point of the carbon budget 6 period. This will require a range of low-carbon technologies to be deployed in large capacities, and quickly, not least because we estimate that our electricity system will need to double in size by 2050 to meet the increased demand as sectors such as heat and transport use electricity to achieve their own decarbonisation.
The Government have been clear that a significant proportion of the UK’s future electricity needs should come from renewables such as wind and solar, and flexible technologies, including energy storage and demand-side response. However, we have also been clear that the UK needs stable, firm, low-carbon power for when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
It is in this context that we consider the value of nuclear power. We are already a nuclear nation. We built the world’s first commercial power station, at Calder Hall in Cumbria, in 1957. Since the mid-1990s, around 20% of the UK’s electricity supply has come from nuclear. After 1995, when we built Sizewell B in Suffolk, there was a hiatus on new nuclear build, but we broke that hiatus in 2016 when we gave the go-ahead to Hinkley Point C in Somerset. In 2020, nuclear provided around 16% of the country’s electricity supply and 27% of our overall low-carbon supply. Hinkley Point C will provide 3.2 gigawatts, meeting around 7% of GB’s current electricity requirements. However, over the next decade, as many noble Lords have pointed out, many of our existing plants will be coming to the end of their life. Therefore, we need more nuclear power, including large-scale gigawatt and advanced nuclear technologies, and the Net Zero Strategy, which highlights nuclear’s role in reaching net zero.
We have announced a £120 million future nuclear enabling fund, the details of which are being worked up following the spending review, and I look forward to updating noble Lords on how that money can help to support further nuclear research in the UK. Alongside more information on the fund, we will publish a road map for new nuclear in 2022. It will focus on what is needed to support all future new nuclear in the UK.
We continue to make progress on key issues such as nuclear financing. The Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill will establish a new model for nuclear projects that will cut the cost of financing and, importantly, reduce costs to consumers. The Bill will also help us reduce our reliance on overseas developers for finance, and open opportunities for British companies in the nuclear industry and our closest partners to develop projects across the UK without compromising on our nuclear ambitions.
We have also invested £210 million, matched by Rolls-Royce, to develop its design for one of the world’s first small modular reactors. Each small reactor is potentially capable of powering a million homes. As well as providing energy for the UK, the project will also create high-quality jobs, helping us to level up as we drive emissions down.
Moving to AMRs, the Government have recently announced that we will focus on high-temperature gas reactors as the technology of choice for the AMR research, development and demonstration programme, with the ambition for this to lead to a HTGR demonstration by the early 2030s. That does not preclude the Government looking at other forms of advanced modular reactors, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was concerned about. However, we have to put our backs behind one technology in order to make it happen in the timescale available.
Alongside our efforts on nuclear fission, the UK is widely recognised as a world-leader in the most promising fusion energy technologies, with the Government committing £220 million towards the first five-year phase of the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production programme—STEP. Fusion is no longer decades away, and recently I know that the programme managed to produce more output than input into the project, which highlights the fact that it may not take another 30 years. We might be talking more like 15 years.
The value of nuclear is not seen only in terms of energy generation but in the socioeconomic benefits that these projects will bring to the UK. Hinkley Point C is providing an enormous boost to both the local and national economy, providing 25,000 new jobs, with £3.5 billion spent with companies in the south-west to-date—figures that we hope to be replicated at Sizewell C in Suffolk. Hinkley has also trained more than 800 apprentices. I also know that the Culham fusion project also has an apprenticeship programme that takes in 120 graduate apprentices a year who learn all about nuclear fusion.
We are committed to levelling up. For example, there is the National College for Nuclear, with two hub campuses in Cumbria and the south-west delivering training on its behalf. We also recognise the potential to develop clusters of nuclear expertise in other nuclear communities such as those in the North West Nuclear Arc. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will know of my particular interest in developing this arc further into north-west Wales, using Trawsfynydd, Wylfa and Bangor University’s excellent nuclear department as part of that building-up exercise.
Energy security is also an absolute priority for this Government. We have highly diverse sources of gas and electricity that ensure that households, businesses and heavy industry get the energy they need. The Government are working closely with Ofgem, National Grid and industry to monitor supply and demand, and the gas and electricity system operators have the tools they need to manage operability requirements in all scenarios. We remain confident that Britain’s energy security will be maintained.
However, we recognise the pressures that businesses are facing due to the significant increases in global gas prices. We are continuing to engage constructively with industry to further understand and help mitigate the impacts of global gas prices. Our priority is to ensure that costs are managed and supplies of energy are maintained. We will work with industry to put it on a more stable footing in the longer-term. That includes continuing to build a robust domestic renewable energy sector so that we are not as exposed to global trends in natural gas supply and demand.
In just this past year, we have seen incredible progress in our ambition to deliver new nuclear, including a comprehensive net-zero strategy that sets a clear direction and unprecedented representation of nuclear on the world stage at COP 26. It is that momentum that we must now build on, as we look to secure our future energy needs, with nuclear playing a key role.
My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford asked me two questions. First, who pays for Hinkley Point C? I can confirm that EDF and all investors are committed to the project. On his second question of whether we are committed to large plants or waiting for SMRs, we believe that a diverse mix of low-carbon generating technologies in the UK is the right answer. We will need to progress all forms of low-carbon generation if we are to meet our decarbonisation targets, including large-scale gigawatt and advanced nuclear technologies such as SMRs and AMRs.
In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and a number of other noble Lords who talked about nuclear financing, as previously mentioned we have recently introduced into Parliament the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, which has passed its Second Reading and Committee in the House of Commons. I can reassure noble Lords that we will be holding a number of Peer engagement exercises before the Bill arrives in this House—I suspect before the end of January. We had hoped that that would happen in December, but I suspect that it will now be early in the new year. However, I encourage everyone who has spoken in this debate to get involved in this interesting Bill.
I know the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, was concerned about the intergenerational gap of financing for large nuclear projects. I direct him to Dieter Helm’s excellent work on this subject. The whole point of the RAB model is that it separates the risk of the construction phase from the rewards of the operational phase. We need to compensate the investor for the cost of capital at a rate in the construction phase that is derived through a market pricing discovery process, and it will then be set as part of the RAB licence. But when it comes to the operational phase, the regulator will set the cost of capital, balancing his financing duty with the duty to the consumer to help keep costs down. In this, it will mirror any other large-scale infrastructure projects, which use market mechanisms to set costs. In this way, investors will be incentivised to keep costs down. Therefore, it does not just de-risk the whole project but, because it reduces the amount of rolled-up interest that grows over many years in the construction, can reduce the cost of a Hinkley Point by up to £30 billion, as other noble Lords will have read in other briefing notes.
So the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill enables the use of the regulated asset base model for new nuclear projects, including both current technologies and potential advanced nuclear technologies and small modular reactors. This Bill will help to reduce the capital cost of nuclear projects, which is likely to be the key driver of the overall costs of a nuclear project, and it does this by sharing risk. Experience has shown that financing these sorts of projects through private capital can instil greater discipline than if they are done through government funds alone. This can help to ensure that the project is delivered on time and on budget, meaning that consumer costs are kept to a minimum.
Within the RAB model, we are creating incentives to encourage developers to deliver new projects in an effective way. To help protect consumers, we are creating a regulatory regime under which Ofgem will have full oversight and audit rights to the project activities throughout its construction.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Broers, for his considered comments. I agree with him on the safety record of nuclear and the longevity of its operation compared to other technologies. I have already covered cost but, on his points on waste, the UK has in place an effective and robust regulatory regime to ensure that radioactive waste is managed safely, securely and in ways that minimise the impact to human health and the environment. That is why we believe that a geological disposal facility will allow the NDA to complete the decommissioning and clean-up of the nuclear estate. I should mention that I have read that some of the advanced nuclear technologies being worked on by some of the AMR designs may, over time, find the holy grail and be able to reuse some of the embedded energy in all that stored waste at Sellafield, which would mitigate the scale of the geological disposal facility that we might otherwise need.
I take issue with one of the noble Lord’s comments: we need to invest in all these technologies, because some of them will have a very long-term benefit for what we do with nuclear waste. I also remind him that the large-scale nuclear reactors have lasted so much longer than they were originally intended to that we have actually been gaining from the production of energy from them long after we financed them in the 1970s and 1980s.
As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned when responding to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, CGN currently has a 20% stake in Sizewell C up to the point of final investment decision. The final configuration of investors for constructing the plant is subject to negotiations. Our aim is to bring at least one large-scale nuclear plant to the point of FID by the end of this Parliament, subject to value for money and all relevant approvals. We announced up to £1.7 billion in the spending review to help deliver this objective. In the Net Zero Strategy, we announced up to £120 million for a new future nuclear enabling fund to provide targeted support to address barriers to entry, and will look to accelerate nuclear projects.
The noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, mentioned CGN and Taishan. These issues are under investigation, and we do not want to prejudice the outcome of that. But the Bradwell B project is at such an early stage of development that the Government are not making any decision at the present time. He also mentioned Wylfa, as, of course, did the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I agree that this remains an excellent site, if not the perfect site, for new nuclear. We regularly discuss a range of proposals with all interested and credible investors— of which there are a number—and discussions are progressing.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, referenced the speed of decision-making. I hope I have given some reassurance. We are currently in negotiations with the developers of Sizewell C with the aim of reaching a financial investment decision in this Parliament.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
There was another question to do with Chinese involvement with these power stations, what discussions we have had with them and what threat we see in that.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I cannot answer specifically on what discussions we have had. As the noble Lord will know, we welcome any investment by foreign investors, but the final decision about the future involvement of the Chinese in Sizewell C will be taken only at the point of the financial investment decision. I cannot speculate on the outcome, but the noble Lord will be well aware of all the talk about Chinese involvement in our nuclear fleet.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to hydrogen. The Government believe that nuclear could have a role in low-carbon hydrogen production and have published the UK’s first hydrogen strategy, alongside policy detail on their support for low-carbon production across the UK. On his points regarding Trawsfynydd, the UK Government have noted the growing local and regional interest, and indeed support, for several sites for further nuclear development, including Trawsfynydd, and we welcome conversations with stakeholders who are considering whether their assets are potentially suitable for the deployment of nuclear facilities. With regard to Trawsfynydd, BEIS officials regularly engage with Cwmni Egino, the Welsh Government-supported company that is exploring options at the site. Indeed, yesterday I saw a letter from John Idris Jones to the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for BEIS on that very subject. We recognise that siting policy is a key part of the enabling framework to bring advanced nuclear to the market.
I thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for his interesting speech—I know he is extremely knowledgeable about advanced gas reactors. As he mentioned, we recently announced that we intend to consult on including nuclear in the green taxonomy. We are aware of the knowledge and experience that Japan can bring on high-temperature gas reactors because of conversations with the Japanese atomic energy authority about its test reactor. We are considering a range of options on how to design and deliver the UK’s AMR demonstration programme effectively, and continue to engage with other leading nuclear nations. Our ambition is to share next steps on the demonstration programme by next spring.
I am afraid I profoundly disagree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, but he raised points about waste and the solutions being over the horizon. I hope I have reassured him that we are slowly moving towards resolving that. I know that there are competitions out and various people bidding in the process to host one. I reassure him that the process is under way. Working groups are being formed and further announcements are expected in coming months.
The noble Lord talked about the cost and risk to consumers. I reassure him that any decisions will be fully cognisant of all the risks, as well as ensuring value for money for consumers and taxpayers. I believe that the RAB model will reduce the cost to consumers of future technologies. We cannot stop trying now. This Government are investing heavily in scientific research and development across the whole nuclear piece, and I remain strongly optimistic that, in 10 years’ time, we will look back and say thank goodness we resisted the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Oates.
Lord Oates (LD)
In the light of what the Minister has said about the RAB model, what assessment have the Government made of the example of the United States’ ECR model? Have they learned any lessons from that and can they explain why we will not suffer from the same problems they had in the States?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I apologise for not having answered that point. I was coming on to say that I would write to the noble Lord on that specific issue because I do not have enough details to hand to give him a satisfactory answer. I will share that answer with other noble Lords.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I raised the question of how we are going to produce annual reporting on progress towards meeting our Glasgow targets when nuclear, for example, comes in big chunks and it is hard to know how to do an annual metric. This is the only way of finding out how we are doing as we go along. Does the Minister agree that this should be studied in Whitehall, from the Treasury to the department for the environment and all the other departments, because it is the centrepiece of what we are committed to?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
It is a point well made and I take it seriously, but I think we will get much more information coming out much more regularly than just an annual report of progress as we move forward with all these projects.
I am conscious of the time and I want to respond to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on foreign ownership. As I have said, we welcome the role of overseas investors: we would not have EDF had we not welcomed overseas investors into the UK’s nuclear sector, but all investment involving critical infrastructure is subject to thorough scrutiny, as he will well know. Having taken the NS&I Bill through this House, we are very careful to evaluate the input of foreign interests in such critical infrastructure as nuclear.
On the noble Lord’s question about the Government’s choice of high-temperature gas reactors crowding out other advanced modular reactors, I can again confirm that we are interested in seeing all types of advanced reactor being developed. He also asked about the long-term levy to consumers. This will be determined for each project as a result of negotiations. We will protect consumers through effective due diligence on the project and, as I have said, through the role of Ofgem, and by incentives on investors to manage costs and not to have time overruns. Ultimately, the lower cost of financing achieved through the RAB should lower overall project costs for consumers. With that, I undertake to look at Hansard and, if there are any specific questions I have not answered, I will of course write to noble Lords.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it remains for me to thank all who have taken part in this debate for their very expert contributions from different points of view and to thank the Minister for her very patient and full reply, although she was not able to cover all our questions. In fact we have left a few things uncovered, such as decommissioning. We touched on finance, with the help of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, but we will be facing that in the Bill. I cannot help reflecting that this regulated asset base sounds to me like very clever bureaucratic language for the simple proposition that the poor consumers are going to have to pay in advance, on top of the enormous sums they are paying already for various reasons.
Japanese co-operation is very important—Japan is our best friend in Asia and we should be building on that, as touched on by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, but the key question that fascinates is whether nuclear is green. Has the climate policy establishment accepted that this is part of the green energy story? I think wise experts have: I am not sure the message has quite reached the Liberal Democrat Benches yet, although I live in hope that they will come round to it. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, contributed to the debate from a different angle: it made it a good debate, so I thank him very much.
Two questions remain: is Bradwell on for the Chinese or not? The question hangs in the air. I see the Minister could not answer but we, the Chinese and everyone else are going to need answers pretty soon. The other question is, in 2031, will we be building large-scale reactors again, like Hinkley, or will we be building clever, small SMRs in quantity to replace them? Which way are we going? We are not quite sure on either of those things yet. We went too far in with the Chinese 10 years ago, and my personal fear would be that we will now, stupidly, go too far away from them too fast. There is always common ground to be found on these great, technical issues of the future but, in the meantime, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.