House of Commons
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
We are working closely with the NHS, social care and local authorities to significantly reduce delayed discharge and free up beds for those who need them most. We are making full use of non-acute beds, including those in hospices, other community beds and beds in the independent sector. To drive further progress and support regional and local systems, I also established a new national taskforce last month to help deliver best practice.
Rob Butler
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Many people would like to leave hospital when their treatment is completed, but they are not quite well enough to cope alone at home. That is obviously frustrating for them, because they want their independence, it creates problems for hospitals, which need the beds, and it costs the taxpayer unnecessary money. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that the development of a strategy to provide intermediate care to support discharge would help alleviate pressure on both the NHS and the social care sector?
Sajid Javid
I do agree with my hon. Friend. That is why, as part of our continued response to the covid-19 pandemic, on 2 December last year NHS England asked local systems to consider ways to increase patient flow out of acute hospital settings. That includes surge capacity in care homes, identifying unused hospice capacity and, in some cases, repurposing hotel accommodation where appropriate. NHS England is reporting to me on this regularly, and it is something that we will closely monitor progress on.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Government’s own impact assessment of discharge to assess in the Health and Care Bill, which was published almost two months after the Bill was voted on, expects unpaid carers to have to give up working hours and bear the financial burdens of the discharge to assess policy. In the light of that assessment will the Government provide greater support to unpaid carers, or will they actually reconsider this policy?
Sajid Javid
Throughout the pandemic especially we have been providing more and more support, quite rightly, across the care sector, including for domiciliary care in care homes and unpaid carers. We have made £3.3 billion of extra funding and support available since March 2020.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Kettering General Hospital is a 500-bed medium general hospital, and I am afraid that too many, mainly elderly, people who have completed their medical treatment still await discharge back into the community in a safe way. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the national taskforce is sent to Northamptonshire to help us deal with this issue?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. It is of increasing concern, especially as we have seen hospitalisations rise because of the omicron wave. I believe that the national taskforce is already looking at Northamptonshire. If it is not, I will certainly make sure it does.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Around 10,000 medically fit people are currently in hospital when they should be at home with their families or in a supported setting. That is a tragedy for them and a mark of shame on this Government. Short-term cash, taskforces or threatening legal action are not solutions. Social care support is a lifeline not a luxury, so will the Government now work with us cross-party in line with the joint Select Committee report of 2018 to bring forward immediate change and offer hope and respite to those receiving and giving social care?
Sajid Javid
First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and wish her all the very best? She will have heard in a previous answer that social care and those who provide social care, which is such a vital act and such a vital service throughout our country, are receiving record amounts of support—£3.3 billion of extra financing since March 2020. Of course I would be more than happy to work with her and her colleagues to see whether there is more that we can do together.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
We have developed a globally recognised programme that combines boosters, testing and antivirals to protect the vulnerable and to reduce hospital admissions. Our “Get Boosted Now” campaign led to a huge increase in vaccination rates and we have successfully procured the highest number of antivirals per head in Europe. We are also employing the use of remote monitoring technology to enable more patients to get the care that they need at home rather than having to be admitted into hospital.
Harriett Baldwin
Before omicron arrived there had been over 10 million positive cases in this country of covid-19, of which 14 in every 1,000 appeared to have been fatal. Since omicron arrived there have been a further 5 million cases, and it looks as though the fatality rate is about 10 times lower. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how important the “Get Boosted Now” programme has been in reducing hospitalisations and fatalities?
Sajid Javid
Yes, of course. The officials within my Department have carried out a wealth of analysis on case fatality rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Recent data has shown that covid-19 case fatality rates for the over-80s are likely to be more than five times greater in the unvaccinated versus those who have had at least two doses.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, when I recently visited the intensive care unit dealing with covid patients in King’s College, the consultant in charge told me that he estimated that about 70% of his patients on that day were completely unvaccinated. It is clear, as we have seen especially in the past few weeks, that vaccinations save lives.
Lia Nici
I have a 90-year-old constituent who has been prevented from going to see his 89-year-old wife of 65 years. It took my intervention after 20 days of his being prevented from seeing her for him to be able to get into the hospital. Neither of them have covid. Will my right hon. Friend please instruct health trusts that, as we reduce the incidence of covid in hospitals, family members must be allowed to go and see their family in hospital?
Sajid Javid
I am very sorry to hear about what happened to my hon. Friend’s constituent. It cannot be right that people are unable to visit their loved ones while they are in hospital. It should not require the intervention of a Member of Parliament to do so. Allowing such visits should be an absolute priority in every trust, and I have recently raised this issue with the chief executive of the NHS. She has assured me that this message will be sent loud and clear to all NHS trusts.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Too many women with endometriosis are being forced to go to A&E or seek hospital admissions for their treatment. This is partly because they wait on average seven and a half years for a diagnosis. What can the Secretary of State do to improve the knowledge and awareness of endometriosis right across all aspects of the NHS?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the importance of endometriosis. She will know, I hope, that in the women’s health strategy there will be an important focus on it. Within that strategy, we have set out how we can work together to do much more.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
We know that the number of covid admissions has led to a number of people having their routine hospital treatment cancelled. Last week it was announced that that had reached a record-breaking 6 million people. When might the Government make a statement about hitting this figure and set out a plan to tackle it?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady will know that, sadly because of covid and the need for the NHS to prioritise it—rightly—we have sadly seen an increase in people waiting for elective procedures and scans. She will also know that the Government have already set out a plan to deal with that in terms of funding—the biggest catch-up fund in history, with an extra £8 billion of funding over the next three years. After tackling the most immediate need to deal with omicron, we will shortly set out in much more detail how we intend to tackle the elective backlog.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
To maximise uptake there are now more than 3,000 sites—more than ever—delivering covid-19 vaccines and boosters, including hundreds of walk-in sites. Opening times have been extended to seven days a week. GPs and community pharmacies have been asked to do more vaccinations, and 750 armed forces personnel and 41 military planners have been brought in to every region to help co-ordinate the national effort. The offer of a covid vaccine—a first or second dose, and a booster for those eligible—remains open to everyone.
Mrs Murray
In rural areas such as mine in South East Cornwall, it can mean travelling miles to get to the nearest available centre. What ambitions do the Government have to get vaccinations out to the smaller communities to assist those who have yet to be vaccinated to get their jab?
Maggie Throup
Well, 99% of the population in England live within 10 miles of a covid-19 vaccination site, and robust plans are in place to ensure that everyone has convenient access to a vaccine. In Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, 85% of those eligible have received their booster or third dose. There are targeted vaccination programmes in Cornwall to support the homeless, Traveller and migrant workers communities and fishermen—a community that has a great champion in my hon. Friend.
For those in more rural Cornwall communities, a further 16 pop-up sessions are organised throughout January, and more are planned to ensure that everyone can get boosted more easily.
Mark Fletcher
A number of residents in Bolsover have written to me to ask why there is not a specific vaccination centre in the town. Given that the booster roll-out has slowed locally and given our poor bus connections, could the Minister—as my former Whip, I know that she is incredibly persuasive—look into having a specific site in Bolsover?
Maggie Throup
There are now six vaccination sites in the Bolsover district. A regular pop-up clinic was also set up in Shirebrook to address and identify the shortfall in uptake, but that has been phased out as new community pharmacy and primary care network clinics came on board to support the local vaccination programme and increase the number of Bolsover sites at the end of 2021. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that a new roving vaccination van is being deployed across Derbyshire. It will visit Bolsover and surrounding villages to provide extra capacity and ensure that everyone has another way to get their booster jab. It will also allow those not yet vaccinated to come forward for this life-saving protection.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Undoubtedly, additional vaccine sites in rural communities will increase vaccine uptake, which is vital. However, does the Minister agree that, for NHS staff, counselling and one-to-one conversations are right and far more effective than the Government’s current plan potentially to sack the 5% of hospital staff in the Morecambe Bay region and indeed across the country who have not been vaccinated? That would cause a serious capacity problem in the NHS.
Maggie Throup
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about patient safety. He is quite right that it is important to have that dialogue, and I know that colleagues across the board in the NHS are having that. It is interesting to note that more than 94% of NHS staff have already had their vaccine, and I commend them for that. As the chief medical officer Chris Whitty rightly said, those looking after other people who are very vulnerable have a “professional responsibility” to get vaccinated.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Access to vaccinations in remote areas is incredibly important, but so is a general health strategy for clinically very vulnerable people. Young Lara in my constituency had the organ that she desperately needed for a double organ transplant, but unfortunately there was no bed in intensive care for her to have the operation. What strategy is the Department taking in general for our clinically vulnerable to provide access to operating theatres so that there is a focus not just on vaccination but on the multiple health conditions that so many of them suffer across the board?
Maggie Throup
The hon. Lady makes a really good point. I reassure her that procedures for urgent cases have not been cancelled. As the House knows, we are looking at the private sector to help deliver vital support for those patients.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
The UK continues to provide one of the highest testing rates globally. We have increased capacity for PCR testing by over 200,000 tests per day since December. Home delivery capacity is now at 7 million lateral flow tests every day, with community pharmacies supplying an additional 9.5 million tests last week. In comparison to England, countries that have put in place more restrictions might have chosen a different balance between lateral flow devices and PCRs to meet their individual testing demands. Therefore, we cannot meaningfully compare our testing infrastructure to that of other countries.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for that answer. Health and social care workers who care for some of the most clinically vulnerable members of our society were rightly prioritised for early vaccination. Does she agree that, similarly, they must be prioritised for testing? What is she doing to ensure that?
Maggie Throup
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The most vulnerable people are being prioritised. The UK Health Security Agency and NHS Test and Trace currently deliver an average of more than 70,000 PCR kits and 970,000 LFD kits a week to adult social care settings. In recent weeks, as demand has increased due to the omicron wave, Dudley, like other local authorities, has provided tests to key workers to enable them to keep working.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her response. The Government have recently announced that self-isolation will be cut to five days, given a negative lateral flow test. Has the Minister come to an assessment on the impact that will have on demand for lateral flow tests, given the struggle many have faced trying to obtain a box of them in recent weeks?
Maggie Throup
As we look at policy and amend it like we did last week, it is right that we make sure that we can fill those requirements. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we can, and we have increased the procurement of lateral flow devices. This month, we will get another 750 million lateral flow devices into the UK for January and February.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am sure the whole House will welcome the early signs of falling numbers of people in hospital with covid. Does the Minister have any comments on the news yesterday from the World Health Organisation that it thinks that the UK looks set to be one of the first countries out of the pandemic, and how much weight does she put on the vaccination and booster programme, and the colossal scale of our testing availability, in that achievement?
Maggie Throup
My right hon. Friend makes a really good point. We know that omicron numbers are still really high, and we still have more than 2,000 people hospitalised every day, so we do need to be cautious. But my hon. Friend is right, in that our vaccine and testing programmes have been vital in being able to tackle this deadly virus. I encourage everybody to get their booster and, if they have not come forward for their first or second jab, to get those too.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
We have significantly increased our testing and supply capacity since December, procuring over 700 million more lateral flow tests, ramping up our delivery capacity and expanding the UK’s daily PCR capacity. Around 1.7 billion lateral flow tests have been distributed across the UK since the start of the pandemic. Home delivery capacity is now at over 7 million lateral flow tests every day, and we have also recently increased capacity for PCR testing by more than 200,000 tests per day.
Bill Esterson
I asked the Prime Minister, but he did not know. I asked the Business Secretary and he did not seem to care. So today is third time lucky. Why were 30 million British-made lateral flow tests sitting in a warehouse waiting for approval while Chinese tests were given temporary approval, all while people could not get test kits from pharmacies or from Test and Trace? It took six months to give approval to SureScreen diagnostics: when will the Government support British test manufacturers and end the preference for imports from China?
Sajid Javid
I can give the hon. Gentleman an answer, and I am very happy to do so. He will know that whenever we try to procure tests, in this case lateral flow tests, we should always try to buy British first, and we do buy from SureScreen—it is a fantastic supplier. But he will also know that we can only, rightly, buy lateral flow tests once they have been approved by our independent medical regulator.
David Duguid
Does my right hon. Friend agree that access to the largest testing programme in Europe is just one example of the advantages to the people of Scotland when we adopt a UK-wide approach to shared challenges?
Sajid Javid
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about a unified approach to shared challenges such as covid-19, and that unified approach being the best way forward. Across the UK, we have built the largest diagnostic network in British history and our testing programme has been one of the most important lines of defence, alongside our UK-wide vaccination programme. Our procurement of tests, antivirals and vaccines has been another fantastic example of the strength of the Union.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
“Always try and buy British first” was what the Secretary of State said a few moments ago, but a few weeks ago it was reported that plans to manufacture lateral flow tests here in the UK were shelved because the Government were scared that they might be accused of handing out dodgy deals to their mates. I know the Minister has form on this, but on this point they were misguided. Can he now say to the House that that was not the case and that he was not running scared of a transparent procurement policy, and that he will now do all he can to turbocharge British manufacturing and get British lateral flow tests in the system, so that we do not ever suffer again from those avoidable shortages we saw over Christmas?
Sajid Javid
First, I think the hon. Gentleman accused me of doing something inappropriate, and I think that that is not appropriate, unless he has something else to say or some evidence, but it is true to form for the Labour Front Bench, which just constantly makes things up to make false points. When it comes to testing, as he has just heard me say, we have purchased 1.7 billion lateral flow tests since the start of the pandemic. Wherever possible, whether it is PCR testing or lateral flow testing, whenever tests are approved by our independent regulator, we buy British.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
At the present time, no decision has been made to increase the upper age exemption for free prescriptions.
Sarah Green
Such a policy change would hit a vulnerable age bracket who are more likely to have one or more long-term illnesses requiring medication. A constituent of mine has told me of his concern at the cost of paying for his wife’s Parkinson’s medication, should such a change be introduced. Given that the millions facing a new charge will also be hit by a rise in living costs, will the Secretary of State shelve such proposals and review the list of conditions that qualify for a medical exemption certificate?
Maria Caulfield
Can I just reinforce the answer I have just given? There is no decision to increase the upper age exemption for free prescriptions, and the rumour circulating that the Government are removing free prescriptions for pensioners is completely false. The Government are absolutely committed to maintaining free prescriptions for pensioners.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I am very pleased to hear that no decision has been made on this important topic, and I hope the situation remains as it is. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind those who are paying for their prescriptions that a pre-payment certificate is available that can save a significant amount of money for those who regularly use their pharmacy?
Maria Caulfield
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he does well to highlight the pre-payment certificate. If people go for a 12-month certificate, which is about £2 a week, for two items they can save £116.30 and for three items, £228.50, so it is well worth the investment.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
Following consultation last September, we announced that we would legislate to fortify non-wholemeal wheat flour with folic acid. We are working at pace to move this policy forward, and we have already engaged with industry as part of a cross-Government review of bread and flour regulations. All four nations are now working closely together to develop the draft legislation and impact assessment for future consultation.
John Mc Nally
I thank the Minister for her answer. As she knows, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has recommended mandatory folic acid fortification of flour. The UK Government launched a public consultation that closed in 2019. In September last year, the UK Government announced that folic acid will be added to non-wholemeal wheat flour across the UK to help to prevent life-threatening spinal conditions in babies. Therefore, can the Minister update the House on the UK Government’s timeline to implement the decision in a wee bit more detail, please?
Maggie Throup
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue, because fortifying non-wholemeal wheat flour with folic acid will help to prevent hundreds of neural tube defects in foetuses every year. I regret that I cannot commit to a specific timetable, but we need to consult on the draft legislation and will look to give industry appropriate notice. All four nations are working together on the timetable and hope to deliver this important policy as soon as possible.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Alongside measures to reduce demand and admissions, such as the vaccine roll-out and new therapeutics for covid, the NHS is creating the maximum possible capacity and investing in improved discharge arrangements, the use of independent sector beds, virtual wards and Nightingales to provide surge capacity, alongside our investment in delivering more than 20,000 more clinical staff this year compared with August 2020.
Craig Tracey
I thank the Minister for that answer. As he knows, one of the main challenges facing hospitals is delays in the transfer of patients back to care homes due to historic restrictions, particularly where there has been an outbreak, although there may have been only one case. As we move to treating covid as more of an endemic condition, what steps can be taken to stop restricting admissions to these care homes, which would undoubtedly relieve pressure on hospitals?
Edward Argar
There is local flexibility to allow residents to be safely admitted to a care home during outbreak restrictions, following a risk-based approach that takes into account the size of outbreaks, who is affected, care home size and layout, rates of booster vaccination and current Care Quality Commission rating. The CQC supports risk-based decisions made on admissions to support the discharge of people with a negative covid test result, but, of course, we must continue to ensure the safety of those in care homes.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The workforce are absolutely central to growing NHS capacity. The advice in a Migration Advisory Committee report was to amend migration policies, make
“Care Workers and Home Carers…immediately eligible for the Health and Care Worker Visa and place the occupation on the Shortage Occupation List.”
When will the UK Government start listening to their advisers and change migration policies to alleviate the pressures facing our NHS?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the tone of his question. He is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the workforce. The workforce are the golden thread that runs through the heart of everything we do in our NHS, which is why we have already taken a number of steps to increase our workforce. We are well on target to meet our target of 50,000 more nurses. As I mentioned in my initial answer, in August last year we had over 20,000 more clinically qualified staff compared with August 2020, so we continue to grow the workforce.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
Delivering new community hospitals is a key part of upgrading and expanding NHS capacity. The Department is currently examining a bid to rebuild and expand services at Thornbury Hospital, which is desperately needed due to the expansion of the town. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss the next steps in delivering this vital infrastructure improvement in south Gloucestershire?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that, in looking to meet the demand challenges imposed on our NHS, it is not just about district, general or acute hospitals, but about all our hospital facilities, including community hospitals. He has raised this subject with me on a number of occasions. He is a doughty champion for Thornbury and, of course, I am always happy to meet him.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
On the issue of capacity, the argument has always been floating around that bed numbers can be cut on the basis of medical and technological advances. That was always deeply suspect, but in the context of covid-19 and its aftermath, can the Minister assure the House that there will be no cuts in bed numbers in any future hospital reconfiguration?
Edward Argar
Decisions on hospital reconfigurations and changes to local hospital systems are a matter for the local NHS, following full consultation and consideration of the needs of local communities. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of bed capacity in the NHS. The NHS as a whole will continue to look at what bed capacity is needed to meet future need.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
My constituent David Hulbert contacted me to ask that I pay tribute in the Chamber to the phenomenal NHS teams from both Mount Vernon Hospital and Watford General Hospital for the care he has received, following his admission for cancer. Will the Minister join me in thanking the NHS for its tireless, backlog-clearing work, and for continuing with lifesaving non-covid operations, alongside its ongoing heroic actions leading our covid fight and vaccine roll-out?
Edward Argar
I am always happy to take the opportunity, as I know the Opposition Front-Bench team and my colleagues are, to thank the amazing NHS workforce for the work they have done. I pay tribute to the work of the teams at Mount Vernon and Watford General and, in the context of the pandemic, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who volunteered to help out at the hospital.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister highlighted the use of independent care providers. Last week, the Department announced that 150 hospitals would be on standby for three months to provide additional resource. Can the Minister tell the House when he or his Secretary of State asked NHS England to investigate standing up the 150 hospitals, which will receive a minimum income guarantee of £75 million to £90 million a month?
Edward Argar
I think I heard the hon. Lady correctly and she asked when those discussions began. That was last year, prior to the peak of this wave. We believe that the use of the independent sector to assist our NHS and provide additional capacity is absolutely the right thing to do. Thus far, during the course of the pandemic, it has provided, I believe, over 5 million procedures to patients. Therefore, we think this is a valuable and important addition to our capacity, and it is right that we have this surge capacity insurance policy in place to help to meet further demand.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
Vaccination continues to offer our best line of defence against hospitalisation due to covid-19. The latest data shows vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation with the omicron variant was 58% after one dose and 64% up to 24 weeks after two doses. Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation was 92% in the first two to four weeks after a third dose or booster and 83% after 10 or more weeks. Those who are unvaccinated are eight times more likely to be hospitalised. That is why it is so important that everybody takes up the offer to get boosted.
Dr Murrison
I thank the Minister for that reply. The facts are that the vaccination programme has been massively successful in reducing hospitalisation, particularly admission to intensive therapy units. So will the Minister confirm that, on 26 January, particularly given what we now know about the nature of the covid variant that we are currently struggling with, those regulations will lapse? Will she further confirm that she will amend advice on working from home? Most importantly, will she ensure that we reverse the counterproductive compulsory vaccination of NHS staff that the Government’s own figures suggest—
Mr Speaker
Order. Come on, we cannot have questions that are so long.
Maggie Throup
Although evidence shows that the omicron variant causes less severe disease than previous variants, yesterday in England we still had over 16,000 covid patients in hospital and over 84,000 reported cases. Plan B measures are currently in place in England, and will be reviewed before the regulations expire on 26 January. The best thing everyone can do to help to keep the virus under control is to keep coming forward for booster jabs to help to stop the spread of infection and manage the immediate pressures on the NHS.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am seriously concerned about the rapidly depleting efficacy of the vaccine—at 10 weeks, between 40% and 50% protection—and therefore my question to the Minister is: what happens next? Already we are talking about a mandatory programme of vaccine for NHS staff which will see depletion after 10 weeks, but also public health measures may be removed: what next after the booster?
Maggie Throup
I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is monitoring this all the time, and we take advice from the JCVI.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
In October last year, the Government announced a plan to improve general practice capacity, backed up by £250 million of winter access funds to help GPs and their practices. That can be used to fund more sessions from existing staff, or indeed increase the physical premises at a practice. For my hon. Friend’s area, the Black Country and West Birmingham clinical commissioning group expects an award of £6.5 million from the winter access fund.
Nicola Richards
My constituents in West Bromwich East have been raising concerns with me about their ability to access face-to-face GP appointments at local surgeries. Given the significant £250 million winter funding package for general practice announced towards the end of last year, what assessment has the Minister made of whether that support is making a real difference on the ground?
Maria Caulfield
I thank my hon. Friend, who is pushing me constantly to improve access for her constituents, but can I reassure her that the announcement, the funds and the support are making a difference? In November last year, there were on average 1.39 million general practice appointments per working day, compared with 1.31 million in November 2019, but crucially, 62.7% of those appointments were face to face, so this is really making a difference for patients.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
A nurse wrote this week about working on covid wards during the height of the pandemic:
“There were no vaccines or treatments then and we worked for hours in full PPE to protect ourselves and try not to bring the virus home to our families. There were no after work drinks for us…It is clear that there was a culture inside Number 10 where even if rules were not technically broken, the spirit of the rules were, and this is completely unacceptable.”
The nurse is the Minister. Surely she must agree that the Prime Minister should now resign.
Maria Caulfield
I am very disappointed by the hon. Lady’s question. Serious issues are facing the NHS and patients, and instead of playing party politics at the Dispatch Box, perhaps she needs to ask her own leader what he was doing in May last year.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
People should be discharged from hospital safely and with the appropriate care and support they need. As the Secretary of State outlined, we have provided £3.3 billion via the NHS to facilitate timely hospital discharges over the pandemic, including £478 million just for this winter. We recognise that providers and local authorities have experienced significant challenges in recruiting and retaining social care workers. That is why we have provided £462.5 million over winter, for this period, to support care providers to improve existing care support.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Minister for that response, but even given all that help, almost 30% of available acute beds in Gloucestershire are occupied by patients who are medically fit for discharge. About half of those are awaiting care packages and the other half are looking for beds in community hospitals or care homes, or awaiting home discharge. What more can the Government do to relieve the pressure on the acute hospitals in Gloucestershire and on all the medical staff?
Gillian Keegan
I assure my hon. Friend that this is something we take very seriously and we meet every day to discuss this issue. We are conscious of the pressures caused by omicron, and of the herculean challenges faced by health and social care providers to discharge people in a safe and timely way, particularly with outbreaks and having to manage infection prevention and control. That includes the Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which declared a national incident on 28 December at its Gloucestershire site. But it responded brilliantly and stood down the incident nine days later. As the Secretary of State said, we have also established a national discharge taskforce, which is driving progress to bring a renewed focus on reducing discharge delays, including in Gloucestershire, and working with local government and the NHS.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Based on the latest available data—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome this—one-year survival rates for all cancers combined are at a record high, with an increase from 63.6% to 73.9%, and the five-year survival rate for all cancers combined has increased from 45.7% to 54.6%.
Alex Norris
To ensure the best cancer outcomes, patients need to start treatment as soon as they can. But in the latest data the Minister addresses, the number of those who waited for more than two weeks to see a specialist set a new record high for the third month running, soaring to more than 55,000 people in November, prior to the peak of this wave. Macmillan Cancer Supports states that more than 31,000 people in England are still waiting for their first cancer treatment, which will not do. When will the Government publish a properly resourced, properly staffed national recovery plan for cancer care?
Maria Caulfield
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that cancer has been an absolute priority throughout this pandemic, and treatment and services have continued. I thank all those working in cancer care for making sure that has happened. Ninety-five per cent. of people started treatment within a month of diagnosis throughout the pandemic, and there have been more than 4 million urgent referrals and 960,000 people receiving cancer treatment during that time.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Geoff Cosgrave was admitted to hospital in mid-November with kidney cancer that had spread through his lymph nodes and lungs. Last week, his wife Glynis contacted me in desperation because he was unable to access treatment to clear the blockage in his lungs as the thoracic ward at the nearby hospital had closed because of staffing shortages. After frantic and desperate chasing by his family and NHS staff, he was finally admitted to Bristol Royal Infirmary last week, but unfortunately his condition had deteriorated so he could not receive treatment. Geoff died on Friday and I am sure the whole House will want to send their deepest condolences to Geoff’s family. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Glynis wants me to place on record her family’s enormous thanks to the NHS staff who cared for Geoff, and to ask the Minister what the Government are doing to address the serious understaffing in the NHS, and the covid pressures that are having an impact on cancer care, so that no family has to suffer what the Cosgrave family are experiencing right now.
Maria Caulfield
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I put on record—I am sure this is shared by the whole House—our sympathy for Geoff and his family. There is no doubt that despite cancer being a priority throughout the pandemic, there have been pressures on the system. I again thank the staff, as Geoff’s family have, for carrying on throughout. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the NHS is focusing on recovering cancer services to pre-pandemic levels; an additional £2 billion of funding was made available to the NHS and there were 44,000 more staff from October 2020. We are absolutely committed to getting back on track for pre-pandemic levels. Cancer has always been a priority. That is no comfort to Geoff and his family, but hopefully they can be assured that we are doing all we can.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
Eight weeks ago, when this House last met for Health and Social Care questions, the world had not even heard of the omicron variant; but a third of the total number of UK covid-19 cases have been recorded since then. The action the Government have taken in response to omicron, and the collective efforts of the British people, have seen us become the most boosted and tested country in Europe, and the country with the most antivirals per head in Europe. That is why we are the most open country in Europe. I have always said that the restrictions should not stay in place a day longer than is absolutely necessary. Due to those pharmaceutical defences and the likelihood of our having already reached the peak of case numbers and hospitalisations, I am cautiously optimistic that we will be able to substantially reduce measures next week. The best thing we can all do to continue that progress is get boosted now.
Chris Bryant
May I put on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State for all the help he provided to my constituents before Christmas? He went beyond the call of duty, and I am very grateful to him.
The aftershock is often worse than the earthquake. My anxiety about covid is that it was the earthquake, but we still have the aftershock to come—that is, all the problems in cancer care, and the lack of doctors in emergency medicine, as well as in so many other disciplines. How will we make sure that the 6 million people on waiting lists get the care that they really need, and that the number does not grow over the next few months?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue, and I thank him for his comments at the start. We all know, as we have just heard from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), that the NHS in particular and social care have been under huge pressure; I think it has been the most challenging time in their history. Everyone has performed in a way that we can all be proud of. Despite that, we have seen a huge rise in electives, and I think that the number will go higher before it goes lower, because so many people stayed away when they were asked to. I want them to come forward. I want them to know that the NHS is open for them. We will support it with a bigger workforce and more investment, including the £36 billion of extra investment from the new NHS and social care levy.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend raises an issue that is very close to my heart, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly raised it a moment ago, too. The pandemic has exposed huge health disparities in this country. It is clear to me that we need to go much further on cancer, not only to catch up on cancer referrals, diagnosis and treatment and radical innovation, but to improve the persistently poor outcomes that patients in this country have long experienced compared to those in other countries. It is time we launched a war on cancer. I am working on a new vision to radically improve the outcome for cancer patients across the United Kingdom, and I will have more to say on that in due course.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Keeping the Secretary of State on the subject of cancer, half of all patients with suspected breast cancer are not seen within the recommended two weeks. In two months, the number of patients who were not able to see a specialist in the target period has gone from 5,000 to 23,000—a far steeper increase than for all other forms of cancer—so I ask the Secretary of State: has breast cancer care been deprioritised?
Sajid Javid
Of course it has not been deprioritised. No cancer has been deprioritised. As the House has heard again today, we have seen an impact on healthcare across the country because of this terrible pandemic, including, sadly, on cancer care. Whether we are talking about breast cancer or other forms of cancer, they all remain a priority, including during the omicron wave; the NHS has made it absolutely clear that cancer remains a priority. As I said—I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees—we need to do more on cancer. I know that he cares deeply about this; he is right to have raised it twice in the past hour, and I hope that he will work with the Government on it.
Wes Streeting
I am going to raise it a third time, because it is very clear that breast cancer care is worse than care for other forms of cancer. The Secretary of State needs to account for that and tell us what he will do about it. On cancer more broadly, it is not good enough to return to the situation pre-pandemic, because as much as he wants to blame covid pressures for delays in cancer treatment, we went into the pandemic with waiting lists at 4.5 million, and with staff shortages of 100,000 in the NHS and of 112,000 in social care, which impacted on broader NHS performance. Where is the plan to fix the workforce challenge in the NHS? That is the biggest single challenge that will impact on his mission—the mission we all share—to improve cancer outcomes for everyone in the country.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that survival rates from cancer were increasing before the pandemic, but as I think the whole House understands, the pandemic has had an impact on all other types of healthcare, including cancer. This is a challenge throughout the United Kingdom. He talks about waits for breast cancer treatment; those are longer in Wales, so this is an issue throughout the UK. It is right that we continue to focus on the workforce. We have 44,000 more health workers than we did in October 2020, and we will continue to build on that.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
My hon. Friend gets to the nub of the problem. The 2006 contract, which was introduced under the last Labour Government and is dependent on UDAs—units of dental activity—creates perverse disincentives for dentists to take on NHS work. We are already starting work on reforming that.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
We will not globally defeat covid if large proportions of the global population do not have access to vaccinations. The UK is one of a small number of countries blocking the TRIPS— trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—waiver. Will the UK Government stop blocking the vaccine intellectual property waiver, and allow nations to manufacture the vaccines themselves?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of helping the whole world to acquire these life-saving vaccines. That is why the UK can be proud of the more than 30 million vaccines that it has delivered to developing countries already. We will meet our commitment to increase that to 100 million by June, but we do not agree with the suggestion about the TRIPS waiver, because it will make future access to life-saving vaccines much more difficult.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point, and I commend him on the fantastic work that he has done in leading this campaign. We were delighted to announce £50 million of funding for MND research. That will support a new MND research unit, which has already started work to co-ordinate research applications, and a new MND partnership, which will be formed to pool expertise across the research community.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. Healthcare workers have been under significant pressure, especially over the past two years, and of course that applies to GPs. The support we have provided through the winter access fund—the £250 million—is there to help GPs’ surgeries across the country, including with their workforce.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Public consultation on the reconfiguration in East Sussex was launched on 6 December last year and will close on 11 March. She is right to highlight access and transport links as a key factor in such decisions, and I would of course be delighted to meet her.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
From the start of the pandemic, the UK has worked to support equitable access to covid-19 vaccines. It helped to establish the international joint procurement initiative COVAX, which supports higher and lower-income countries in securing the vaccines they need. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated, we are committed to delivering 100 million doses by mid-June; we had delivered more than 30 million by the end of 2021. The UK leads the way on variants through the UK Health Security Agency, and we are willing to progress that technology throughout the world.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Edward Argar
We remain fully committed to the delivery of the important new women’s and children’s hospital in Truro for the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust as part of our new hospital programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remains committed to it, and of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Sajid Javid
First, I commend everyone working in the Newcastle hospitals trust and across the NHS for everything they are doing. The hon. Lady is right to talk about the importance of the workforce—that is why we have asked Health Education England to come up with a 15-year workforce framework—but she knows that the resources that the NHS has make a big difference, and it would have helped if she had supported the Government’s record investment of £36 billion over the next three years in the NHS and social care.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Maggie Throup
We are intent on making vaccines as accessible as possible, so there are now more vaccination sites than at any point in the programme. They operate 12 hours a day, seven days a week where possible, including at hundreds of walk-in and pop-up sites. In every community, there should be slots available at least 16 hours a day; in some places, that is extended to 24 hours a day to support workers such as those in the transport sector, who often work unsociable hours.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has introduced guidance for essential care givers so that family members can visit loved ones in care homes. Is he considering going further to guarantee the right to visit residents in care homes and patients in hospitals?
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
The hon. Member makes a very good point. It is important that people get the right to visit their loved ones in care homes. That is why we have introduced guidance that says that essential care givers should get access to care homes at all points, even during outbreaks. There is a process, which the Care Quality Commission manages, for reporting those that do not comply, but if there are specific examples, I am very happy for him to write to me with details and I will follow it up.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
This morning, the Health Secretary is reported in The Times as saying that the NHS can learn from the way in which academy chains are regulated, but he will know that the education system has no national targets, while the NHS uses more national targets than any healthcare system anywhere in the world. Will he look at the role of targets and the risk that they focus managers on bureaucratic numbers, sometimes at the expense of quality of care for patients?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend; as the whole House knows, he speaks with considerable experience. We need to do things differently, especially as a result of the pandemic and the challenges that it has created. That requires reform, and we will set out further reforms in due course. He is absolutely right about targets: they can play an important role, but they can also lead to poor outcomes for patients, and all targets need to be properly reviewed.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Sheffield’s Weston Park Cancer Centre is one of just four specialist cancer facilities in the country, but it desperately needs a £50 million upgrade, as the Secretary of State will know because I raised the matter with his predecessor and wrote to the Secretary of State in October and again just last week. Will he urgently respond to the proposal, which is vital for cancer outcomes in South Yorkshire?
Edward Argar
We will endeavour to respond swiftly, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to meet me about capital funding for those sorts of projects, I am always happy to meet him.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Now then: the Health Secretary will be aware that King’s Mill Hospital in Ashfield was built under a disastrous private finance initiative deal under the last Labour Government. It now costs us about £1 million a week to service the debt—money that could be spent on social care in Ashfield. Will he meet me to discuss how we can rid my trust of this crippling debt of £1 million a week and spend it on social care?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the impact of yet another of Labour’s disastrous PFIs on the funding available to our NHS, and indeed to social care. We continue to work hard to deliver our manifesto commitment to improve on those disastrous PFI schemes. I am very happy to meet him to discuss the matter.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Just last month, Luton lost an outstanding champion in the other place with the sad passing of Lord Bill McKenzie of Luton. Just 21 months previously, he had been diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis.
Last week I met the chair of the Pulmonary Fibrosis Trust, one of my constituents in Luton South, who told me that there is no current cure for the disease and that for most people there is no known cause. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps his Department is taking to support research into a cure and to improve diagnosis, support and care for people living with pulmonary fibrosis?
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the matter in the House. Pulmonary fibrosis is a very serious condition. Far too many people suffer from it, and there needs to be more research globally—not just here in the UK, but working with our international partners. I will bring the matter to the attention of my officials and see what more we can do.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Sadly, the situation in Scarborough and Whitby for patients seeking a new NHS dentist is no better than that in St Ives, with thousands of UDAs going unused. Dentists tell me that it would help to have a date for the end of the UDA system so that they could start recruiting staff and, in some cases, building new premises to deliver NHS dentistry to local people.
Maria Caulfield
My right hon. Friend is correct. As I said earlier, the disastrous contract of 2006 is causing disincentives for NHS dentists to take on NHS work. I assure my right hon. Friend, however, that dental services in Scarborough are currently being commissioned by NHS England following the handing back of dental regional accountability. Procurement processes are in place, and a new practice is set to be in place by the summer.
Migrant Crossings: Role of the Military
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Minister for the Armed Forces to make a statement on the migrant channel issues and the role of the military.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Unacceptable numbers of people continue to make these dangerous channel crossings, and last November’s tragic deaths serve as the strongest reminder of the need to stop them. The Government have been exploring every avenue to prevent further crossings, and have now appointed the Ministry of Defence to take operational primacy for cross-channel counter-migration operations. That will mean a much larger and more visible role for the Royal Navy in operational planning, asset co-ordination and operational delivery.
As the Home Secretary explained during Home Office questions yesterday, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence have worked closely on countering the small boats challenge through the military aid to civilian authorities process. Throughout the last 12 months Defence has provided a range of support, including the provision of surveillance aircraft, additional accommodation and planning expertise, and has assisted in the delivery of trials for novel tactics to help Border Force and the Home Office to better interdict and deter migrant vessels.
Details of how Defence will deliver and maintain the primacy of cross-channel counter-migration operations are currently being worked through. The Government’s objective is that no one should arrive illegally in the United Kingdom on their own terms, and all vessels transporting illegal migrants across the channel must therefore be intercepted before, or as, they land. Defence is committed to delivering that step change. Details of how it will be achieved will be made known in due course, but the House can be reassured that the MOD is working hand in hand with the Home Secretary and her Department to achieve this goal while ensuring the safety of all individuals involved and protecting other Defence priority output.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification.
We are rightly proud of our armed forces, who watch our backs and defend our interests across the world, and who are equipped and trained to step forward and assist other Government Departments in times of emergency. However, the bigger picture is clear to see. Our world is becoming more dangerous and more complex, and demands on our military—not least the Royal Navy—are increasing. The integrated review maps out the importance to the UK economy of retaining the freedom of the seas, increasingly challenged by China, Russia and, indeed, Iran. The Defence Committee’s recent review of the Royal Navy concluded that it is now too small to meet its current commitments in the Atlantic, in the Mediterranean, in the Gulf, off east Africa, in the Caribbean and in the Arctic, and, of course, with the tilt to the Indo-Pacific. Yet here we are introducing another task: co-ordinating the migrant crossing response, which is normally the responsibility of the Home Office.
As the Minister said, the migrant channel issue is complex and is not likely to go away soon. It is not an acute emergency, so why is the Navy being drawn in, even in this limited capacity? I say “limited”; the Minister spoke of “operational primacy”, and he is now responsible for it. There is a real danger of mission creep, with further navel assets being sucked into this challenge. Please will the Minister explain who will pay for this mission, what success looks like, and how long the task will last?
This tactic may, on the face of it, look popular, with 28,000 migrants now crossing every year—“send in the Navy to sort it out”—but it is not the strategy that will solve the problem of the movement of migrants. We need first to break up the gangs who encourage migrants in the first place, and secondly to help restore governance and security in the very countries from which these people are fleeing—places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Somalia. Ironically, those are parts of the world where we have used our own hard power to intervene but then departed before there was enduring stability, and now families are fleeing towards Europe.
Unless the fires are put out at source, we will never reduce the numbers. We need a broader strategy than simply tasking the Navy to the channel, which will not be the answer.
James Heappey
I thank my right hon. Friend for elaborating on his urgent question. I take issue with his point that the Navy has to make a binary choice between work at home and work overseas. Ships are deployed all over the world right now, and other ships are making ready to set to sea in response to whatever crises may unfold in the Euro-Atlantic over the coming weeks.
In addition, there is capacity to do as we do year round, which is to deploy naval resources into the channel for purposes such as fishery protection and, indeed, securing our border. That is an important point. The purpose of our nation’s armed forces is to secure the UK’s national security interests both at home and abroad, and I would argue that deploying our armed forces to ensure that our borders are robust is a perfectly appropriate use of them. Indeed, as I know my right hon. Friend is very aware, there are parts of Europe right now in which state-sponsored illegal migration is being used as a sub-threshold weapon of competition. I am not suggesting for a second that the migration across the channel is that right now but, in the absence of robust defence of our borders, it could be in the future, and the MOD therefore has a perfectly reasonable role to play in ensuring that our borders are robustly protected.
My right hon. Friend specifically asked about pay. Clearly this will be a multi-agency effort under Royal Navy command. Where agencies are already doing things in the channel, they will continue to be funded by the Departments that own them.
Success is that we do not allow anybody to land in the UK on their own terms. For how long? Until the deterrent effect is achieved and the cross-channel route for small boats collapses.
There is a limit to my right hon. Friend’s question, which is the role of the Royal Navy and the military within the channel—that is what I am here to answer today—but I completely agree that this is just one part of a wider system. Indeed, he is right to note that the MOD has plenty of equity in providing stability in countries such as Iraq and in the Sahel, where the majority of migrants are coming from, and we are engaged in that.
Nobody is pretending that the presence of a rear admiral and a few extra Royal Navy ships solves this issue. It is regrettable that only part of the Government’s solution should appear in the papers, and I will do my best to answer any questions my right hon. Friend asks.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
This Government now really are desperate. They are desperate to distract attention from accusations about the Prime Minister lying and partying in Downing Street, and they are desperate to prop up a Home Secretary who has been utterly failing for two years as the number of cross-channel migrants has tripled. The military are there to protect the nation, not Tory Ministers.
The Minister has confirmed today that the armed forces will be involved in what he calls operational delivery. He says the details are still being worked through, so let me try again. What will the armed forces now do? Will naval vessels be deployed in the channel? Will the Navy be used to push back migrant boats? Will the Navy use sonic weapons, as No. 10 wants? Will it step up the use of drones for surveillance? Will it transport migrants from British beaches? What military accommodation will be used to house and process migrants? We are told by the media that Rear Admiral Utley has been put in charge. To whom will he report, the Home Secretary or the Defence Secretary?
This announcement is official confirmation that the Home Secretary is failing. Our armed forces are always the Government’s last resort. The military aid to the civil authorities code means such assistance is granted only when
“the civil authority lacks the necessary capability to fulfil the task”.
Who will pay the military’s bills for this work? What will be the arrangements for co-operation between the UK and French military? The Minister promised me last month that he would
“publish details of Military Aid to the Civil Authorities…tasks on a fortnightly basis beginning in January 2022. These updates will be placed in the Library of the House.”
When will he actually do this, and will he publish the detailed terms of this MACA agreement?
The Navy was used before, in 2019. Two patrol vessels were redeployed from defence tasks to the channel. They intercepted no boats, at a cost of £780,000 to the taxpayer. Will the Minister guarantee that this military deployment in the channel will not compromise our armed forces in any of their fundamental defence tasks? When will the Home Secretary step up to do her job to secure a proper security agreement with the French, break the smuggling gangs, and prevent more tragic deaths of migrants in the channel?
James Heappey
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. I do not share his view of the Home Secretary; we have worked closely with her on a number of issues, including Op Pitting over the summer, where she made a number of courageous decisions about how to accelerate border flow at the Baron Hotel, and indeed throughout the past year when the MOD has been trying to support the Border Force. The fact is that this is not a MACA request; it is something quite different. It is asking the Navy to take primacy, from a command-and-control perspective, to bring to bear all the Government’s maritime assets that set sail, across all agencies, in order to try to cohere a more robust response at sea. It is an evolution of what we have been doing rather than a replacement of something that had previously existed.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there may be a requirement for more naval assets—warships—to be in the channel, but they sit too high off the water to be a credible platform from which to cross-deck people from a dinghy, so the presence of naval assets is probably from a command-and-control perspective rather than from an interdiction or interception perspective. There are better platforms within the Government’s inventory, and things that we can lease from the open market, that will be much more effective for mid-channel cross-decking under RN command and control.
Neither the Royal Navy nor the Royal Marines will be engaged in pushback, but that tactic has been developed by Border Force, and if it is applicable it will be used. The Royal Navy will not use sonic weapons. The Royal Navy or the wider military may be involved in transportation of people when they reach the shore as they enter the processing system. There may be a use for military accommodation. As I said, this is a UQ responding to a partial revelation of the plan, and I make no apology for the wider plan being still in development.
Rear Admiral Utley continues to report to the fleet commander, who reports to the First Sea Lord, who reports to the Secretary of State. Costs will lie where they fall, other than for novel capabilities, in which case there will be a chat with the Treasury. The MOD and the Navy enjoy excellent relations with the French MOD and the French Navy. We are confident in our ability to manage the cross-channel relationships.
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I promised him an update on MACAs; I forgot that I had done so and I will make sure that that is rectified.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. I do not see any problem with the Royal Navy getting involved with this issue. For weeks—for years—those on the Opposition Benches have been whingeing and whining that we are not doing enough. It is excellent that the military are taking control and that we are co-ordinating all the assets that we have. It makes perfect sense. When a ship intervenes somewhere in the middle of the channel, will it have the power to take the people back to France, where legally they should be, or do we have to take them into our country and then face all the problems of removing them if indeed they should not be here?
James Heappey
No. There is no power to enter another country’s sovereign waters to return people. This evolution in the capability of command and control means that there is a more robust response at sea so that nobody lands on their own terms and they enter a process in the United Kingdom that may take them to return or to some other outcome. The evidence in Australia and elsewhere is that that very quickly has a deterrent effect. I am answering questions on merely a part of the plan, and the House can sense my discomfort at being unable to illuminate it fully.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Let me start by underlining what a worrying development this is from the Government, both operationally and morally. The motivation to militarise this situation, in which desperate people make perilous crossings to reach safety and security, is immediately apparent, to say the least: this is the use of military camouflage to disguise a political crisis at the heart of the Government. We are talking about the Ministry of Defence, which is charged with the defence of the state and its people against external state or terrorist malign activity, threat or attack; not in any recent cogent assessment has the MOD or our armed forces been reconfigured to protect the state against civilians.
Will the Minister update the House on the admiralty’s critical analysis of whether to undertake significant maritime operations in respect of civilian subjects that are fraught with operational and reputational risk to the Royal Navy? Will he confirm that the Home Office request goes way beyond the realms of military aid to the civil authorities and instead represents an alarming politically expedient morphing of a civilian crisis into an entirely inappropriate military operation that is doomed to fail?
James Heappey
I take issue with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question, which was that people need to get into a small boat to find sanctuary. They are coming from France, which is a safe country. Those who continue their journey do so because they want to be in the United Kingdom, not because they are scared of where they are.
As for the idea that the MOD is not configured to protect against civilian threats, we have just been through two decades of counter-insurgency and reconfiguring to deal with the emergence of sub-threshold threats. Threat no longer wears a uniform or drives around in a painted military vehicle that flies a flag; it is increasingly likely that the threats posed to the United Kingdom come not from military sources. Of course the Ministry of Defence, which is charged with the defence of the homeland, has a role to play in ensuring that our borders are more robustly protected.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I welcome the announcement that the military are finally to be brought in to supersede Border Force—or, as some of my constituents refer to it, “taxi force”. We need to add credibility to this announcement, so, first, what operational name is the mission to be given; which armed forces units are likely to be involved; and thirdly, if they are not going to be involved in pushback or to deploy sonic weapons, what are they actually going to do?
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Its name is Operation Red Meat!
James Heappey
My former boss on the Energy and Climate Change Committee, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), is sure that he knows the name of the operation, but I am afraid he is wrong: its name is Operation Isotrope. In all probability, the units involved initially will be some of the batch 1 offshore patrol vessels that are permanently committed to home waters, probably with some P2000s.
As I said earlier in response to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), when he pointed out that military warships have not previously been applicable in mid-channel cross-deckings, their height off the water makes them an inappropriate platform to be hands-on in the process; their role will be one of command and control, if, indeed, anything at sea. The reality is that, as I think my right hon. Friend appreciates, the Government have a large inventory of maritime assets. We argue that if the full spectrum of those maritime assets were brought to bear on this problem and cohered under a military command structure, that would provide a step change in capability.
My right hon. Friend will be disappointed that the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines will not be using pushback tactics, sonic weapons or whatever else but, as I have said clearly in response to previous questions, Border Force has been trialling those tactics and they may have a purpose. That is all part of the ongoing military estimate. I would argue that the deterrent effect is achieved not just through an ability to push back mid-channel, with all the problems that come with that. If we can guarantee that nobody gets to land in the UK on their own terms and that the system beyond that delivers an effective outcome that acts as a deterrent for those deciding to put themselves in the people traffickers’ hands, this approach could and should work.
My right hon. Friend will be frustrated that I am unable to unveil the full scope of the plan. That is partly because I do not know it. I also think that the Prime Minister would like to do that himself later in the month.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister said that the Royal Navy will not use sonic weapons, but long-range acoustic weapons are already fitted to Border Force vessels. As the Royal Navy has assumed operational control of Border Force, will he state that no Border Force sonic weapons will be used for migrant crossings? Will he also publish a rule of engagement for using sonic weapons against civilians? Even the leaking and spinning of that suggests a really dark force that we do not need in the debate.
James Heappey
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. If Border Force vessels are fitted with a capability that the Royal Navy commander feels is inappropriate for use, he will not direct that it is used. That is his judgment. The hon. Gentleman, as the proud MP of the Royal Navy in Devonport, probably appreciates that in the MOD we deal with operational mission command and the Royal Navy uses its judgment to bring to bear what it thinks is best. I trust Rear Admiral Utley entirely to make the right decisions in that regard.
I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman: I am not entirely clear about the custom for publishing rules of engagement. Perhaps he will let me write to him with that in due course.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend guarantee that no resource—be that manpower or asset—will be removed from another theatre to which an already overstretched Royal Navy is currently deployed, carrying out its primary role of protecting the UK and its interests, and those of our allies around the world?
James Heappey
I can. Commander UK Strike Force is a UK-based two-star commander—I suspect that my hon. Friend, as a former Navy man, knows that—and the ships mentioned as possibly having utility in this context are already committed to home waters.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Well, there we have it. Yesterday, No. 10 was briefing that this is the new tough approach to migrants, and today the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and says that he has not got a clue what the plan is or what is proposed. He mentioned deployment of assets. We had nine offshore patrol vessels until 2019, when HMS Clyde was decommissioned; others are committed overseas, including in the Pacific, and in home waters for tasks such as fisher protection. So what assets are there? There are not any.
May I check two things? First, will the Navy abide by the UN conventions on people in distress at sea? Secondly, the Minister said that Rear Admiral Utley will answer to the Defence Secretary, so has the MOD taken over control of Border Force and its operation, with the Home Secretary having no role? If so, that is a huge kick in the teeth for the Home Secretary.
James Heappey
First, the OPV fleet is well deployed around the world. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Trent is in Gibraltar having just got back from autumn in the gulf of Guinea; Medway is in the Caribbean; Forth is in the Falklands; and Tamar and Spey are in the south Pacific and far east. Further, three batch 1 OPVs continue and are routinely deployed in home waters. That is not just for fishery protection, as he sought to characterise; they routinely take on the role of fleet-ready escort and are used for whatever is required to protect the United Kingdom’s interests in her home waters, and this task clearly comes within that bracket.
I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to ask whether the men and women of the Royal Navy would still feel bound by their compulsion under the safety of life at sea convention. Of course they would. The Chief of the Defence Staff is a sailor, and Rear Admiral Utley is obviously a sailor, and they have been clear throughout that military involvement is about delivering a robust plan, but they will not endanger life at sea.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about how this is all reflected in Government policy and ownership of policy. I reflect back to him that Rear Admiral Utley is a sailor working within the MOD for a part of our border protection that has been placed into the hands of the Royal Navy. He clearly reports through his chain of command to the Secretary of State for Defence, but that is not the totality of the Government’s migration policy nor the totality of the role of protecting our borders. Obviously, the Home Secretary owns the wider system and she is doing a good job in doing that.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Did Operation Sophia in the Mediterranean not teach us that increased efficiency of interception leads to an increased number of attempted crossings? This policy will have the reverse effect of that intended, won’t it?
James Heappey
No, I do not think that is the case. There was a key difference with Op Sophia, and that is what happened when people landed on the European continent and what EU nations did with them thereafter.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that in 2019 two Navy patrol vessels were deployed in the channel to deal with channel crossings. Yet they intercepted no boats and it cost the taxpayer £780,000. What will be different this time?
James Heappey
It is unclear whether the right hon. Lady is reading from Hansard because that is exactly the question asked by the Front-Bench spokesman, which I have answered already.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Behind the criminal gangs often lie the root causes of disease, famine, poverty, poor governance, conflict and war. We have heard reference today to Syria, Iraq and Libya. My hon. Friend mentioned the Sahel. What discussions has he had with his defence counterpart in the French Government about President Macron’s decision to withdraw the 5,000 troops based in the Sahel, which of course will stretch UK armed forces further in that important region?
James Heappey
We speak to our French counterparts regularly, and the Sahel is a frequent topic of conversation. The French would argue that they are going through a transition from one operation to another—from Barkhane to Takuba—but that is clearly a decision for France. The UK’s commitment in the Sahel through the UN peacekeeping mission operation MINUSMA and our support to the French through Op Newcombe remains in place, but it will not surprise my right hon. Friend to know that the UK is looking for opportunities all the time to do more in western Africa. We recognise that the instability in the Sahel poses a direct threat to the UK’s interests. Indeed, were it not for the telegraphing of the intent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) to ask the urgent question, I would have been in Accra today having exactly those conversations. But it is a pleasure to be here answering these questions.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I welcome what the Minister says about not using sonic weapons—an idea that was described by a Home Office source in the press today as “f***ng bonkers”. When the Home Office is saying that your idea can be classified as that, you have to think you have taken a wrong turn in your planning somewhere. May I press the Minister on the relationship between the Royal Navy and the Marines, on the one hand, and UK Border Force? He tells the House—I welcome the assurance—that the Royal Navy will not be engaged in pushing back boats with refugees in them, but that leaves open the door that the UK Border Force might still do that. In that case, how can he possibly say that operational primacy sits with the Royal Navy?
James Heappey
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that there may be some disagreement between Departments, I can only reflect that my great friends the Under-Secretaries of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Tom Pursglove) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster), work with me all the time, not just on this matter but on Op Pitting and all sorts of other issues where Home Office and MOD interests align. The right hon. Gentleman is right to note that I was clear that Border Force is developing a tactic. It may well be that the commander is comfortable with that tactic being employed, and there is a difference between the reason why the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines will not deploy that tactic and the reason why Border Force may. Border Force has the appropriate vessels, potentially, to do so safely; the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines do not.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does the Minister consider that use of the Royal Navy will reduce the number of migrants who land in the United Kingdom?
James Heappey
I believe that it could, as part of a wider system that is under development.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Minister calls it Operation Isotrope—not Isotope—which means having properties that apply in all directions. That pretty much sums it up. The honest truth is that it is Operation Red Meat, and it has no beef in it whatever. Nothing has changed. There is no plan—he admits that himself. The Government have completely failed to tackle the real issue, which many of our constituents worry about, and the people who bear the brunt of all this danger are those who are being illegally trafficked, many of them in miserable situations. The Government need to sort out the relationship with France and make sure we have a proper deal with the whole of the European Union so people can go back to the country where they originally landed. The Minister has used one phrase repeatedly today—that they will stop people landing “on their own terms”. What on earth does that mean?
James Heappey
First, there are a lot of questions coming from the Opposition about the incompleteness of a plan. I would just reflect that Labour is routinely and continually silent on what it would do to ensure that our borders are protected and illegal migration is stopped. As for the UK-French relationship, no one has pretended that the part of the plan that I am answering questions on today is, in and of itself, the answer to that challenge. Before it, there is a responsibility to have relationships with France and the EU within which that can be discussed; there is a requirement to attack the criminal networks that do the trafficking; and there is a requirement to deal with migration flows in the first place.
What “land on their own terms” means is that nobody gets to set foot on United Kingdom soil without having been intercepted and brought ashore by the Royal Navy or other agencies. They are then put into a system that I have every confidence will act as a deterrent to make the cross-channel route collapse thereafter.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I declare an interest as a serving naval reservist. I appreciate that the Minister is being bounced into this, but he must have a plan. Can he say when that plan will be available, and on what date command and control of the operation will swap from the Home Office to the Ministry of Defence?
James Heappey
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is asking me to better articulate the MOD’s plan, which I have been trying to do and am happy to elaborate on further, or to elaborate on the wider plan which, regretfully, I am not able to do. The MOD’s plan is to bring all of the Government’s maritime inventory under the command of Commander UK Strike Force. We believe that if all assets were better cohered, it would be possible to have a more robust interception capability in the channel. That then feeds into a wider requirement that other Departments are engaged in delivering to make sure that what happens next, combined with that certainty about our ability to intercept at sea, provides the deterrent that we have been seeking for the last year. The plan is that that primacy is in place by the end of the month.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister seems to forget the desperation of the people making these crossings. If there were alternative safe and legal routes, does he not think that people would take them rather than risking their lives in such a way? Is he aware that Human Rights Watch has condemned the regular and persistent degrading treatment of adults and children in Calais by the French authorities? It is hardly a safe country for them.
James Heappey
The hon. Lady’s final point, about France being a dangerous place, feels like something that is—
James Heappey
France is, in my view, an entirely safe country. Migrants do not need to put themselves into the hands of people traffickers to be smuggled across the channel. I hope that they will soon see that there is no point in doing so because they will not get to enter the UK on their own terms if they do.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In the absence of Ministers having the political will to use pushback, what is the point in appointing a royal naval admiral to help Border Force to be a more efficient taxi service so that the migrants will know, “Now we’ve got the Royal Navy to pick us up—we’ll be taken safely to the UK, we'll be put in a hotel and we'll never, ever be sent home”? This is just an embarrassment. Will the Minister now co-ordinate with his colleagues to do what we have been suggesting for months and get rid of the pull factors—namely, ensure that we reform any piece of legislation necessary, including the Human Rights Act, and that people who do the illegal crossing are arrested, put in a prison and deported?
James Heappey
My right hon. Friend’s exhortations and those of colleagues have been heard.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
On a point of clarification, the reason why there are lots of questions from the Opposition is that this is an urgent question—that is what we are doing here.
I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government have seriously been considering using sonic boom weaponry against people seeking to come to this country in already hazardous conditions in the channel. Can he please explain to the House what impact that weaponry has when used on individuals? May I also say that Operation Red Meat or Operation Save Big Dog—whatever you want to call it—is not in my name?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman’s last point is self-evident. The use of sonic weapons is something that people have been exploring around Government. The Royal Navy is clear that they will not be used by the Royal Navy. As the operation will be under Royal Navy command, it will be down to the Royal Navy commander whether he wishes other agencies to use them.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The people who come here genuinely seeking sanctuary and who fear persecution deserve our compassionate care. The people traffickers and those rights lawyers who encourage, facilitate and give succour to people who know that they are not seeking asylum—who are economic migrants—deserve our condemnation. The Minister has made it clear that this proposal can be only part of the solution. Will he arrange for a Minister—possibly the Home Secretary—to come to the House to reassure us that offshore processing, the deportation of illegal immigrants and secure accommodation for those awaiting deportation form part of the policy? May I say in addition that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has just said, we must bring forward the reform of the Human Rights Act and other legislation as a matter of urgency?
James Heappey
My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that he can expect to hear exactly what he hopes for very soon. It is unfortunate that today I have been required to come and expose part of the plan early, but that is my duty to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House. There will be a wider exposition of the plan in due course, I am certain.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Royal Navy website says:
“Whether disasters are human-made or natural…Responding to these life-threatening scenarios is central to our ethos”.
Given that the Government have decreed that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) just said, almost two thirds of people crossing the channel in these small boats are so-called genuine asylum seekers, does the Minister agree that any genuinely responsible politician would refuse to be involved in further endangering the lives of these desperately vulnerable people? Before he accuses me of reading from Hansard, as he did so rudely with the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), he said today that the Navy will not be involved in the pushback of people, but we all know that that could change tomorrow. Will he put on record his agreement that involving our Navy in pushing people back into dangerous waters would directly contradict that noble ethos?
James Heappey
I have somewhat more confidence in the Royal Navy than the hon. Lady does. I am absolutely certain that it can operate in the channel robustly, in the nation’s interest, but compassionately. As Royal Navy mariners, with all the fine traditions of that service, they are clear about their job and they will not threaten the life of innocent people.
On her point about vessels operated by the Royal Marines being involved in pushback, I have been very clear from the Dispatch Box that that will not happen. It cannot happen: the vessels are inappropriate for the practice.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
We on this side of the House are determined to smash the gangs that charge desperate people thousands of pounds to take a perilous journey. It would be better if they did not undertake that journey in the first place, so what discussions has my hon. Friend had with the French military on intercepting boats before they set off and returning them to France, where they should belong?
James Heappey
Clearly, that is a conversation that we will be having, and would like to have, but all of that is with the Home Secretary, and I know she remains engaged with it.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
This is fast becoming as ludicrous as it is disturbing. Yesterday, the Home Secretary was unable to explain what the military could do that Border Force could not, and the Minister has failed again today. Everybody knows that this announcement coming at this time is part of the campaign to save the Prime Minister’s job. How does the Minister think the armed forces feel about being used for that purpose?
James Heappey
The Chief of the Defence Staff has been involved in all the conversations. As I have made clear, we should not be dismissive of the importance of securing our borders, not only from an immigration perspective but from a national security perspective. Migration is being used as a subthreshold weapon of competition elsewhere in Europe, and it cannot endure that our border is not properly secured.
The hon. Gentleman asks what the mindset is of the military. I can tell him that from the nation’s most senior serviceperson downwards, they take great pride in making sure that they play their part in the plan to deliver what the democratically elected Government set as priorities.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
This is not Operation Red Meat; it is Operation Dog’s Dinner. If the mission statement were to reduce illegal people trafficking across the channel, I would support it, but, as far as I understand it, the mission statement is to lower the number of people landing on their own terms on UK beaches.
With the deployment of royal naval vessels, the Minister has effectively announced that asylum seekers need get only halfway across the channel before being intercepted by the Royal Navy, under royal naval command. This will incentivise people traffickers. They will see the Royal Navy ship on the horizon and say, “Point your dinghy in that direction. You only need to get halfway,” and the Royal Navy will pick them up. The only way this will work is if the Royal Navy intercepts asylum seekers and returns them to France. Without the second bit, this simply will not work.
James Heappey
My hon. Friend knows that the last bit would be impossible without French permission, and French permission has not been given. I do not accept his characterisation of what is being spoken about today. The Ministry of Defence mission is to make sure that nobody arrives in the UK on their own terms. [Interruption.] That means that nobody arrives in the UK without having been intercepted at sea or as they land. What happens next is that we will just have to wait a short while, and I am sure all will become clear.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I am glad to see my old colleague from the Energy and Climate Change Committee doing so well in government. He will be aware of course that there is a vacancy coming up at the top quite soon, and I have high hopes for him that he will indeed go further.
I welcome that this has not been thought through very much—it is just like the rest of Operation Red Meat, to be honest—and I am glad that the Minister has indicated that the Navy will not intercept the small boats, unless, I would hope, there is a risk to life and there are people in distress, because around the world small boats have to be avoided for the terrorist risk. It will not take a terrorist with a PhD to see the opportunity of some of this, and I hope that the Government are thinking seriously about that. What assessment has been made of the terrorist risk both to the Navy and to the poor migrants, who are often escaping terrorists in the first place—as well as the efforts, of course, of international arms sellers—to find themselves in the channel?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman notes that the Royal Navy will not be directly involved in the interception of ships, and as I have explained, that is to do with the suitability of the vessel. However, I would not want him to think that that means we are not intending to intercept all dinghies. We are; it is just that there are better platforms to use for that under Royal Navy command and control.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify—this is the point I have been seeking to illustrate—the justification for using the armed forces as part of this mission. Our adversaries, whether they are state or non-state, are very good at spotting where vulnerabilities are in countries. I would argue that the flow of migrants has reached a point where it is a threat to our national security, so it is entirely appropriate that the Royal Navy should play a role in the co-ordination of the response.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Any of my constituents watching these exchanges will note the comments of Opposition Members who are trying to pour cold water on a plan that my constituents actually want. They want to see an end to this cross-channel illegal immigration, and they will also be disappointed to hear from the Minister that plans are not yet finalised, because hints and announcements have been made about the use of the Navy for many months—years, probably—and our military are adept at putting together plans quickly to respond to emergency situations. Can the Minister at least give my constituents some hint of when a robust policy will be in place and the Navy will be involved?
James Heappey
Very imminently indeed, and I would certainly imagine within the next few weeks.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
In all the awful answers the Minister has given, he has not shown one iota of empathy for desperate people putting their own lives at risk to try to get to a place of safety, many of them coming from war zones around the world that Britain has been involved in. Can he not show some humanity and sympathy to these people and come to a European-wide agreement on support for asylum seekers and refugees? Can he not also look at the sources and at why people come, as well as the awful conditions that many face when they arrive in this country? These are human beings trying to survive in a very difficult world, and history will judge very harshly those Governments who use military means to repel refugees at the time of a refugee crisis around the world. Let us have some humanity, not just reach out to the military all the time.
James Heappey
I know that it was very much the right hon. Gentleman’s policy as Leader of the Opposition not to use the military at all, and probably to defund it as a consequence. I reject, however, the suggestion that we are not guided by a deep sense of compassion. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in observing that these people are desperate—so desperate, in fact, that they are putting themselves in the hands of exploitative criminal gangs that put them to sea in dinghies, increasingly in sea states that those dinghies are woefully ill-equipped to deal with. The responsible, compassionate response to this threat is to provide a robust deterrent so that people no longer put themselves in the hands of the criminal gangs, and that is exactly what we are doing.
If you will indulge me on a final point, Mr Speaker, the idea that conflicts in which I proudly served, as did hundreds of thousands of other British service personnel, are somehow the cause of why people are coming here now is utterly for the birds. Our nation’s armed forces are engaged around the world trying to provide stabilisation and security in some of the countries that need it most precisely so that people do not feel they need to take on the perilous journey across continents to the United Kingdom.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I congratulate the Chair of the Defence Committee on securing this urgent question. He is absolutely right to say that this plan is not a long-term solution. As deputy Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have been pushing for the Home Office to consider our recommendation that claims to the UK asylum system should be able to be made from France, because the reason that people are desperate is that there is a dearth of safe legal routes to the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with the Home Office about that possibility as a long-term solution to the problem that would free up the Royal Navy for more appropriate duties?
James Heappey
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), is sitting beside me. As the hon. and learned Lady was asking her question, I was told that the French Minister of the Interior has said in the French Parliament that the hon. and learned Lady’s proposal would be completely unacceptable to France.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Red dog, dead dog, red meat—I don’t know what this is, but it is a total embarrassment. Pope Francis has denounced the
“narrow self-interest and nationalism”
in how European countries treat migrants and in how they
“persist in treating the problem as a matter that does not concern them”.
Is it not time, as the Pontiff says, to treat our brothers and sisters seeking sanctuary with compassion? Is it not time to attack the root causes, not the people who pay the consequences?
James Heappey
I would argue that that is exactly what our policy does. We are engaged around the world through our aid and military efforts to provide security and stabilisation in the countries from which most people are fleeing. I think that the work of our armed forces and of the brilliant people in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office who do international development is succeeding to an extent, but there is much more to be done. Criminal gangs are exploiting the most vulnerable, and it is right that we and our partners around the world get after those gangs to stop their work, because it is deeply insidious and malign.
It is also our responsibility to the people of this country to ensure that our borders are secure, for two reasons. First, it acts as a deterrent for those who are in France and are considering making an illegal crossing that will cost them their life savings and risk putting them to sea in a boat that is woefully ill-equipped for the sea state. Secondly, the people of the United Kingdom want control over their borders and over migration, and this Government are committed to delivering it.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Diolch, Mr Speaker. It is disappointing that the Minister has not ruled out pushback in his answers today, because it poses an obvious danger to life. In response to the announcement this week, navy sources have said that they deem pushback to be unethical. If Border Force implemented that policy and a small boat capsized, what would be the policy for Border Force staff?
James Heappey
I have been clear that the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines will not use the tactic, principally because they simply do not have the platforms that are appropriate for doing so. Arguably, the Border Force does; it has been doing trials with it, so it remains an option. But let us be clear: there are parts of the channel in which it definitely cannot be done, and there is a small part of the channel in which it might possibly be done. That is for the Navy commander to consider in due course.
Having a robust response that starts with the guarantee that we will intercept all boats either at sea or as they land, and then bringing people into a system that itself acts as a deterrent, is the right way to go. The people want the Government to get control of our borders—it is one of the Prime Minister’s top priorities. The MOD has a part of that plan, which we are confident in our ability to deliver; the rest of the plan will be unveiled in due course.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Since 2014, more than £200 million—about half a million pounds a week of taxpayers’ money—has been given to France, yet crossings are increasing. The latest announcement will do absolutely nothing to halt those dangerous crossings. The Minister and the Government need to be smashing the criminal gangs. That is the reality; this is just red meat headlines, but more of the same failed policy.
James Heappey
The Government are introducing life sentences for people smugglers. We agree vigorously with the hon. Gentleman that the absolute key is to get upstream of the problem, prevent the migration flows in the first place ideally, and get straight after the organised crime gangs to attack the network. That is very much part of the plan, although not necessarily a part of the plan the MOD owns. As he would expect, that sits much more neatly in the Home Office and the National Crime Agency, and in the Foreign Office when it comes to diplomacy. As I have been clear throughout, it is suboptimal that I am able to unveil only our part of the plan in response to an urgent question today, but in due course the full system will be made clear.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Nearly five years on the Defence Committee has demonstrated to me that the woeful legacy of a decade of cuts to non-frontline services mean there is probably little option. The Defence Sub-Committee on contracted services to the MOD has also shown the pernicious effect of outsourcing services, such as those, for example, at HM Naval Base, Clyde, which affected so many of my constituents. Will the Minister give his word to the House today that there will be no private sector involvement in Operation Isotrope? If there is one thing we and the poor souls in the channel do not need, it is for Serco and Capita to get their tentacles into a very lucrative Government contract.
James Heappey
About 45 minutes ago, I was clear that there would be leased platforms that are far more appropriate for use in the channel. The hon. Gentleman suggests that this might be a contract with a single provider. That is not the case. What I am talking about is contracting platforms to come fully under command. I cannot say who they are owned by, but the names of the big conglomerates he just mentioned have not been mentioned.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Bringing in the military seems to be the Government’s solution to everything these days, to the extent that I was surprised it was not part of the Culture Secretary’s plan yesterday for the future of the BBC. Given the conflation of responsibilities, in particular around issues of aid and security, can the Minister confirm that there will be no creative accounting in any attempt to hive off the costs to the overseas development assistance budget, or, for that matter, the NATO 2% target?
James Heappey
I am not sure that the military is brought in for everything, as the hon. Gentleman says. Our country has just been through an extraordinary period. We are drawing on the mass, expertise and commitment of our armed forces to support the NHS and civilian authorities through the pandemic. I think that that is a sign of the extraordinary service and professionalism of the men and women in our armed forces. Actually, I think it is good that the Government have been willing and able to draw on that capability throughout. As to his wider point, there is a requirement for a robust response. The Navy is able to bring that robustness not necessarily through the ships it can set to sea, but through its command and control, and through bringing all the Government’s maritime assets—there are many of them—to bear in a co-ordinated way. If we can do that, we can do things differently from how they have been done over the past few years.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We must remember that we are talking about 25,000 people who came to the UK in this dangerous way last year, a threefold increase that proves the Government’s plans are simply not working. The only thing we do know is that creating safe routes takes away trade from criminal gangs. Why are the Government making the situation worse without having clear objectives, rather than addressing the real problem?
James Heappey
There are many safe routes to the UK. I have been very clear that the part of the plan I have been able to answer questions on in the House today is not the full breadth of what needs to be done. The hon. Lady is right that the most decisive things we can do on migration are upstream of the channel. If she can wait just a few weeks, I am sure she will be illuminated fully.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers to questions. Recent figures show that in 2021 some 28,000 migrants crossed the channel in small boats. That number is rising. The UK has a long-established asylum system, but the use of military vessels sends an unfortunate message. There are many civilian companies every bit as efficient, so can the Minister confirm co-ordination between our Border Force, other vessels in the channel, and civilian companies that have the capability, expertise and the talent to do the job? That, Minister, could be a much better solution.
James Heappey
It is absolutely the case that there are more appropriate vessels for cross-decking people in the middle of the channel than Navy vessels and, indeed, Border Force cutters. There is already a vessel contracted for that purpose. Our expectation is that we would contract more of that design in order to play a role. That is not to hand it over to a company that runs all those vessels; that is to bring those vessels into service under the command of the Navy commander.
Coronavirus Grant Schemes: Fraud
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on fraud in the coronavirus grant schemes.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Since March 2020, the Government have delivered a comprehensive multibillion-pound package to support individuals and businesses during the pandemic. As the House would expect, the Government have taken the issue of potential fraud relating to covid grant schemes extremely seriously.
Robust measures were put in place to control error and fraud in the key covid support schemes from their inception. For instance, to minimise the risk of fraud and error and unverified claims, the coronavirus job retention scheme and self-employment income support scheme were designed in a way to prevent ineligible claims being made up front, and made grants for employees and businesses using existing data held on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ systems. That included cut-off dates around scheme eligibility and the need for customers to be registered for pay-as-you-earn online or self-assessment. In 2020-21, HMRC recovered £536 million of over-claimed grants.
To further bolster anti-fraud measures, at the spring Budget last year, the Government invested more than £100 million in a taxpayer protection taskforce of more than 1,200 HMRC staff to combat covid-related fraud. This taskforce is expected to recover between £800 million and £1 billion from fraudulent or incorrect payments during 2021-22 and 2022-23.
The Government’s bounce back loan scheme supported more than £46 billion of finance to 1.5 million businesses. We are continuing to actively work with the British Business Bank, lenders and fraud authorities to tackle fraud and to recover loans obtained fraudulently. The value of prevented fraud was £2.2 billion, and we continue to recover further funds through our counter-fraud work. In addition, as part of the spring Budget last year, we announced plans to significantly strengthen enforcement activity against fraudulent bounce back loans. That included introducing processes with the Insolvency Service to prevent the fraudulent dissolution of companies being used as a means to escape liabilities, granting the Insolvency Service new powers and investing further in the National Investigation Service.
Importantly, throughout the pandemic we have been transparent about the estimated level of fraud and error in the covid schemes, and HMRC’s annual report and accounts, which were laid before the House in November last year, included the latest information on error and fraud in the HMRC-administered covid-19 schemes. Figures on estimated losses and the bounce back loans, including those due to fraud, were published in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s annual reports and accounts.
Given the unprecedented efforts that the Government have made to protect jobs and livelihoods during this pandemic, it would have been impossible to prevent all related fraud. However, we have taken reasonable steps, and will continue to do so, to deflect and combat that fraud, and we will continue to be vigilant.
Mr McFadden
I am grateful to the Minister. Last week, the Government confirmed that they expect to write off around £4.3 billion of the funds allocated to coronavirus help schemes. There was no press release, no Instagram video, no statement to this House and no sight of the vanishing Chancellor at all; it was just buried away on the Government website. The Government website states, and the Minister repeated the claim, that from the beginning:
“Robust measures were put in place to control error and fraud in the key coronavirus support schemes.”
If robust measures to prevent fraud were in place, why did they fail to this shocking degree?
In November, the head of HMRC estimated that around half the money lost could be recovered. Why has that estimate now been downgraded to only a quarter of the funds? Why are the Government giving up so easily and not doing more to track down the money, rather than allowing it to remain in the hands of the fraudsters and criminals who have stolen it from taxpayers?
Mr Deputy Speaker, £4.3 billion is a huge sum of money. It is enough to take hundreds of pounds off energy bills this year for every household in the country. It is about the same annual amount as the Chancellor took off people on universal credit in the Budget in November. It is roughly the same as half the annual policing bill for the whole country. This write-off of £4.3 billion comes as households face a cost-of-living triple whammy of rocketing energy bills, the Chancellor’s tax increases and a decline in real wages. Coming on top of the billions wasted on crony contracts and the amounts lost in loan schemes, these levels of waste destroy any claim that the Conservative party had of being careful stewards of the public finances. Will the Minister launch an investigation into how this happened and do more to recover this money from the fraudsters who stole it in the first place?
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, which I am very happy to address. First, we are not writing anything off. The figures quoted are what we expect that taxpayer protection taskforce to recover in the next two years in which it will exist. HMRC has longer to address fraud in the schemes, which it will do in the context of wider compliance activity. HMRC did not produce the figure of £4.3 billion. I understand that it was an inference made by journalists who subtracted £1.5 billion from the estimate of the amount to be recovered by the taxpayer protection taskforce from the £5.8 billion estimated as error and fraud in 2020-21. That was published and Jim Harra and others from HMRC publicised all this before Christmas—in November. HMRC simply used the same numbers in a “mythbuster” article to be published later this week.
Those are the facts. There is nothing new here today, but I would like to address some of the underlying concerns. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that fraud is unacceptable. We think that, which is why—as I said in my opening remarks—in March last year, the Chancellor dedicated £100 million to employ 1,265 people from HMRC to undertake these fraud checks and to bear down on the fraud. We have had 13,000 one-to-one inquiries and sent 75,000 letters to those thought to have incorrectly claimed.
I point out to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that many of these schemes were stood up, refined and adapted very quickly. In order to meet the needs of individuals, the self-employed and businesses up and down the country, £81.2 billion of payments were made across the three main schemes. Although I recognise that there has been an element of fraud, the Government have never been complacent about that. Grants for employees and businesses used data on HMRC systems. The design of the scheme was informed by expert advice from HMRC, which has extensive knowledge and understanding of where errors and fraud risks lay. We have implemented post-payment compliance to identify and recover overpayment, and we have invoked automated controls into digital claim processes, which have prevented 100,000 ineligible, mistaken claims.
The Government are not complacent at all about error and fraud. We will continue to bear down on it, and I urge Members of the House and members of the public to continue to contact HMRC, as they have done, as we seek to maximise the recovery of moneys lost.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I say to the Opposition that it is the easiest job in the world to stand on the sidelines and criticise, but what would they have done? Would they have waited and left businesses in peril? Would they have done that in search of the perfect? Some £407 billion has gone to businesses, the vast majority of which went to the right places. Of course there will be lessons to learn, but if the same situation happens again, will my hon. Friend prioritise the needs of business, rather than making the perfect the enemy of the good?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for the clear point behind his question. We were straining every sinew in the Treasury to get money out as quickly as possible. On 14 April 2020, a Labour party press release stated:
“It is clear that additional action needs to be taken to increase the take-up of the different measures. We have called for urgent action…as take-up is worryingly low.”
That is why we intervened to change the design of the bounce back loan scheme and to make it 100% backed to get the money out quickly—£46 billion to 1.5 million businesses. I am sure that lessons can be learnt from what we have done—absolutely they can—but the principle of getting that money out and designing schemes with HMRC’s excellent input during that period was imperative for the Government.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It seems, again, that when the going gets tough, the Chancellor goes missing.
HMRC said in its statement that fraud in the covid support schemes is in line with its original planning assumptions, but expecting this eye-watering level of fraud seems almost worse than it happening by accident. We see it also in the bounce back loan schemes. How much of the fraud relates to UK company structures and the related issues at Companies House, which make the UK such a magnet for money laundering?
As well as the Treasury being out of pocket, constituents of mine employed by companies deliberately employing dubious corporate structures did not even receive the furlough payments to which they were fully entitled. What consequences will there be for those companies, and for those people who never received the money that they were due, due to fraud and error? For the many people around these islands who received no support whatsoever—those who were excluded from support schemes—this fraud and error is all the more galling. Will the Minister apologise to them and put that right? Finally, when HMRC is chasing down an estimated 170,000 families who claimed child benefit in error, why is it letting fraudsters and criminals waltz off with £4.3 billion of public money, all of this in the midst of a cost of living crisis? That money should be in the pockets of our constituents, not of criminals.
John Glen
I listened very carefully, as I always do, to the hon. Lady. I totally agree that we must not accept any fraud and error as inevitable, and we will continue to bear down on that. From the start we designed the schemes to involve “know your customer” and anti-money laundering checks on application. Measures were put in place by the British Business Bank to detect multiple applications—indeed, there was co-operation among UK Finance members on that. Subsequently, we have developed further interventions involving the National Investigative Service, the Insolvency Service and Companies House data to prevent rogue company directors from escaping liability. We will continue to bear down on the fraud that may have occurred. But initial data on the repayment of bounce back loans shows that in only 2% have borrowers defaulted, and only 7% are behind repayments in any form. There is no complacency in the Government’s approach, and we will continue to look at ways to maximise what we can reclaim where there have been errors and fraud.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
It is right that we look carefully at how council tax payers’ money is spent, but let me refer to the current covid grant scheme, particularly for Cornwall. We in Cornwall need reassurance that Cornwall Council has absolute discretion in how to ensure that current leisure grants, for example, go to the businesses that most need them. At the moment, the council is saying that it has to pay the money to whoever applies, irrespective of how well their business is doing. My understanding from the Government is that, if a business is impacted by omicron, staff shortages, or reduced consumer demand, that is when the grant is paid. Could the Minister confirm to me, and to Cornwall Council, that it is for the council to ensure that the money goes where it is most needed, and that is what the Government intend?
John Glen
I can certainly confirm that the intention behind the range of interventions was to find the most appropriate delivery mechanism for the different support payments, and obviously we have worked with local authorities to give them that discretion. Every authority will need to be held to account for how it has decided to deliver the grants. My hon. Friend has made a clear case for where those priorities need to lie, and we are clear about the intention behind the grants, but it will be for local authorities throughout the country to make their decisions in the right way.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Seventy-one million pounds of taxpayers’ money was fraudulently claimed through the eat out to help out scheme. How many arrests have been made, and are the criminals now enjoying prison food?
John Glen
I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact answer. What I can say to him is that, according to HMRC, the expectation of fraud as part of that particular intervention in the summer of 2020 was about 8.5%, and the figures submitted by Jim Harra, the head of HMRC, in last year’s report were in line with the expectations set out at the start of this journey.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Our much-loved Kettering gymnastics club provides sporting facilities for about 1,000 local young people every week. It is a not-for-profit club, registered with HMRC under the community amateur sports club scheme, and it operates as a club and not as a business. It has previously received covid grant funding from the council, but the later schemes issued in December 2021 seem to refer just to businesses, rather than to clubs. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s guidance to local authorities about whether clubs are eligible for the new funding?
John Glen
I recognise that the gymnastics club in Kettering, along with so many other clubs of that type around the country, provides an enormously valuable point of contact for young people. I should be happy to examine my hon. Friend’s point in detail and write to him with clarification, rather than dealing with it from the Dispatch Box. The principle of giving discretion to local authorities in order to meet the needs in particular communities has guided the Government throughout this process, and we have used this grant channel a number of times for that reason, but I will look as sympathetically as I can at the question that he has raised.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister referred to default as though it were the equivalent of fraud. The Public Accounts Committee has examined in great detail the issue of fraud in this area. As I am sure he knows, there are grants and bounce back loans taken fraudulently that people will be repaying, but the criterion on which they obtained them was itself fraudulent.
The Minister seems to be accepting this level of fraud. Will he make a clear statement that fraud at all levels will be investigated? We gained the impression from HMRC and others who appeared before us as witnesses that they would take the low-hanging fruit and let a lot of fraud continue without being tracked down.
John Glen
I know that the hon. Lady’s Select Committee is conducting an in-depth inquiry. I believe that the second permanent secretary and others appeared before the Committee last week, and I look forward to its report.
I can absolutely clarify that we do see the distinction between a credit loss and fraud. What we are talking about here is: what are the most effective mechanisms, and over what timeframe, to get that money back? Also, we have received moneys back from, for example, the furlough scheme: moneys and grants that were made in error. So it is a complicated picture. I am certainly not suggesting from this Dispatch Box that the Government are writing anything off, or do not grasp the distinction between a credit loss and fraud. This needs to be tackled, but it needs to be tackled in a time and money-efficient way. Obviously the law of diminishing returns begins to apply after a certain point, and we will again by led by HMRC and its excellent advice as we pursue the matter.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Government are saying that fraudsters will still be relentlessly pursued. If, heaven forbid, the Minister ever had to implement such a scheme in the future, would he regard it as a satisfactory result to know that 99% of these huge sums of money went to the intended recipients?
John Glen
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He helpfully highlights that many of these grants and schemes were very effective in getting money to the right people in a timely way. I spoke earlier to an official from HMRC, who said, “We managed to get some of the money out in six days. If we had spent more time designing in more verification, we could have made it watertight. That would have taken several months and many businesses would have gone to the wall.” That was the dilemma we faced. I am not saying we got everything right, but it was certainly done in all good conscience to try to get the balance right.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The announcement that no action will be taken to recover the nearly £4 billion fraudulently claimed from the covid support schemes stands in stark contrast to the Government’s treatment of some of the poorest people in my constituency who had their benefits cut off, and who were even chased through the courts, for making the simplest of mistakes when claiming benefits.
Will the Minister concede there is a double standard when it comes to holding the rich and powerful to account, whether for breaching lockdown restrictions or even for downright fraud? Will he also commit to providing redress to my constituents who have suffered so enormously as a result of this Government’s heavy-handed approach to accidentally misclaimed benefits?
John Glen
I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The estimate of the amount of fraud is broadly in line with what we see in other Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions. There is no complacency here. There is a desire to iterate our response by using insights into behaviour to examine all avenues to reclaim this fraud, and we will continue to take that approach fairly across all the schemes.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is interesting to hear the Minister confirm what I have often believed—that it was pressure from my colleagues on the shadow Treasury Bench that forced the Government to extend their proposed action to support businesses. I am glad he has confirmed that, but, on the specifics of this case, does it not say everything about this Chancellor that he is willing to write off £4.3 billion but does not have the courage to come to this place to respond to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden)?
John Glen
I have been in the Treasury for more than four years under three Chancellors. I have supported them all to the best of my ability, and I will continue to do so. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the Chancellor has been absolutely committed from the start to design the best possible scheme to provide the money to support businesses and individuals up and down this country. Since then, the £100 million investment in extra HMRC personnel has been designed to maximise the recovery of fraud. The work on duplicate application checks, the changes in director information and the HMRC turnover check—all these insights were designed to minimise the loss to the taxpayer. That governs the Chancellor’s approach, and it governs the approach of all Ministers and officials in the Treasury.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
What does it say about the integrity of this Tory Government that they are willing to write off billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money while, at the same time, cutting the income of millions of people on universal credit during a cost of living crisis?
John Glen
This Government made a range of interventions to support people in different forms and in different ways. We were clear from the very start that we would not be able to help everyone. One of the issues we had to reconcile was verification of people’s identity and status, and this measure to prevent fraud arguably stopped some people accessing the benefits of some of these schemes. I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that in 2020-21, Companies House showed the greatest ever number of incorporations. Did the Government not sniff something going on? If they did, why did they not act? If they are honest, do we not face taxpayers everywhere having to pick up the £4.3 billion bill for their failing?
John Glen
No, I do not accept that, I am afraid. At every stage the Government took the best advice that we could on the flows of data that were available from HMRC and Companies House, which conditioned the design of the schemes. Subsequently, insights and input from Companies House, HMRC and the Insolvency Service have governed how we seek to tackle and recover moneys from fraud.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Minister shows a degree of nervous embarrassment but very little by way of contrition. Companies in my constituency face closure because they are struggling. What would that £4.3 billion have done for those that did not qualify for any assistance from this Government?
John Glen
I am of course very concerned about businesses that are struggling and have been in difficulty, but I am pleased that the economy has recovered far quicker than many anticipated it would this time two years ago, and I am pleased that unemployment is at about 4.1%, rather than the 12% that was anticipated at the start of this crisis. There is no complacency from this Government, and there is an absolute determination to support businesses in getting back on their feet and trading. That is why we put in place so many interventions, which were designed in different ways to maximise the support to businesses and individuals across this country.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Government say time and again that support during the pandemic for the people who fell through the gap between the job retention scheme and the self-employed scheme would be too difficult to administer because of the risk of fraud. We now know that, simultaneously, companies that were defrauding taxpayers were being supported. We are left to conclude that the decision not to help those 3 million people was simply political. Those small businesses, sole traders and entrepreneurs should be the driving force of the UK’s economic recovery in the months and years ahead. What impact has this lack of support had on those sectors, and what will the Government do to support them going forward?
John Glen
The hon. Lady points to the fact that none of these schemes was perfect. She recognises implicitly that checks against data to verify people’s identity were necessary to ensure that they were suitable recipients of taxpayers’ funds. Unfortunately that meant that some were not able to secure the support that they sought. Where we can, we have moved forward and iterated these schemes, focusing and targeting them on the sectors of the economy that were most hit at different stages in this crisis, but I concede that unfortunately we were not able to help everyone, as we would have liked.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister said that the Government were straining every sinew to get money out quickly, and nobody disagrees with that, but there must be retrospective due process to ensure that there was proper compliance. Defrauding the public purse can never be acceptable. One emergency loan for £4.7 million went to a firm founded just two days before it received the funds. How many other companies had only just been formed?
John Glen
Unfortunately, I am sure that there are examples of people who conducted fraud; that is self-evident. I urge the hon. Gentleman to give as much information as he can to HMRC, so that these matters can be chased up. There was always a balancing act between speed of delivery and risk of fraud, and Government and Ministers’ decisions were made in the light of the best advice. It was not a perfect situation. However, we were urged to get that money out—not just by Labour but by the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and numerous other organisations—and we responded. I think that was generally acknowledged, and it certainly was by the shadow Chancellor at the time.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
This is outrageous. This is an attempt to shift the blame to everybody but the Government. Of course MPs across the House were pressing the Government for speed of action—for everyone, not just for a select few—but we were also raising issues of fraud. I wrote to the Chancellor within weeks of the scheme’s being introduced about the information coming in about fraud. I tabled parliamentary questions on 3 July. I simply asked what measures were in place. What response did I get?
“I cannot go into specific detail about measures either in place or in development. For the same reason, it is not possible to release the number of fraudulent applications or associated investigations.”
I asked the same questions about the number of companies going bust and so on but still receiving grants.
I ask the Minister: what other organisation loses billions, yet no one is held to account, no one resigns and there is not even a word of apology—not a single sentence of regret? That money could have been used effectively to lift people out of poverty and to support jobs, yet through the incompetence of this Government, it has gone missing.
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not accept the premise behind it, but I do accept that we moved £81.2 billion of support through various schemes out to businesses and individuals up and down the country, and that there was an element of fraud, which we will continue to bear down on aggressively.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister may be aware that my Vauxhall constituency is home to world-renowned arts and cultural centres and small independent theatres, many of which are supported by young, up-and-coming independent actors, freelancers and artists who received no support whatsoever. Seeing the Government wipe away this £4.3 billion debt is another slap in the face for people who have struggled for the past 22 months without any support, even though they are taxpayers. I pay tribute to the many business improvement districts across Vauxhall—the South Bank BID, Vauxhall One, Brixton BID and This is Clapham—which support small and independent businesses up and down my constituency that struggled and often did not qualify for any grants because of the rateable values associated with inner-London constituencies. Does he understand that many people feel anger when they see the Government write off this £4.3 billion?
John Glen
As a former arts Minister who visited many of those organisations in the hon. Lady’s constituency in years past, I recognise the enormous contribution that creative industries make there and across the country. Of course, the grants we gave through the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the recovery fund, and the support through local authorities got to many of those organisations. I stand here today not with a sense that nothing could have been done better, but recognising that there was a balancing act between speed of delivery of support to businesses, and complexity, with the delays that would inevitably have ensued. I am contrite about our not getting everything right, but I am also clear about the real dilemma that we faced at the time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I think everyone in this House recognises that Government stepped in and helped; I know my constituents recognise that, and we want to put that on record. HMRC stated in November that its taskforce was expected to recover some £1 billion in fraudulent or incorrect claims over the past two years and referred to some 23,000 investigations that had been opened. Only 25% of the money will of course be returned, so can the Minister clarify how that came to be, and what lessons have been learned for any future financial claims?
John Glen
As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I set out in my previous answers the dilemmas with respect to speed of delivery. However, HMRC has done a fantastic job in designing the schemes and standing them up quickly under enormous pressure. We will continue to work closely with HMRC and take its advice as we make decisions on how to tackle enduring fraud risk. More broadly, lessons can be learned about the design of future schemes.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Minister, for responding to the urgent question. We will have a brief pause to allow those who are leaving to leave.
English Football League Governance: Derby County FC
(2 years, 10 months 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
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on matters of English Football League governance surrounding the administration of Derby County football club.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
I am appearing at the Dispatch Box in place of the sports Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston)—who is taking a Bill through Committee. Like many Members across the House, I know how important football clubs are to local communities, and I appreciate how worrying it is to see them under jeopardy. I feel that particularly as a fan of Crystal Palace, a proud south London club that went through a similar experience about 11 years ago. It went through administration and was bought out by Steve Parish, avoided relegation, and is now in the premier league, so there is always hope, even in the darkest hours. Because the Government understand how important football clubs are to our local communities, we launched a fan-led review of football governance, and are working at pace to respond to the excellent report from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch).
I turn to Derby County. The situation is worrying for fans, the local community and football alike. No one wants to see a founding member of the Football League in administration and facing threats to its survival. Of course, Derby County has won silverware in the past, and I pay tribute to Wayne Rooney for his sterling work as manager this season—I never thought I would hear myself saying those words in the House of Commons.
We should be clear that the governance surrounding the administration of Derby County football club is a matter for the English Football League, the administrator and the club. However, the Government take a close interest and are receiving regular updates. The sports Minister spoke to the English Football League last night to understand exactly what is going on, and to urge all parties involved to take a pragmatic approach to securing the future of the Rams. I call on the English Football League, the club and the administrators to play an active and urgent role, within their remits, in seeking to facilitate an urgent solution to the situation.
The EFL has asked the administrators for details of a funding plan that will enable the club to complete this season. The administrators have tabled some options that are available to them, and the EFL has extended the deadline for proof of funding, in line with its regulations and policy. I understand that some bidders are interested in purchasing the club, and I very much hope that those conversations reach a fruitful conclusion as quickly as possible. Yesterday, the EFL issued an extensive and transparent update on its handling of the matter, which I commend to the House.
Of course, this matter raises questions about the wider financial sustainability of football. The fan-led review made a number of proposals directly addressing how to prevent clubs ending up in such situations, and the Government are considering them carefully. We have however endorsed in principle the review’s primary recommendation, which is that football requires a strong, independent regulator to secure the future of the national game. In the meantime, the Government, and my hon. Friend the sports Minister in particular, will continue to engage closely with the EFL and Members—particularly those who represent the fine county of Derbyshire—and call for urgent pragmatism from all parties involved, so that they find a solution quickly and save this fantastic club.
Mrs Latham
I thank the Minister for his words. I spoke to the sports Minister last night, and I place on record that many Derbyshire colleagues completely support what we are doing to try to save the club. Derby County football club cannot be allowed to be removed from the English Football League on 1 February. If this can happen to Derby, which was one of the founder clubs of the Football League in 1888, it can happen to any of the other 71 clubs.
These clubs are so much more than businesses. They represent the heart and soul of communities, nowhere more so than in Derby, and they are huge drivers of economic growth and part of the cultural fabric of our country. Can the Minister assure me that in his discussions with the EFL he has been reassured that it is acting in the best interests of Derby County’s fans?
I understand that there are ongoing legal proceedings between Derby and other clubs, but the reason the potential takeover cannot happen is that the EFL is refusing to rule on whether those claims could constitute football debts—a matter for EFL rules, not for the courts. Will the Minister confirm why the EFL is refusing to rule on the matter? If the EFL cannot or will not rule on it, Derby County believes that it could rely on new insolvency rules, approved by this Parliament, to exit administration. Will the Minister please confirm that he will investigate why the EFL’s insolvency guidelines are not up to date, which is causing such difficulties for Derby County?
Furthermore, although the EFL’s delay is effectively holding up the takeover, it appears to have set an arbitrary deadline of 1 February, at which point it can remove Derby from the league. Is the Minister convinced that the EFL is acting fast enough to resolve the football debts issue before the deadline, or will it extend the deadline accordingly?
Finally, I would like to mention the administrators of the club. Fans have no accountability mechanisms over those individuals, who themselves have no connection to the club. Will the Minister please assure me that he is in constant contact with the administrators to ensure that they are acting in the fans’ best interests and as quickly as possible?
Chris Philp
As always, my hon. Friend is an outstanding advocate for Derbyshire and for matters that concern her constituents and football fans across the county and the broader region. I agree entirely with her point. Football clubs are an integral part of the fabric of their local communities; I certainly feel that in south London with Crystal Palace, and I know that colleagues across the House and their constituents certainly feel the same about their football clubs.
The sports Minister has been in close contact with the English Football League. We want to see it working urgently, pragmatically and rapidly to resolve the outstanding issues standing in the way of a takeover by a new owner, who we hope can invest the money needed to turn the club around. The sports Minister is pressing the English Football League very hard on these points; I am sure that he will do so again and that the English Football League will be listening to our proceedings this afternoon, hear the message from this House and act accordingly.
On my hon. Friend’s final point, I am afraid that I do not know whether the sports Minister has spoken to the administrators yet, but since she has raised the point so forcefully and eloquently, I will certainly ask him to do so as soon as I leave the Chamber.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for bringing this urgent matter to the House today. Once again, one of our great historic football clubs—a founder member of the Football League—is in danger. That is not the fault of the players and staff, who have performed remarkably in the circumstances; it is not the fault of fans; once again, it is the fault of mismanagement by owners. It is an example of the problem that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) identified in the fan-led review of football governance: owners gambling everything on aiming for Premier League status without proper safeguards in place, leaving the club in danger. It is further evidence that football governance is broken and that we urgently need the changes recommended in the fan-led review.
We appreciate that the specifics of the current situation at Derby County are complex and that there are a number of parties involved—the EFL, potential buyers, administrators and other clubs making claims to legal challenges. Labour urges all those parties to work together to sort this out. But even bearing that in mind, may I urge the Minister and the sports Minister to do everything in their power to secure the club’s future for the sake of fans, players, staff, the city and the wider community?
The question that many fans will be asking is “How did we get here again?” The review by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford has already put forward a strong set of recommendations that would overhaul football governance for the better. Introducing a new statutory independent regulator requires new legislation, but a shadow regulator fulfilling the same function could be introduced straightaway. Such a regulator could have flagged up the issues that put Derby County in jeopardy long before we got where we are today.
The Government have said that they will respond fully to the review’s recommendations in the spring, but does the Minister accept that this latest crisis demonstrates that that is just too long to wait? Is the crisis not more compelling evidence that the Government need to act quickly to implement the recommendations of the fan-led review and ensure that football has a governance regime that safeguards our great clubs and our national game?
Chris Philp
I thank the shadow Minister for her question. Clearly, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire, is doing everything he can to urge the various participants, especially the English Football League, but also the administrators and the other clubs involved, to find a resolution to this complicated situation.
I would add two points. First, I would not tar all football owners with the same brush. Those clubs I know about, particularly Palace, have been well managed, so it cannot be said that football owners as a whole conduct themselves badly. Secondly, the problems at Derby County are long-standing, and long predate the fan-led review. We are moving at pace to make sure that the fan-led review is implemented, and that work will happen as quickly as possible.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on securing the urgent question and pay tribute to her Derbyshire colleagues, some of whom are unable to be here today but who I know are as concerned as she is.
My inbox is full of Rams fans who are understandably concerned by the perilous situation the club is in. The football review panel met Mel Morris near the end of the process and after the interim recommendations were published, and I asked him specifically whether he thought that the club would be in a different situation if an independent regulator and real-time financial monitoring had been in place. His answer was, “Yes, without a doubt.” Given that clubs think that the recommendations in the review would lead to greater sustainability in football, will the Minister—I appreciate he is standing in for the sports Minister—give a bit more detail about the pace at which implementation of the report’s recommendations is being considered and will be responded to? Many would argue that they are urgently needed so that no other club and its loyal, committed, lifelong fans will suffer the threat of ceasing to exist.
Chris Philp
Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend for the tremendous work that she has done in convening the fan-led review and producing such a comprehensive and detailed report. I can assure her that the Sports Minister is working on this as a matter of urgency. We have accepted the key principles of the fan-led review. It is a detailed review with a large number of detailed recommendations, and we want to make sure that we get the response right while doing so as quickly as possible. I can assure my hon. Friend that that work is happening very quickly, and I would be happy to ask the sports Minister to meet her to discuss the implementation timetable. I spoke to him earlier this afternoon and he is fully seized of the need to move fast.
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
I can confirm everything that the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) said about the importance of this issue in the city of Derby and across the whole area, as can be seen from the Members here today. Long ago, when this all began, I was one of those who took part in a meeting with the Football League in which it assured us of its earnest desire to see this matter resolved and Derby County continue. The Minister said in his opening remarks that no one wants to see the club go under: well, some of us are beginning to wonder. I assure him, and through him the Football League, that if, inadvertently—because the Football League is unable to remove the obstacles that at the moment it appears to be putting so firmly in Derby County’s way—that were to happen, none of those participating in it would be forgiven.
Chris Philp
The right hon. Lady makes her point with power and eloquence, and I echo her sentiments. As I said in my opening comments, I hope the English Football League, the other clubs involved in this saga and the administrators are listening to our proceedings this afternoon and to the message she just gave, which probably commands support across the House. I hope they listen and act accordingly.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
A little over a year ago, the sports Minister and I were in almost daily communication about the EFL’s financial crisis. Through that communication and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s actions and public hearings, we dragged the Premier League kicking and screaming into a £250 million deal to bail out the EFL. In the light of that action, does my hon. Friend agree that it is beholden on the EFL, which has benefited from financial help in the past, to show decency and understanding to Derby County football club—a former league champion club—in this, its hour of need? What is more, we need to speed up the football review and get legislation on the statute book. We all know there is limited time to bring forward legislation, but this is clearly an urgent priority, so will my hon. Friend commit today to give us a timetable for when legislation will come forward?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee echoes the sentiments so powerfully expressed by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) a few moments ago. There is a significant burden on the English Football League and on the other clubs involved to get this matter sorted out urgently, and I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments in that regard.
On the timing, a number of details clearly need to be worked through. The fan-led review’s recommendations were very detailed, and primary legislation will be required. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government need to work through a number of pressing legislative priorities. I cannot make a commitment on behalf of my colleague the sports Minister—it would be wrong to commit a fellow Minister in respect of his portfolio—but I will ask him to speak to my hon. Friend, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), to discuss the timing.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I have to say that there will be real disappointment among Derby County fans that the sports Minister is not here to respond to this question. I understand that he is serving on a Bill Committee, but arrangements could have been made—[Hon. Members: “Here he is.”] Well, it would be good to hear from him, because with the greatest respect to the Minister responding, he has not been able to answer the fundamental question.
The Minister has spoken about the problems that Crystal Palace had previously, but one thing about this situation is different: the threat of legal action from Middlesbrough and Wycombe and the impact of commitments that may exist in the future on the possibility of a takeover happening now. Will the Minister tell us what the sports Minister is doing to ensure that Middlesbrough and Wycombe’s claims against Derby County’s previous owners do not prevent the club from being purchased? When clubs have debts in the future, they go out of existence altogether, as we saw with Glasgow Rangers and Bury; if clubs have debts in the past, it can be resolved. That is the key issue we need to hear about today.
Chris Philp
If I may say so respectfully, the hon. Member’s comments about the sports Minister at the beginning of his question were rather unfair: he was in a Bill Committee, taking primary legislation through Parliament, and has now arrived on the Front Bench, having completed that important task. That was an extremely unfair remark.
On the other football clubs, legal proceedings are currently pending, but I think a pragmatic solution should be found. I know the sports Minister has been in touch with the English Football League about finding a pragmatic solution. There were similar issues with Crystal Palace 11 years ago—I think it was to do with Lloyds Bank—and a pragmatic solution was found; I expect the same pragmatism to be displayed in this situation.
Finally, the fan-led review touched on some of the issues in respect of debts. When that review is implemented, it will address the issues that the hon. Member raised.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pity we cannot have a substitution of the Minister now that the sports Minister has turned up—that might be allowed on the football pitch, but it is not here.
I know the Minister is a keen football fan; does he, like me, remember how close Middlesbrough came to going out of business until Steve Gibson saved the club a few decades ago? Would it not be ironic if Steve Gibson’s claim, which many of us think is probably a stretch, was what now pushed Derby County over the edge? Will the Minister urge Middlesbrough and Wycombe, in the spirit of football solidary that fans are showing, not to press their claims and to let new owners be found? Does he agree that the Government may need to act because we cannot have, in our elite professional leagues, one club suing another because it does not like the outcome of the season? That is no way to have a sports competition with integrity. If we are going to have legal cases to decide things after the fact, we will not know what the final title decider would have been until the years go by.
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. There are obviously legal proceedings ongoing, but I think it would serve everybody’s interests—the interests of football more generally, as well as those of Derby County in particular—if those involved show pragmatism and help a proud and long-standing club to survive. As I said a few moments ago, when Crystal Palace was in a similar situation, the bank concerned did show pragmatism, and I call on all those involved, including other clubs, to show the same kind of pragmatism.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Derby County is the latest club to find itself in difficulty, but without major and urgent reform it will not be the last. The system is broken when the club finishing at the bottom of the premier league receives 10 times more than the club at the top of the championship, despite their being separated by just one place in the football pyramid. Can I ask the Minister what work is being done to ensure that English Football League clubs are put on a financially sound footing, including agreement on an equitable distribution of the TV money?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. One of the issues addressed by the fan-led review is precisely the question that he refers to, and I know that as the Sports Minister works through the response to the fan-led review, answers to that reasonable and important question will be forthcoming.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Although I am a Leicestershire MP, many of my constituents who have written to me are loyal supporters of Derby County and are hugely concerned about the future of the club. Derby County is in administration, and it accrued or built up £30 million of tax liabilities under the previous owner. If the club goes into liquidation, those moneys due to the Treasury will be at risk. Given this really quite huge financial vested interest of the Government in the survival of Derby County, what are they doing to ensure that the obstacles to a successful takeover are removed, to secure the future of this iconic football club and also secure the moneys due to the Treasury?
Chris Philp
The Treasury, or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs I should say, as an unsecured creditor, is like any other unsecured creditor, and the administrator will treat it fairly and even-handedly, as it would treat any creditor in this situation. I do not think the existence of that debt, among other debts, is the obstacle to completion of the transaction; other issues to do with outstanding legal proceedings and matters that the EFL is responsible for are more immediate obstacles. That is why I repeat my call for the EFL and those other clubs, such as Middlesbrough, pragmatically to get this situation resolved as quickly as possible.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I think we can all, as football fans, feel for the fans of Derby County. We can imagine what it would be like if our club were in such a position, with all that history and our fathers and grandfathers—and grandmothers—having supported a club that is about to disappear. We have to feel for them. It is unthinkable that Derby should go out of existence, but it was unthinkable that Bury should go out of existence, and look what happened.
This is really just another example of the complete mess that is football finance. Why are the rules about administration in place? It is because a few years ago Leicester City deliberately went into administration to get rid of its debts to enable it to be promoted to the premiership at the expense of Sheffield United. It is a complete mess. There are two issues that arise: get the Crouch fan-led review in place as quickly as possible to sort out football finances; and in the meantime get the EFL—I have some sympathy for it because of the difficulties it faces—to give a proportionate and proper response to Derby to make sure that club survives.
Chris Philp
We all agree, without question, that the steps to ensure Derby County’s survival must be taken as quickly as possible. On the wider points made about football finance and the situation the hon. Member mentioned a few years ago, I would just point again to the fan-led review, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. It is precisely to deal with the issues that he quite rightly raises that the review was initiated and why my hon. Friend the Sports Minister will be acting on it.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this urgent question. Like a number of local MPs, I met the EFL yesterday—as a Derbyshire MP, many constituents have written to me—and I have to say that, following that meeting, I could not help but share some of the suspicions outlined by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), because it did not feel to me that the EFL was really putting fans at the heart of this situation and putting our communities front and foremost. I know the Minister is unable to respond directly, but does the Department have faith in the EFL as a fair arbiter which has fans in mind?
Chris Philp
It is important that the EFL and the other participants in this saga act quickly to ensure a successful resolution. As always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so let us hope, and indeed expect, that those results follow very soon.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
As a lifelong Boro fan, can I say to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) that no Middlesbrough football club fan wants to see Derby County—a great football club—go into administration and exit the league. There are great links between our clubs, not the least of which was personified by the great Brian Clough. I know that the Minister is doing his best, but the details are complicated. There is the potential claim, which is founded in the mismanagement of Derby by its previous owners, who offended against the rules and were punished as a result. That is why we are in this position today. I urge the Minister to familiarise himself with the statement from Middlesbrough football club, which has made it clear that it does not want to see Derby fall into liquidation and that it
“is happy to be realistic in its expectations in order for Derby County to exit administration.”
I encourage the Minister to encourage the EFL to encourage the administrator to engage with Middlesbrough, which is very realistic about how it can assist in this process, but at the moment is being met with silence.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important and reasonable point. My hon. Friend the Sports Minister has just confirmed to me that in his conversations last night with the English Football League he called on it to facilitate exactly the kind of conversations that the hon. Gentleman just mentioned. It is our hope that those conversations reach a resolution very quickly. The statement that the hon. Gentleman just read out from Middlesbrough football club is encouraging, but obviously actions will speak louder than words.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
As a proud Nottinghamian, I did not think I would see the day when I would stand in this Chamber defending Derby County football club. Much has been made of the governance, which is clearly an issue, but I think most football fans up and down the country look at the financial fair play system, the sanctions and the points deductions and see it generally as a mess. Does the Minister agree that the rules from the EFL need to be clearer, that punishments need to be delivered in a consistent and timely manner and that the EFL must learn the lessons to avoid these things happening in the future?
Chris Philp
Once again, my hon. Friend makes some important points, and I am sure fans of Derby County will be grateful to him for his magnanimity in the way he framed his remarks. I believe that the issues he raises will be picked up by the fan-led review to make sure that these risks do not arise again.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
As a Leeds United supporter, I know all about having a renegade owner racking up hundreds of millions of pounds in transfer fees to gamble on sporting success. One of the underlying issues with Derby County and other clubs that face difficulty is hugely inflated transfer fees. Has the Sports Minister considered looking at the role of agents, who are unlicensed and unregulated, and who have no cap on the level of the transfer fees that they can receive, to help calm this situation and stop the financial escalator we are seeing in transfer fees?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. A number of people have concerns about the role that agents play—not least football clubs, managers and indeed sometimes players themselves. It is a slightly, and I choose my words diplomatically, opaque—I was going to say murky—business. As the Sports Minister responds to the fan-led review, this will be an issue that he addresses.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is the failure of football governance that has created the problem at Derby. In this crisis, once again, the fans see that no one is interested in their concerns, the long-term future of the club or the impact on the people of Derby. If the EFL had enforced its financial rules effectively, this would not have happened, yet it is the EFL’s rules that will trigger Derby’s expulsion from the league by insisting that all football debts and liabilities are met. The regulator that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) proposes in her report will stop this happening, but not before 1 February. Is the Minister prepared to consider what other direct interventions DCMS might make to keep Derby County in business?
Chris Philp
If the current system had been functioning perfectly or properly, there would have been no need for the fan-led review. There are certainly shortcomings, as my hon. Friend points out, which the fan-led review is designed to address. On the way in which the EFL’s rules may have precipitated or triggered the current situation, I repeat my call and, I think, the call of all hon. Members on both sides of the House for pragmatism from those involved, including the EFL, to get this matter resolved as quickly as possible to save a great club.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We all accept the special role that football clubs have in their local communities, but they are treated like any other business, which is at the heart of the problem. With the EFL’s rules and with clubs as they are currently constituted under company law, it is very difficult to intervene in this process. If the football regulator had been in place, with the rules and regulations that have been asked for, this problem would not have arisen. I have heard the Minister say plenty of times that the Government are determined to bring in the regulator as quickly as possible, but we not only need DCMS to say that; we need primary legislation that involves other Departments. Can he give us an assurance that those other Departments are applying the same urgency as DCMS?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is right that it requires primary legislation; and the Sports Minister, who is sitting next to me on the Front Bench, is working through those plans. As I said a few moments ago, the proposals are quite complicated in some areas and we need to make sure we get this right. Obviously it would be terrible if we acted too quickly, did not get the details right and ended up not fixing the problem. The Government’s intention is to legislate as quickly as we can, but we want to make sure we get this right to avoid the situation reoccurring.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Although football finance expert Kieran Maguire warned the EFL in 2018, it was 19 months before the EFL issued financial fair play charges. This allowed the situation to escalate out of control for far too long. For the sake of Derby fans, we need the Minister to take urgent action to get the EFL, Mel Morris, potential owners, Middlesbrough and Wycombe together to thrash out a deal. He should put them in a room and throw away the key until something has been sorted. It is in no one’s interest to see the future of such a proud club under immediate threat of folding.
Chris Philp
I share my hon. Friend’s call for urgency. The Sports Minister, as I said, spoke to the EFL last night, and he will continue urgently and forcefully pressing the participants in this saga to get a resolution. I repeat my call for all those involved—the EFL, clubs such as Middlesbrough, the administrators—to demonstrate flexibility and pragmatism in getting this sorted out. My hon. Friend the Sports Minister will be driving that forward.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
As a Newcastle United fan, I know something of sorrow and frustration. I have huge sympathy for Derby County. This Government have repeatedly failed to act on issues of financial sustainability and effective governance in our national game, and they are now dragging their feet on their response to the fan-led review of football. Does the Minister really think that the pace of the Government’s response equals the importance of football in the lives of my constituents? Will he commit to putting fans at the top of the football pyramid?
Chris Philp
I do not accept the allegation that the Government have been dragging their feet. It was the Government who commissioned the fan-led review in the first place, and we have accepted its recommendations in principle. Detailed work is now taking place to get it implemented. As I said in response to a previous question, we need to make sure the details are right. Although we are acting with urgency, we do not want to act so fast that we make a mistake in the legislation. On putting fans at the centre, the clue is in the name: it is a fan-led review.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) said in her excellent contribution that if this could happen to Derby, it could happen to anybody. Well, it did: it happened to Bury football club. When it happened to Bury football club, the fans paid the price. It was the fault of the owners, not the fault of the fans. When that process happened—Ministers on the Front Bench know I was intimately involved in it—the English Football League did not care. It did not care about any of the thousands of fans of Bury football club who were impacted by its decision to expel the club from the league. We are not talking about the local branch of Tesco. Football clubs are engines for social and economic good. They are the history and heartbeat of communities. I do not have the words to describe the impact on thousands of people in my constituency of Bury football club disappearing.
It is time for the English Football League to show that it cares, and not do what it did with Bury. It destroyed a club and nearly destroyed a town. I am not underscoring that; that is how much of an impact it had. I urge the Minister to do whatever is necessary to protect the fans of Derby. I have seen on a daily basis in my constituency what such a situation does to the fans of a football club who care about and love their club, and care about and love their town. That is bigger than all the rules in the world. The situation has got to be sorted out. Please do everything possible to protect Derby fans and please do not make the mistakes that happened with Bury.
Chris Philp
I think there is agreement across the House that what happened to Bury football club was a catastrophe for the local community. We must make sure the same does not happen to Derby County. All of us, on both sides of the House, will understand how devastating it is when a local football club disappears, as Bury did. Let us hope and take action to ensure that that never happens again. I am very sorry to hear my hon. Friend’s assessment of the EFL’s conduct in the Bury football club situation. I can only repeat my plea, or demand, to the EFL to acts rapidly and pragmatically. Once again, to make sure these things do not happen again, the independent fan-led review and the Government response to it is vital. Just to be clear and to clarify, the Government accept the principle of an independent regulator and are studying very carefully the other recommendations. We will respond as soon as we can.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly). The Minister makes the point that there are good owners of football clubs and there are. Rochdale, my town’s club, certainly has those. There are bad owners as well and the EFL has failed consistently to operate its duty on the fit and proper person test. The message the sports Minister has to give to the EFL is that there is no confidence in its ability and its governance of football. That message has to go out, because in the meantime, while we wait for the fan-led review to be given legal force, we have to make sure there is real pressure on the EFL so we do not lose another great club.
Chris Philp
The hon. Member makes a very powerful and eloquent point. As I said in response to the points made by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), I am sure the EFL is listening to our proceedings and I am certain it will act accordingly.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Although it is true that I am a proud Motherwell fan, my in-laws, Ron and Alison Wright, constituents of the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), are proud Derby County fans. They are very proud of their club’s history and place in the town. As Derby County try to play out of their 21-point penalty, does the Minister agree there is a bit of a catch-22 situation for a team to try to play for its survival while it cannot keep players in the face of such financial and legal uncertainty?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady is right. It is a difficult situation to suffer a 21-point penalty. Back in 2010, my team, Crystal Palace, had a 10-point penalty and avoided relegation on the final day of the season. I hope—demand, really—that Derby County continue and survive. I hope they continue fighting on. I know they will show the spirit required to get every single point they can as they fight not for survival as a club, but for survival in the Championship. I wish them every bit of good luck in doing that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for coming off the subs bench to take the urgent question. I do not know who, when asked whether football was a matter of life and death, said it was more important than that—[Hon. Members: “Bill Shankly.”] Shankly, there we are. I think today’s urgent question proved that admirably.
Mr Perkins
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for standing in bravely, but the petition specifically went to the sports Minister. It will be matter of huge regret that he was not able to give his perspective in response to the urgent question.
We have had statements at different times, but in the future on such matters, which are of such importance to people, can we ask the Government to try to find a way to work with the Opposition, either to delay the Bill Committee or to delay the statement, so that the Minister can be here to respond? For the sake of my constituents, who are incredibly worried about the future of Derby County FC, I feel we would have had a different response if the sports Minister had had an opportunity to respond. I do not mean to be mean to anyone, but in the future can the Government and the Speaker work together to try to ensure the relevant Minister can be here to respond on matters of such importance?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Given the nature of an urgent question, does the Minister want to come in or shall I take this?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
The hon. Member may be confusing two points. I am aware that there is a petition being processed at this moment in time, but today’s response was to an urgent question. I am sorry that I was unable to be at the Dispatch Box because I had other business scheduled in the House. The Charities Bill had been scheduled for a long time and, by just a few minutes, time did not allow me to be here.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), for standing in for me. As I hope I have proven over the past two years in this role, I am always open to discussion with any colleagues, on any side of the House. I have had many conversations with colleagues relating to Derby County FC, and I would happily speak to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) . There is nothing party political about the issue and we all need to work together.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I do not think I need add anything further to that response.
We should now have the presentation of a Bill, but I do not see the Member present, so we will move on to the ten-minute rule Bill.
Digital Devices (Access for Next of Kin)
Tuesday 18th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Digital Devices (Access for Next of Kin) Bill 2021-22 View all Digital Devices (Access for Next of Kin) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to grant a right of access to the digital devices of a dead or incapacitated person to their next of kin; and for connected purposes.
At the outset, I thank the Government for giving me one of their valued spaces to introduce this private Member’s Bill. They did not do that lightly. Indeed, there is an indication—I will put it no more strongly than that—of a fair wind from the Government and that the Bill could make its way to the statue book, given that they are considering whether the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill may be a mechanism to consider the matter.
I thank hon. Members from across the House for the considerable support I have received, as can be seen from the names of the sponsors of the Bill, and the welcome endorsement I have received from the other place, where they are considering similar matters. I particularly welcome the support from Baroness Beeban Kidron, who took time to draw my attention to and discuss with me the contents of the report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, and the importance of how this measure will help reset the relationship between the service provider and end user. I note a debate in the other place in the Baroness’s name on Thursday, and hope that that too will give added momentum to this important matter, which both the House of Commons and the House of Lords are considering.
My Bill will grant the next of kin the right to access the smart phone and other digital devices of a person on their death or incapacity. There is no legislative definition of a “digital asset” in the United Kingdom. There is no legislation governing a personal representative or fiduciary’s access to digital assets. My Bill would create a law where the default position would be that the next of kin of a deceased or incapacitated person would automatically gain access to the contents of the digital platforms held in the deceased person’s name on their digital devices.
My Bill would clarify the position in the UK, and protect the assets and legacy of an individual’s digital estate. It would grant immediate access to the next of kin to a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets without their having to take costly or uncertain legal action against digital platforms. The Bill will codify the contents of digital assets as a person’s possession.
Every day, without realising it, we are creating an even larger digital footprint as we go through our lives, both in a personal way and in our financial lives online. What happens to that information when someone unexpectedly or tragically dies? Leaving a treasured possession such as a photo album or a collection of memorabilia and precious memories used to be quite easy, but in the ever-increasing digital world and digital age, that now often intangible property may be buried beneath layers of cyber-security. It can be hard to locate and even harder to administer as the legal landscape has failed, on many occasions, to keep pace with the development of technology and tech companies have become increasingly powerful.
Today an estimated £25 billion of our assets in the UK are held online in password-protected cloud storage solutions such as iTunes and social media accounts. For many people, digital assets fall into the important category of predominantly sentimental value—for example, memories, photos and videos stored on a laptop, notebook, smartphone or on social media accounts accessed via those devices. But this is not just about sentimental records. Music is purchased online, physical record, CD and book collections are replaced, and in some instances significant revenues are generated online. In the gaming world, a player’s virtual character can be traded for considerable revenue. YouTube channels, cryptocurrency and frequent flyer points can each be translated into monetary value—but only if next of kin has access. Most people are under the impression that they own their online content. They do not. Many forget to make provision for access to their content material in their will, or to share their passwords and access codes with their loved ones. Of course, many do not have a will, and young people, especially, fall into that category. Much precious material, sentimental and otherwise, can therefore be lost forever.
The United States of America has attempted to legislate in the area, and the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act has passed in some states, but in the UK there is no legislation on rights of access to a person’s digital device or account. Even a grant of probate may not be sufficient to enable the executors to obtain legal title to a deceased person’s digital content. In fact, in the UK we are at the mercy of the mechanisms laid down by the giant tech companies in trying to gain some limited access: Facebook, Google, Apple, iTunes, Instagram, Microsoft, YouTube and PayPal, to name a few. Each has different and limited practices and policies for access on death or incapacity to a person’s digital content or physical device. We need to unlock that labyrinth for the public.
The Bill will go some way towards unlocking and finding a way through that labyrinth. It will allow next of kin the automatic right to access to a person’s digital device and place a responsibility on the tech companies to unlock devices for those next of kin who do not have the access codes for devices left by the deceased. It will avoid unnecessary legal action by the next of kin. It will remove forever the unnecessary wall and unlock, for many, happy memories and access to what they thought was lost archive material about their loved one. Precious photos, videos, memories, messages, diaries and other material will be accessible to next of kin at the most difficult time in many families’ lives. There is a need for the Government to bring our laws into the digital new century and ensure that next of kin are not blocked by tech companies from having access to their loved one’s material.
During my discussions with Baroness Kidron, she related to me the tragic story of 14-year-old Molly Russell. It chimed with me given other constituency cases that I have come across and dealt with. The Bill will ensure that digital data is available to investigators, and, above all, that other bereaved parents do not have to experience what families have gone through in accessing their children’s social media and other accounts.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ian Paisley, Jeremy Wright, Damian Collins, Sir Robert Goodwill, Kevin Brennan, John Spellar, Matt Western, Nick Smith, Jim Shannon, Carla Lockhart and Sammy Wilson present the Bill.
Ian Paisley accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February, and to be printed (Bill 229).
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 18th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 View all Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (3 Dec 2021)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The United Kingdom was the first country in the world to pass legislation to protect animals with the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822. In 1876, we were the first country to pass legislation regulating experiments on animals. In 1875, we were the first country to introduce measures to improve conditions in slaughterhouses. This House also passed the landmark Protection of Animals Act 1911, an Act emulated by many other countries around the world.
More recently, there have been further improvements. One of the first actions taken by Margaret Thatcher’s Government was the introduction of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, announced to this House in July 1979 by Peter Walker. That Government then updated the law on animal experiments with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which remains an international gold standard. The Labour party has also made its contribution: our Parliament updated the 1911 Act with the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which introduced a robust framework and powers for protecting all kept animals in England and Wales.
Every piece of animal welfare legislation passed by this House since 1822 has implicitly recognised the sentience of animals. During the European Union era, the UK was a signatory to article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which offered a form of legal recognition of the sentience of animals. Although that did not really mean very much, we believe we can now do better through this Bill.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I note that the Secretary of State did not mention the ban on hunting with dogs—a law that needs to be strengthened—which constituents up and down the country are still concerned about. Why should this not be the Government to deal with that once and for all?
George Eustice
We have had many pieces of legislation; I sought in the time I had to list some of the key ones, including the 2006 Act.
How we treat animals, and the legislation we have to govern animal welfare, is a hallmark of a civilised society. We should be constantly looking to improve and refine our legislation in this area. That is why the Government have committed to introducing this new law on animal sentience.
I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Benyon of Englefield for his work bringing the Bill through the other place. The current version underwent close scrutiny in the other place, as Members would expect. This is a succinct Bill that offers clarity and avoids creating a wide avenue for the judicial review of Government decisions, while ensuring that animal welfare is properly considered as Governments formulate policy.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
As the MP who I think made the first attempt to put sentience recognition into UK law with my amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, I warmly welcome this Bill. I congratulate the A Better Deal for Animals coalition for the work it has put into it. The Secretary of State mentions the scrutiny in the other place. Does he have sympathy with the concern raised there about how the Bill’s current wording would mean that the Animal Sentience Committee can look only at the adverse effects on the welfare of animals as sentient beings? Would he consider looking at the positive opportunities in considering those sentience issues, too?
George Eustice
I think this matter was dealt with extensively by my noble Friend, Lord Benyon. The key thing is that an adverse effect can mean a failure to make a change or consider a change that would have a positive impact on the welfare of animals, so I do not share any concerns about that expression.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for his Committee’s work in scrutinising our proposals.
The Bill proposes four things. First, it establishes an Animal Sentience Committee, whose members the Secretary of State will appoint on the basis of expertise and experience. Secondly, it tasks that committee with scrutinising Ministers’ policy formation and the implementation of decisions. In each instance, it will publish a report containing its views on whether Ministers have had all due regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings.
Thirdly, Ministers will be held to account through a duty to respond to the committee’s reports by means of a written statement to Parliament, and Parliament must receive such responses within three months. Finally, the wording of the Bill offers recognition that non-human vertebrates—that is, animals with a spine—and additionally decapod crustaceans, such as lobsters, and cephalopod molluscs, such as octopuses, are sentient. That means they are capable of experiencing pain or suffering. The Bill contains a delegated power for Ministers to add by regulation other species to the definition of animals. That is to be used if there is good scientific evidence that those particular species are sentient.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the Bill as drafted contains birds?
George Eustice
The Bill does include birds, since they are vertebrates, and it includes fish, since they are vertebrates. I point out that those particular animals have been recognised in our law as sentient since at least 1911.
I want to be clear about what the Bill does and does not do. While its aim is to improve the policy and decision-making processes of Government, the committee’s reports will not bind Ministers to any particular course of action. Ministers will remain free to determine the right balance between animal welfare and other important considerations.
Devolved matters are also excluded from the Bill’s provisions. The Scottish Government have their own counterpart to the Animal Sentience Committee already, while Wales and Northern Ireland have the powers to establish equivalent bodies, should they wish to do so.
It is also important to understand that the Bill tasks the Animal Sentience Committee with scrutinising the process by which Ministers arrive at policy decisions. It is not there to tell Ministers what decisions they should make or to critique those decisions. Instead, it is there to provide technical assessments of how well a given Department obtained and assessed relevant evidence on the animal welfare effects of the policy in question.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
On that point, can my right hon. Friend say whether he has assessed the possibility of judicial review arising as a result of that assessment process?
George Eustice
As I said, we do not believe that the Bill creates a cause of action for judicial review, for the simple reason that the obligation on a Minister is to respond to the report within three months, and that response can deal with any recommendation or observation put forward by the committee.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a strong case for the Bill. Does he agree that Britain continues to lead the world in animal welfare and that the Bill enhances our role?
George Eustice
Yes. As I set out at the beginning of the debate, the United Kingdom has always been a world leader in animal welfare. We were the first country in the world to introduce animal welfare legislation; we recognised the sentience of animals as long ago as 1822. We have been in the vanguard of new legislation in the area over time, and the Bill demonstrates our continued leadership.
Our approach will promote fair and consistent consideration of animal welfare throughout Government policy decisions, but without impinging on the freedom of Ministers to make those policy decisions, for which they are democratically accountable for Parliament.
For all those reasons, I commend this short Bill to the House.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I believe that across the country and across this House we care deeply about the welfare of animals. In that context, I am happy to reassure the Secretary of State that we support the Bill and will not divide the House on its Second Reading.
Successive Parliaments have sought to ensure that the law protects animals from cruelty inflicted by humans. The Opposition are proud that it was the Labour Government who brought in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, protecting the treatment of domestic animals and making owners and keepers responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs of their animals are fully met. The Opposition do not distinguish; we believe that all animals deserve protection, whether they are on a farm, at home as a pet, at large in the wild or in the sea.
The Government’s chaotic handling of our leaving the EU has left many gaps in protection and in law. The Bill will address one of those gaps by putting back into domestic legislation the recognition that animals are sentient beings. That issue has been in limbo since we left the EU, and I am pleased that it has now been reconciled. Formal legal recognition of animal sentience sends a clear message that as a country we are committed to protecting the welfare of animals—provided, of course, that the Government make sure that they deliver on what the Bill purports to promise.
What is difficult to reconcile, however, is that while animal welfare standards are constantly being raised here in the UK, the same is not true across the world. I am very proud that British farmers are leading the way, but it is a fact that many are facing a cliff edge, and with changes to EU subsidy favouring landowners keen to diversify away from farming to biodiversity schemes, it has come at the worst possible time. We are seeing food left rotting in the fields and some 20,000 pigs culled, all because of entirely foreseeable labour shortages.
To make matters worse, although the Government talk a good game on animal welfare, trade deals have been signed that not only undermine British farmers and producers, but allow the UK and its Government essentially to outsource animal cruelty in the supply chain to other countries. Take the UK-Australia trade deal: while we maintain high standards here in the UK and higher costs as a result, Australia allows intensive farming, which means that cattle may spend their entire life locked away without seeing a blade of grass, not to mention being trucked for 48 hours without rest, food or water, often in very hot conditions that would be illegal in the UK.
The Government could have used the Bill as an opportunity to address animal welfare concerns relating to those trade deals. As the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals acknowledges, the free trade agreement with Australia does not give any guarantee about equivalence of standards for imported products. We share the RSPCA’s concern that that could open the door to imported products such as hormone-fed beef and chlorine-washed chicken, produced to lower standards that would be illegal in the UK. Will the Secretary of State commit to amending the Bill to prevent that, or at least to bringing forward measures that will address those widely held concerns about how our domestic legislation interacts with trade deals that have so far been negotiated and with those negotiated in future?
On British soil, action is being taken by the National Trust and the Welsh Government, but the UK Government seem intent on turning a blind eye to the abuse of the Hunting Act 2004. Lessons are literally being given on how to get around the law of the land, and it is leading to live chases of foxes in this country.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Maybe I should have asked the Minister this question, but does the hon. Member think that when the Government are creating the committee to advise Ministers, it would be advisable to consider an open and transparent process of appointment in which appointees, no matter who they are, must declare their work and their participation in events such as foxhunting?
Jim McMahon
I think that, with every public appointment made, we need transparency and we need to ensure that those around the table are there for the right reasons, and not to look after their own interests. Where there is a genuine conflict of interest—where any normal member of the public would look at it and question whether the motives of that person were in the interests of the country at large—of course that would not be right. It is a fact, particularly during the Boxing day hunt, although it was a day delayed, that the Government were completely absent. The country was lining up to criticise the clear abuse that has been taking place for a period, where loopholes are being exploited and the Government do not take action. On one hand we say that we are an animal-loving nation and that this Government want to protect animals, but on the other we see what is happening in plain sight, but do not see anything like the action that is required.
We are pleased that the Bill has reached this House, after well over six months in the other place, where it benefited from some notable improvements. We should be grateful to their lordships for their work. I give a special mention to my colleague and the former shadow Environment Secretary, Baroness Hayman, for the work that she has done and led in that place. As a result, the Government rightly concede that octopi, lobsters and the like should receive protection upfront in the Bill, rather than waiting to be considered by the Animal Sentience Committee when eventually it meets.
Further improvements are needed, which we and campaigners will continue to argue for in Committee. We share concerns expressed about clause 2 limiting consideration to ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of sentient beings. We understand the legal advice is that that itself does not prevent the committee from recommending positive steps to enhance animal welfare, and that should be made clear in the terms of reference, but surely it would make far more sense to be upfront and have that in the Bill.
We agree with the argument that the Bill should require Ministers proactively to set up a cross-Government animal sentience strategy, and regularly to report to Parliament on how Government policy is working in that regard. The duty simply to respond to a report could allow Ministers simply to dismiss a committee’s recommendation in that regard. That would fall far short not just of the Bill’s aims of enshrining animal welfare, but of the nation’s aspiration that we translate our narrative of being an animal-loving nation into the law that governs the land in which we live.
Animals are capable of bringing us huge joy, and it is right to ensure that they avoid avoidable suffering. We strongly support the need for the Bill, but the Government must recognise that if they say one thing but do another, the public will be rightly critical of the claims being made in support of the Bill. I urge the Secretary of State: where we see that the Government are saying one thing about the Bill but doing another on trade agreements or on foxhunting, we must show the world what leadership is and take action on both those fronts.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to catch your eye in this important but short debate, on a short and, in my view, unnecessary Bill. Of course we can all accept that animals can suffer and therefore we are obliged to ensure that we maintain our high standards of welfare. That animals can experience pain and suffering has been implicit in British animal law, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so rightly laid out, since 1835 when Parliament passed the landmark Cruelty to Animals Act. However, the lack of definition in this Bill or use of science to decide whether an animal is sentient is concerning; it even lacks a definition of what sentience means. It is concerning that we should be passing a Bill with such a lack of detail.
There is a huge rural community in this country that is passionate about wildlife and eager to protect the environment and their activities. The Angling Trust and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation—I declare an interest; it is the secretariat for the all-party group on animal welfare and environment which I chair—represent more than 3 million fishing and shooting enthusiasts in the UK. The Bill could deliver another weapon into the hands of litigious animal rights groups that could damage both Government and those who live and work with animals.
Shooting, conservation and angling are highly important for the UK economy. Shooting contributes about £2 billion to GDP and supports the equivalent of 74,000 full-time jobs. Angling is estimated to be worth £4 billion to the UK economy and responsible for upwards of 40,000 jobs.
We need to make sure that the Animal Sentience Committee set up by the Bill does not have any unforeseen or perverse consequences, and that the Bill is not introduced simply as a public relations exercise to meet the demands of activist groups and the tabloids. A sentience committee does not require legislation. It could have been established by the Secretary of State at any time. He has already told us that the members will be Secretary of State appointments, but that covers a multitude of types of people who might be appointed. Perhaps the Minister could give us a little more idea of the type of people who will be appointed to the committee.
According to clause 2(1), the scope of the Bill encompasses:
“When any government policy is being or has been formulated or implemented”.
In other words, it gives huge breadth of remit to the committee. So what will be the committee’s resources in terms of funds and secretariat? Would it not be more sensible to limit its remit to the areas currently covered by the European law on sentience, on which my party’s manifesto said we would legislate?
Will the new committee by statute confuse who advises Ministers on animal welfare when the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs already has an Animal Welfare Committee with a wide remit covering all animals, but not by statute? Will the new sentience committee, which is implemented by statute, be superior to the Animal Welfare Committee, which was established decades ago and works perfectly well? Or will it be a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee? If so, will the Animal Welfare Committee be required to approve its reports before publication? What will be the difference between the remit of the two committees?
There is no requirement in the Bill for the committee to consider the public interest or the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the UK relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage. In a meat-eating society where vertebrate animals are farmed and hunted for food, and used in scientific and medical research under strict legal limits, the fact that the committee is not required to consider the public interest could lead to a conflict between activist groups and the Government.
Will the Minister therefore balance the requirement to have “all due regard” to animal welfare with a requirement to have regard to the public interest? Can the Minister give an assurance that the medical, scientific, farming, fishing and shooting interests will be represented? This is crucial, because otherwise it is going to breed a great deal of resentment in the rural communities.
There are other ways of recognising sentience in legislation. We could have followed New Zealand’s example and amended the Animal Welfare Act 2006 merely to include sentience. That is all that needed to happen.
Policy and legislation should always be science and evidence-based. It is extraordinary that there is no definition of sentience in the Bill. Even though 80% of the respondents to the Government consultation supported the inclusion of a definition, it still is not there. Instead, clause 5(2) says that the Secretary of State
“may by regulations … bring invertebrates of any description within the meaning of “animal” for the purposes of this Act”.
But there is no requirement to show scientific proof that non-vertebrates are sentient. Philosophers and scientists have been arguing for centuries about which non-vertebrate animals are sentient and what that actually means, and here we have a Bill that does not clarify that debate.
The Bill originated in demands for sentience to be explicitly written into law after Brexit, but it does not contain the safeguards within the EU law on sentience. EU law on sentience is limited and balanced. It applies to agriculture, fisheries, transport, the internal market, research and technological and space policies. Member states—this is a particular part of European law—are required to have
“full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
I will try to get an amendment included in the Bill—I hope that the Government will support the amendment, which I will table shortly—stating that “the recommendations by the committee must respect the legislative or administrative provisions and customs relating in particular to religious rights, cultural traditions and regional heritage”. I say tactfully to my right hon. Friend that, as that is the wording in European law, I hope very much that he might consider such an amendment, so that we can at least focus the committee’s work, instead of it having the very wide-ranging remit that it now has.
Will the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), give us an assurance that nothing in the Bill will have an impact on activities conducted with all regard to animal welfare within the law? Does she believe, as some do, that sentience confers rights and, if so, what rights are conferred?
In conclusion, clarity, clarity, clarity is required on animal welfare advice in government. I am talking about the composition and remit of the committee, the balance between the public interest and sentience, and assurances that legal activities, such as research, farming and country sports, will not be damaged by the Bill. I say to the Secretary of State and the Minister: please could we have an answer to that final question when the Minister sums up?
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Animal welfare is a devolved issue and the scope of the Bill is largely England-only. With that established, the Scottish National party broadly welcomes the legislation and is pleased that the UK Government are following our lead in this area. The Scottish Government pledged to maintain high animal welfare standards after we left the EU and, in June 2020, established the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which is an independent body of leading animal welfare experts responsible for developing expert recommendations on issues relating to animal welfare and sentience. The Bill seeks to replicate its evidence-based policymaking success and expert-driven approach.
The SNP and the Scottish Government take animal welfare extremely seriously. Our party has been vocal in addressing concerns at UK level, and the Scottish Government’s programme for government committed to taking steps to strengthen animal welfare legislation. Each financial year, the commission must prepare a work plan setting out how it intends to perform its functions. It then produces an annual report, laid before the Scottish Parliament, detailing how it has delivered against the work plan. It has the power to establish committees and sub-committees, and the first meeting of the sentience sub-committee took place in November 2021. That group has the function of reviewing sentience-related issues, filtering and prioritising the commission’s programme of work.
The establishment of the commission offered an opportunity post Brexit to replicate article 13. Given that since January 2021, for the first time in more than two decades, there has been no legal requirement for the welfare of animals as sentient beings to be considered in the UK Government’s policy process, it really is about time this place implemented its replacement.
Concerns have been raised about the membership of England’s Animal Sentience Committee, as well as its resources, structure and operation. The Bill has not been updated to address any of those concerns and is essentially the same as when it was introduced, which I note created quite a stooshie in the other place. In my view, membership regulations ought to be considered for the Bill, as should the structures in which they may operate. As an example of where issues could occur, will foxes be considered as sentient beings and will they be granted such protections by the committee, or will that be another cultural flashpoint?
We recommend that the committee avoids being too prescriptive—I know that is the Minister’s view—but rather follows the lead of the evidence-led SAWC. The commission reports welfare policies and recommendations to Scottish Ministers, and just as it has a statutory duty to publish any such advice, the Animal Sentience Committee must also publish its reporting. The Scottish Government have often acted upon the recommendations of the commission. Sensible and pragmatic solutions to policy issues such as beaver reintroduction and management of deer have been taken forward on the basis of the commission’s advice. The commission has also strongly welcomed and worked on the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021.
Let me give an example of what England’s new Animal Sentience Committee might examine. Following concerns raised by a number of animal welfare groups, the Scottish Government announced a review of the trade and importation of exotic pets, and of potential threats to animal health and welfare, human health, and native species in Scotland. An interim report was published last year by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission outlining concerns about the welfare of exotic pets, including their sourcing, breeding, transport and keeping. I understand that the Minister of State is keeping tabs on that work. We will of course be happy if the UK Government make use of the final report when it is published and carry out their own investigations. The Scottish National party also welcomes the Bill’s recognition of cephalopods and decapod crustaceans as sentient.
Although the Bill largely applies only to England, there are areas of it that the SNP believes must be strengthened, notably in respect of animal cosmetics and scientific procedures, which are matters reserved to the UK Government. There has been some mention of European Union regulations today. In September last year, the European Parliament voted for an EU-wide action plan with clear objectives as well as, crucially, timelines for the phasing out of the use of animals in research, regulatory testing and education. It envisages that happening through the reduction, refining and replacement of procedures on live animals for scientific purposes, as soon as it is scientifically possible and with no lowering of the level of protection for human health and the environment. In fact, the EU has leapt in front of the UK on animal welfare standards. We call on the UK Government to reclaim the leadership on this issue that they have shown in the past.
The Bill legislates to enshrine the ability of animals to experience joy and feel suffering and pain, but unfortunately the UK Government do not seek to recognise that animals undergoing scientific experiments or Ministry of Defence tests have rights to sentience; they are excluded from protections. A written question from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) revealed that the Ministry of Defence has carried out nearly 59,000 experimental procedures on animals since 2009. The SNP therefore calls for greater transparency in the animal research industry, and for a commitment in the Bill on the sentience of animals and their welfare rights in relation to the outdated methods used in animal testing and military experiments.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend has made a good point about experimentation on animals by the MOD. Does she share my concern about the fact that it includes primates? As recently as 2018, 56 marmosets were subject to such experimentation.
Deidre Brock
I very much share my hon. Friend’s concern, and I will say more about that later. I genuinely believe that the general public are not aware of the extent and nature of these experiments, or of which animals are used in them. If amendments to the Bill are tabled and accepted in Committee, that may help the public to appreciate what is going on, and may help to reduce reliance on such experiments.
Every two minutes in the UK, a dog, cat, rabbit, rat, monkey, goat, sheep, mouse, or fish suffers from brutal animal testing conducted on it against its sentience and welfare rights, but a survey conducted in 2020 by the UK charity FRAME—the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments—found that 84% of respondents would not buy a cosmetics product if they knew that it, or one of its ingredients, had been tested on animals. Animals in laboratories can legally be poisoned with toxic chemicals, shot, irradiated, gassed, blown up, drowned, stabbed, burned, starved, or restrained to the point at which they develop ulcers or heart failure. They can have their bones broken or their limbs amputated. They can be subject to inescapable electric shocks, driven to depression, deprived of sleep to the point of brain damage, or infected with diseases.
A YouGov poll commissioned by Cruelty Free International shows that people in Scotland and Wales believe that more should be done to prioritise humane and human-relevant science. The findings reveal that seven out of 10 adults living in Scotland and Wales find it unacceptable to use animals for experiments when alternative non-animal research methods are available. In addition, more than three quarters of adults living in Scotland and Wales believe that alternatives to animal tests should be a funding priority in the UK for science and innovation, and a majority in Scotland and Wales want deadlines for phasing out animal tests. I look forward to further discussions on that as the Bill goes through its stages.
When Scottish and Welsh residents were asked about use of specific species in research, they consistently said that it was unacceptable to test on dogs, cats and monkeys, yet despite those public concerns, the UK remains one of the top users in Europe of primates and dogs in experiments. The more we understand animals’ sentience, capabilities and emotions, the more the idea of granting rights to animals is worth taking seriously, urgently. The Scottish National party supports the Bill but urges the Government to address those ongoing issues.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
When I looked at the Bill, I tried first, as I do with any Bill, to work out its purpose and who or what it is trying to assist. I must say that I am still far from having the answer to either question. Actually, the more I look at the Bill, listen to experts and read the record of proceedings in the other place, the more confused I am about what we are trying to do.
While everyone knows what animal welfare is and values what the Bill is intended to do, nothing in it, and no one, can either define animal sentience or say how it is measured. As a result, the phrase becomes a kind of forerunner of what science may, but does not yet, tell us. The Bill is effectively a statement of direction, but does not quite know where to start or where it will finish. It does not define animal sentience, so Ministers will have no gauge to work against. As a result, we legislators are in effect being asked to vote blind on it. The new committee will accordingly have to make things up as it goes along.
At the same time, various lobbyists will push the committee towards reviewing everything that they see as being important to their various causes. If the committee does not produce many—or enough—reports, it will be attacked for inaction. However, if it produces too many reports, it will be attacked for exercising power without democratic oversight or care for costs or whatever. If the Government fail to act on the committee’s views, they will be attacked for inaction, or possibly judicially reviewed. If they do act on them, people could claim that such proposals should come from those who are democratically elected, rather than from an unanswerable committee, or they could say that the Government are using the committee as a stalking horse to avoid taking the blame for proposals that they might think look a bit unpopular. In effect, whichever way one looks at the proposals, they are fraught with problems on every side. One has to wonder why we are doing this. What is there to gain from the Bill other than some short-term, soft publicity because it is somehow about being nice to animals?
Of course, as was mentioned in the other place, in reality, the Bill is not just about public relations, because those involved in minority areas of activity in our national life are realising that it could easily be used against them. Yes, I did see the assurances that the Government gave in the other place that the Bill would not attack the Jewish and Muslim religious animal slaughter practices of shechita and halal, and blatantly yes, the Bill makes no direct attack on those practices, but it does open up indirect lines of attack that could easily be used to prejudice or damage those minority religious practices. Importantly, as was explained clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), the Bill has no exemptions on the grounds of religious rights, cultural traditions and regional heritage, although those exemptions were included in the equivalent EU legislation. That should be corrected; I will be with him on that.
If the new committee were, for instance, to come up with regular reports against non-stunning slaughter practices, the pressure for change would quickly switch to Ministers. I would defend those religious practices, although that is not today’s debate. However, it is relevant to argue that any such changes should be formulated and debated by Ministers and then Parliament, not the new committee. If science does eventually tell us what sentience means and how it can be measured, and if all animal welfare will need to be improved as a result, why farm that out to a committee rather than deal with it directly? The committee will be appointed by the Ministers of the day, and let us acknowledge that the Ministers whom we politically support today will not be there on a change of Government. For that matter, if there is to be a committee, why does it have to be set up by statute if it will have no executive powers?
I was very surprised by the unwillingness of Ministers to engage on this issue or accept amendments in the other place, despite the Bill being hugely contentious. I hope that attitude will now change. There seems to be a lack of focus on what the committee will do, and the possible implications. It seems that it will have a full roving remit across Whitehall, although how it would interact with Departments is vague, as is how it would interact with the existing animal welfare machinery, specifically the animal welfare committee. We do not know. Why not make this new committee part of the animal welfare committee?
As chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council and a Member with a rural constituency, I have been approached by many to voice their concerns that the Bill is being used as a smokescreen to enable attacks on farming practices and wildlife management processes, as well as field sports. In the last few years, for instance, the lobby against game shooting has become increasingly litigious and now regularly uses judicial review to query a wide range of shooting issues, such as where game shooting can take place and what can be shot using general licences. The idea that such people will not attempt judicial review of decisions taken by Ministers on the back of the new committee’s findings is, frankly, unrealistic.
I predict that the Bill will: complicate many rural activities; add complexity and require legal opinions and court appearances; and add cost and bureaucracy. Despite the Bill being welcomed by the Opposition, it is, to my mind, a poor piece of legislation.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). I do not agree with most things he said, but he made a few points that I liked and will come to in my remarks. I welcome the Bill and I will support it today.
The Bill has come a long way since it was first introduced. It is a really good example of how Bills should be improved, especially through prelegislative scrutiny, rather than being stuck in the House of Lords. Many of the amendments made in the House of Lords should have been made in prelegislative scrutiny, so that we did not have a reformed Bill coming to the House of Commons.
I echo the remarks made by the new shadow Environment Secretary, and especially the thanks to Baroness Hayman for her sterling work in the other place, particularly on including cephalopods and decapods in the scope of the Bill. I welcome the fact that the era of boiling lobsters alive will come to an end. That is down to the work of Baroness Hayman and her colleagues in the House of Lords, and is long overdue.
The Bill is not really necessary, so to a certain extent the remarks from the hon. Members for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and for Huntingdon were right in one respect: this really should have been mapped over in Brexit legislation. Of all the rules passed by the European Union during our membership, this is the only one that the Government chose not to map over. Why was that? Was it because there is an ideological divide over animal sentience? Was it because of a real desire to change the situation? Or was it because the Government fell foul of a debate that led to an outcry? This should not have been necessary; the measures should have been mapped over in Brexit legislation, and we should be spending our time looking at how we can improve animal welfare, rather than correcting the mistakes by the Government in the Brexit negotiations.
The Bill needs to work, however, and it is important that we get the detail right. Further work is needed to do that. Some of it is in the very short Bill, but the majority is in the terms of reference that accompany it. It is a shame that the Government have not put more effort into explaining what is in the terms of reference, because much of the detail about how the Animal Sentience Committee will work is in there. Many of the things that we need to improve are not in the Bill, but in the terms of reference, so it is important that we look at those.
There are three main changes that we should make to the Bill and that I hope will be accepted in Committee. First, we should remove the word “adverse” from clause 2(2), which says that the Animal Sentience Committee should have
“due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
As my Green colleague, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), said, there really is no need to include the word “adverse”; if anything, it limits the legislation’s ambition and fails to deliver on the Government’s objectives. In the politics around animal welfare, it is quite a dated concept to use the word “adverse”, with its negative connotation in respect of animal welfare. It suggests that the job of animal welfare legislation is just to stop humans doing bad things to animals. It fails to consider the welfare agenda of the 21st century: what is a life well lived for an animal? How can we ensure not only that suffering is kept to a minimum but that animals enjoy a good quality of life? To delete “adverse” would not distract from the Government’s objectives in the Bill; indeed, it would arguably deliver a lot more on them. I hope that the Government will support an amendment to that end in Committee.
Secondly, on scope, I know that Ministers want the Bill to apply first to Government Departments—to the main Departments of State—but there is a strong case for Ministers to set out how they would accelerate its roll-out to apply it to non-departmental public bodies. For instance, I find it hard to justify the idea that the Bill will apply to the Department for Work and Pensions before it applies to Natural England and the Environment Agency. That does not make much sense, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the timetable for applying the Bill to every single non-departmental public body, and particularly to all the bodies in DEFRA-land, to ensure that they are within the scope of the Animal Sentience Committee. I would like this legislation and the committee to be in place by September this year; it is not unreasonable to argue that in September 2023, 12 months from that point, the legislation should apply to all non-departmental public bodies. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether that is the Government’s intention.
Thirdly, I am concerned about enforcement. I know that the Secretary of State will not like my saying this but, in my new-found freedom as a Back Bencher, let me be bold and speak frankly: DEFRA is a weak Department that does not really scare other Departments. The idea of DEFRA knocking on the door of, say, the Ministry of Defence to question its full implementation of animal sentience guidance is akin to a sardine taking on an Astute-class submarine: we are British and love the underdog, but it is not going to win. We need to be honest about that in relation to this legislation.
According to the guidance that accompanies the Bill, the Animal Sentience Committee will produce approximately six to eight reports a year. It seems to me that instead of allowing the delivery of written statements to the House of Commons three months after the Departments in question have made their initial reports, it makes much more sense for the Secretary of State to come to the House to make an oral statement, to enable parliamentarians to scrutinise the Animal Sentience Committee’s bulk report all in one go. I am concerned that the lack of such a parliamentary opportunity will limit the effectiveness of the legislation.
If the Secretary of State is keen to avoid the scrutiny opportunity of an annual moment, when he may also wish to set out the year-long cross-Government animal sentience strategy that is missing from the Bill, perhaps the Minister could set out the desired route by which parliamentarians will be able to question the effectiveness of the reports and whether they have led to any action or have simply been talking shops, designed to make Departments look but busy without delivering. Will we need to look to the good offices of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to take time out of its busy schedule to analyse each report? Will we need a Backbench Business Committee slot to come free? Or will we need the Speaker to look favourably on a Member at DEFRA questions so that we can scrutinise any of the committee’s reports on the Floor of the House? I fear that without effective enforcement and proper parliamentary scrutiny, the Bill risks becoming a well-intentioned but meaningless piece of legislation.
It is important to look at the committee’s powers. The committee must have proper powers to investigate. Page 9 of the draft guidance the Government have released says that Departments will not have a legal duty to consult the committee. That is really important: Departments will not be required to co-operate with the Animal Sentience Committee. How can the committee improve accountability if Departments can simply decline to participate or to give information? The draft terms of reference suggest that if
“a Department fails to engage with the Committee or assist it with reasonable requests for information as it prepares a report, the Committee may record this non-cooperation in said report.”
That is a scary threat. How will Departments cope with the prospect of getting a black mark on their school report that will barely get any parliamentary scrutiny? What is missing here is a legal duty for Government Departments to co-operate and share information with the Animal Sentience Committee, to ensure that any concerns are properly followed up, otherwise the committee will not have the powers it needs.
I am interested in how DEFRA has come to the conclusion that there should not be a legal requirement to co-operate with the Animal Sentience Committee. Has there been an assessment of DEFRA’s own likelihood of co-operating with the committee? If so, will that assessment be published? Which Department is most likely not to co-operate with the Animal Sentience Committee? Is it the Ministry of Defence? Is it DEFRA? These are the questions to which we need an answer.
The Government admit in the draft terms of reference:
“The co-operation of UK Government Departments is necessary for the Committee to be able to work most effectively.”
But the Government are making that co-operation voluntary. It will be an option for any Secretary of State whose priority might not be animal sentience. Indeed, if they are being investigated, they probably will not have properly considered animal sentience in the development of policy. I suggest the Government take their own advice and make it a legal obligation for Departments to co-operate with the Animal Sentience Committee. That is another amendment that I hope will be moved in Committee. Perhaps the Environment Secretary will report annually on how many Departments are not co-operating with this new committee, as that would be very interesting for the House to know.
There are concerns about the independence of the Animal Sentience Committee and about who should be a member. In that respect, I share some of the concerns raised by the Countryside Alliance, which is not a likely bedfellow for me—the Countryside Alliance is generous and warm in how it describes me in these remarks. It is important that the membership of the committee is broad and has expertise, but it is also important that its members are clear and transparent about their involvement.
Annex A of the draft terms of reference sets out that the interests of members of the committee will be registered, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that, under paragraph (h) of annex A—on any organisations or work relevant to the committee—it will be very clear that all members of the committee, if they are part of a foxhunt, will need to declare it as an interest. I agree with the Countryside Alliance that it is important we have broad-based and transparent involvement. It is important that the interests of every member of the committee are transparently declared.
Finally, I want to address the inaccurate report that the Bill could, in any way, stop our fishers and farmers doing what they do best. We are in a strange period in which the UK does not have animal sentience legislation. We have not had it since we left the European Union because the Government chose not to copy it over, but we will have it again when this Bill passes, as it will.
The hysterical reports from the media and some lobbying groups suggesting that the Bill could affect fishing and farming are incorrect. Britain rightly demands high animal welfare standards for kept and wild animals, and we should be clear that that should continue with this Bill. The Secretary of State has my full support on that, but I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) in saying that we need high animal welfare standards in our trade deals, because it is not acceptable that the Australia trade deal undercuts our farmers by allowing food produced to lower animal welfare standards to be sold in the UK.
I echo a Labour colleague in saying that we need to tighten up the Hunting Act 2004 to stop foxhunting being a 21st-century practice. Trail hunting is an excuse for the live hunting of foxes and we need to close such loopholes. I am disappointed that this Bill does not provide the opportunity to do so.
Much of the Government’s animal welfare legislation has come from Labour’s animal welfare manifesto. There are many members of the 2019 intake in the Chamber, and I am sure they have read it thoroughly because, in many cases, they will have voted for many of the manifesto’s soundbites from the Government Benches, but it is not sufficient just to borrow the headlines from Labour’s animal welfare manifesto; the Government must borrow the detail, too. I encourage the Minister to look again at his well-thumbed copy to see what more he can borrow.
This is an okay Bill. It is half a pace forward, but it could be a full stride forward if we get the detail right. I hope that will happen in Committee.
3.54 pm
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
This is a bad Bill, an unnecessary Bill and a Trojan horse for those who have no understanding of, and sadly in some cases despise, the countryside and all that goes on in it. Before I start, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
We left the EU in order to pass our own laws, I hope guided by common sense and only where necessary, but this Bill is even more intrusive than the former legislation under EU law. It is a skeleton of a Bill, one that is not necessary and, indeed, it has the potential for great harm. I say “skeleton” because many aspects of the Bill are unclear. Who will be appointed to the committee? What skills will they have? How will it be resourced? Why is this a statutory committee when others are not? Why will it have the power to pass secondary legislation, and is this because the Bill itself has simply not been thought through and revision by whoever is in power will need to be accommodated? Why is the committee’s authority seemingly limitless, with its remit to cover all policy across all Departments, and what implications, which could be onerous, does that have for each Department?
As two of my colleagues have asked so far, what is sentience? It is simply not defined. To me, this will mean that the committee will examine the effect of Government policy on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. Sentience has long been recognised in Parliament. We have had animal welfare Bills since 1822. The most recent—it has already been mentioned—is the Animal Welfare Act 2006. They go far beyond the minimum standards set by the EU. Animal sentience is a fact, which is why welfare matters and why we have the highest standards. Then there is the question of the particular circumstances of the sentient animal. Animals kept by man are surely different from animals in the wild, even if both are sentient. To this end, I share the concerns of the noble Lord Etherton, who described this Bill as a magnet for judicial review.
I used the expression “Trojan horse” at the start, and what I mean is that I and many others fear that those with different agendas—often partisan and politically motivated—will hijack this committee and its role to attack activities such as shooting and fishing. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) mention fishing a moment ago, but he did not include shooting. The Countryside Alliance rightly believes that the Bill lacks the necessary details and safeguards to prevent the committee from extending its reach to rural activities, and in Labour and other hands that is exactly where this committee will head.
This Bill emanated from the Lords, where on Third Reading the noble Lord Herbert said that proposed amendments defining sentience, limiting the committee’s scope, ensuring scientific expertise, and balancing provision for religious, cultural and regional heritage were all refused by the Government as “not necessary”. This committee will be another bureaucracy whose tentacles will reach far and wide. A partisan committee will bring with it division and hostility where there need be none. Why on earth a Conservative Government are driving a coach and horses straight at our core supporters and many others is quite beyond me. I very much look forward to dramatic changes to this Bill before I would even begin to support it.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It feels rather odd to be rising after three Tory Back Benchers in a row—the only three Tory Back Benchers who have spoken in this debate—have all criticised a Government Bill, so I am here to lend my support to the Government, and I hope the Secretary of State is grateful for that.
By the time the Bill becomes law it will be more than six years since the UK voted to leave the European Union. It is now more than four years since the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) moved an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which I seconded, calling on the Government to recognise animal sentience, as enshrined in article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, in UK law. It is four years since the Government promised to legislate, although that was only in a bid to stave off a Back-Bench rebellion after a big public campaign urged MPs to support the amendment. It has to be said that Tory Back Benchers back then seemed a lot more enthusiastic about supporting animal sentience—perhaps that is what comes of recent electoral changes.
It has been nearly three years since I introduced my own ten-minute rule Bill on animal sentience. That was after we took evidence at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Minister kept saying, “We really want to bring measures forward, but we need the right legislative vehicle.” So I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill and said, “Here’s your legislative vehicle on a plate,” but the Government did not seem interested. It is also nearly two years since the Petitions Committee debate in Westminster Hall and well over a year since the end of the transition period, so we have been waiting a long time. Forgive me if I am a little cynical, but I am not entirely convinced that the Government really wanted this legislation at all, and I think that was borne out by the contributions from the three Conservative Back Benchers that we have heard from so far today.
I thank the campaigners and members of the public who have emailed MPs, signed petitions and kept pressing, because that is why the Government have finally produced this Bill. This pattern of promising action on animal welfare but taking forever to act is typical of this Government. We have seen it on ivory imports, trophy hunting, live exports and foie gras imports, as well as on refusing to crack down on the cruel and environmentally destructive practice of grouse shooting or to close the loopholes that have allowed fox hunting to continue. It is beyond me why an MP would stand here and say that we need to amend the Bill so that we have the right to be cruel to animals just because that has been traditional in this country. That is not exactly the definition of progress.
Nevertheless, despite my concerns about the Government’s credentials, I am glad the Bill has finally come before Parliament, and with a significant win for campaigners—the recognition of decapods and cephalopods as sentient beings. A couple of MPs have said that sentience is not defined. One reason the Government gave for the delay to this legislation was that they needed to carry out research. They got the London School of Economics to do research, and the LSE said:
“Sentience (from the Latin sentire, to feel) is the capacity to have feelings. Feelings may include, for example, feelings of pain, distress, anxiety, boredom, hunger, thirst, pleasure, warmth, joy, comfort, and excitement.”
There we go: that is the definition of sentience. I would have hoped that those MPs would look at the LSE definition.
Luke Pollard
The point I made in my remarks was that the terms of reference that accompany the Bill actually include a definition of sentience, and it is very similar to the one my hon. Friend has read out. Would it not be better if that definition was included in the Bill and not hidden in the terms of reference?
Kerry McCarthy
That might be a matter for the Bill Committee, so that we avoid some of the criticisms we have seen. I hope that the recognition of the sentience of decapods and cephalopods will mean an end to gross acts of cruelty, such as unstunned lobsters being boiled alive in the cooking process. When the Minister winds up, I hope she can confirm that that will indeed become illegal if the Bill passes, as the LSE recommended in its research.
We know that the octopus is an incredibly intelligent creature. I was shocked to read recently that the world’s first commercial octopus farm is set to be established in Spain. The farm will not be on UK soil, but the Government could ban imports and outlaw any such farms in UK waters, again as proposed in LSE research.
As has been mentioned, there are concerns about clause 2, which requires the proposed Animal Sentience Committee to consider only the adverse effects of policy decisions on animals, not the positive effects. I was not entirely convinced by the Minister’s very brief response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion on that, and I hope the issue can be discussed in Committee.
I often say this in such debates, but I somewhat hate the self-congratulatory, complacent approach to animal welfare in this country. People are so very keen to boast of how good we are, but there are still many examples of where animals are abused and exploited. Industrially farmed animals can still face horrific, overcrowded and unsanitary conditions and be subject to abuse by those who purport to care for them. With live exports, we see animals suffering from thirst, overcrowding and overheating —again, in appalling conditions. The Environmental Audit Committee has just reported on poor water quality in UK rivers, and one of the key sources of water pollution was sewage run-off and agricultural slurry from intensive farming.
Undercover investigations from organisations such as Animal Equality and Viva! have exposed horrific conditions. Last year, it was revealed that cows were beaten with electric prods and sheep and pigs were slaughtered without adequate stunning at the G & GB Hewitt abattoir in Cheshire. We have seen reports of overcrowding, filthy conditions and even cannibalism among pigs on Hogwood Pig Farm. We have seen pigs being killed by having their heads slammed to the floor on Yattendon pig farm, chickens dying in heatwaves at Moy Park farm and chickens dying of thirst, suffering ammonia burns or resorting to cannibalism on multiple chicken farms that supply Tesco. All the farms I have mentioned were Red Tractor-approved, with supposedly higher animal welfare. We have a long way to go.
I echo what the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said about the need to reduce dramatically the number of animal experiments, and the shadow Secretary of State’s concern about importing lower animal welfare standards into the country as a result of recent trade deals. All that leads me to a wider point about what we want our relationship with the animal kingdom to be. The reality is that biodiversity has plummeted by 60% since 1970, yet a staggering 60% of all mammals on this planet are now livestock, as industrial agriculture booms. Only 4% of mammals now are wild animals. That shows the impact that humans have had on the natural world: we have confined nature to farms and destroyed whatever is left outside them.
It is also estimated that since the dawn of human civilisation, 15% of fish biomass has been lost and 70% of global fish stocks are now either fully exploited or over-exploited. Renowned oceanographer Sylvia Earle recently said that humans treat oceans like a “free grocery store”, and called on us to respect marine creatures in the same way we do elephants.
Recognition of the sentience of animals is the first step in a better relationship with them, so I welcome the Bill and urge colleagues to support it—but recognition is one thing, and respect is another. If we truly respect animals, we must do a lot more than just pay lip service to sentience: we must end the exploitation and abuse of animals on factory farms; stop treating animals as commodities; end the hunting and shooting of animals for sport; and halt and reverse the devastating damage that we have done to the natural world. I hope that all those issues can come out as a result of this Bill. It is just a starting point, but it is important to get the concept of animal sentience on the record, and I am happy to support it.
Mr Speaker
We now have a maiden speech. I welcome Louie French.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. It is a true privilege to stand among these green Benches as the Member of Parliament for Old Bexley and Sidcup, a place I have called home all my life. I thank colleagues for their warm reception today and for the party’s support throughout the by-election. Who would have thought that someone with the surname French would be so warmly welcomed by so many Brexiteers? If the Home Secretary could have forecast my voting against the Government in my first month, she might have deployed the Navy even earlier.
All jokes aside, I am more than happy to give my full support to the Government on the Bill and their wider efforts to improve animal welfare across the UK. As already outlined, the Bill builds on the Animal Welfare Act 2006 by recognising sentience in law and requires the Government to set up an Animal Sentience Committee to examine whether the welfare of animals as sentient beings has been given due regard in policy decisions.
The Bill has rightly received support from a range of animal welfare organisations and is welcomed by the majority of residents in Old Bexley and Sidcup, who, like me, are animal lovers. We recognise that animals feel joy and pain, and as such should be considered in future policy decisions, including the strengthening of sentencing for those who carry out the callous acts of cruelty and pet theft. Pet theft remains a real problem for families across Bexley and the country overall; I hope that the tougher sentences for such crimes will act as a deterrent to future offenders. On the subject of offenders, I confirm that I am not the lovechild of Norman Stanley Fletcher from “Porridge”, as has been speculated.
In representing the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, I follow my good friend, the late James Brokenshire. I know hon. Members on both sides of the House mourn the loss of James, who was a friendly, thoughtful and well-liked gentleman. It is a great privilege to have Cathy in the Gallery today.
James was first elected to the House in 2005 as the MP for Hornchurch, and was elected in 2010 as the MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup. James was an outstanding constituency MP, who fought for the people of Old Bexley and Sidcup every day, never forgetting that it was them who placed him in this House. James was also a diligent and effective Minister, serving the country in some of the most sensitive and demanding positions under three successive Prime Ministers.
James was a true and loyal friend to me over many years, and I will always value the support he provided and the memories we shared, as I know many across this House do. Although I own significantly fewer ovens than he and Cathy, and I do not share his love for West Ham United, which largely reflected his Essex roots, I humbly recognise that he is a tough act to follow. I hope to be able to continue his legacy in some way.
Old Bexley and Sidcup is a fantastic seat to represent, and I am honoured to have been elected as the first home-grown MP to serve the communities across Old Bexley, Blackfen and Lamorbey, Blendon and Penhill, East Wickham, Longlands, North Cray, Sidcup, and Falconwood and Welling. The constituency is located in south-east London, but with its picturesque churches, charming pubs and beautiful green spaces, it is clear that Old Bexley and Sidcup is also firmly within Kent, with a strong sense of tradition and patriotism throughout the constituency.
Many hon. Friends visited my lovely home area during my election campaign, for which I am grateful. I would encourage all hon. Members to visit what I believe is the best constituency to represent, where they will find many fantastic businesses and some of the most scenic parks and open spaces, including Foots Cray meadows, with the five arches bridge over the River Cray.
Old Bexley and Sidcup also played an important role in the great war, through the pioneering work of Sir Harold Gillies at Queen Mary’s Hospital Sidcup, which opened in 1917. That was where almost every soldier who had suffered a facial injury was sent for ground-breaking facial reconstructive surgery, led by surgeon, Sir Harold, the man widely recognised as the father of modern plastic surgery. The medical staff at Queen Mary’s Hospital also went further, considering, perhaps for the first time, the long-term psychological effects on those disfigured by warfare, using methods of treatment and care that underpin the work undertaken by medical professionals in support of today’s armed forces.
The constituency also boasts two world-class drama schools, Rose Bruford College and Bird College, with notable alumni, including Gary Oldman, who most famously portrayed Winston Churchill in “The Darkest Hour”. Notable residents of Old Bexley and Sidcup are not limited to Rose Bruford alumni, and have included Roald Dahl, Quentin Blake, Roger Moore and Kate Bush, which highlights how culture and the arts lie at the heart of Old Bexley and Sidcup.
As a borough of aspiration, which is reflected in my own journey to this place, we are rightly proud of our fantastic local schools and colleges. Like many families in the constituency, my mother moved us to Bexley when I was born to benefit from the excellent local schools, in my case the old Westwood Infants and Juniors, now called Bishop Ridley Primary School; the old Westwood College, now called Harris Academy Falconwood; and not forgetting Blackfen Sixth Form, where I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) taught at one point. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I apologise, Mr Speaker, on behalf of the constituency. [Laughter.]
I am determined to use my time in this place to do everything I can for our community, and ensure that it continues to be a great place to live. That includes campaigning to secure extra facilities at Queen Mary’s Hospital; increased availability of GP appointments and police on our streets; working to ensure our schools stay excellent; protecting our precious local green spaces; and ensuring Southeastern commuters finally see a much-needed improvement to our rail services.
I would like to finish by reciting James’s words in his maiden speech. He said that
“hope is one of the most valuable things that we can offer. In a small way, I will try to provide that sense of hope to my constituents, by standing up on the issues that matter to them, by listening to those who think that no one is prepared to be interested in their concerns, and by giving a voice in the House to those who have none.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2005; Vol. 447, c. 1470.]
James remained true to his word and I will continue this when serving my local area. In electing me as their Member of Parliament, the constituents of Old Bexley and Sidcup have given me the greatest honour of my life, and I pledge to serve them with the upmost integrity, dedication and care.
Mr Speaker
A fitting tribute from the new Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. We all think of the former Member, who was a friend to us all.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). I was moved by his kind and thoughtful contribution on his predecessor, who was indeed well respected and admired by Members across the House. I think his constituency sounds beautiful. I liked the talk of the meadows and I had no idea Roald Dhal lived there. Perhaps I should pop down and visit. It is always good to welcome a fellow animal lover to the House of Commons, and I wish him all the best.
It is no exaggeration to say that I am contacted daily by constituents on one aspect or another of animal welfare. The recognition of animal sentience in law has been a consistent question since I became an MP in 2017. Many of us remember the famous amendment on animal sentience tabled during the constant Brexit debates. I certainly remember the flurry of emails, social media, tweets and messages on Facebook that followed, with numerous people telling me how important animal sentience was to them. It is, of course, entirely proper that the Government of the UK, famed as a nation of animal lovers, should act to remedy that issue. I am here to briefly, but carefully, represent the many voices of the people from Hull West and Hessle who contacted me on the issue.
No one who has looked after animals or spent time watching them in the wild can have any doubt that they are aware and can experience emotions. If you will forgive me for one moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do have to mention my two cats, Thomas and Serena, who have entirely different personalities. They are absolutely wonderful and dispel the idea that they cannot experience emotion when I can tell by looking at them exactly how they are feeling. One of the greatest inventions of the internet, of course, is #catsoftwitter, which I recommend to all Members. If they are having a bad news day, they should have a quick look at it and it will cheer them up.
It is worth reminding Members that we are animals, too. We are only different by degree, and more and more scientific research is showing us how slim that difference of degree is. Free or captive, wild or domesticated, our fellow animals should be treated with compassion and respect, and it is proper that the Bill recognises that by applying it to all. In fact, the continuing advances in our scientific understanding of animal sentience were what made the Government decide against including a definition of sentience in the Bill. I am pleased to hear that although a definition might not be in the Bill, it is in the terms of reference. That growing understanding has led to the inclusion of cephalopods and decapods, which include octopuses and lobsters, as sentient animals for the purposes of UK animal welfare law.
I want to mention the few small reservations I have. Although my remarks are in support of the Bill and those from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) were against, we share similar concerns about the composition of the committee. Who will sit on the committee? How will they be chosen? What powers will they have? How independent will they be of Government? My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) made an incredibly useful contribution to the debate, because he detailed his concerns about the committee and the fact that it will have no power even to tell DEFRA how to conduct itself.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I quite agree with the hon. Lady. Why will she not then persuade those on her Front Bench to vote against this nonsense?
Emma Hardy
In general, we support the Bill. We hope that in Committee some of our reservations will be looked at and the Bill amended—[Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding at me from the Government Front Bench. So far, during the passage of the Bill, the Government seem to be willing to consider amending and improving it. I hope that that will continue.
The Bill does not propose a duty on Ministers to consider the welfare needs of animals when making policy. I think those points were very well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I draw attention to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), who is not in his place. I hope the Government will look again at hunting with dogs and at animal standards abroad.
The points made about free trade deals are very concerning. I have had numerous emails from constituents on that point and they are very worried. Some of the flippant responses such as, “Well, they don’t have to buy that meat, then,” fail to recognise the fact that when price is taken into consideration many families might feel that they have no choice. We need to look at some of the animal standards we are importing.
I agree that we should have an annual oral statement, as a written statement produced for Parliament does not give the same chance for scrutiny. That is a weakness of the Bill that I hope the Minister will address.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for raising a point about the use of primates in experiments by the Ministry of Defence, because I had no awareness of that whatsoever, so I am grateful that she has brought it to my attention. I hope the Minister can comment, because I find it hugely concerning.
Although I support the Bill, there are a few points that I hope the Government will take away and consider so that when it comes back for its final votes on Report it is much improved.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy).
It is a pleasure and privilege to speak in the debate on a very important Bill that Opposition Members will be pleased to hear this Member of Parliament strongly supports. I declare a strong professional interest as a veterinary surgeon; the Bill will be so important in recognising animal sentience in UK legislation.
In the current political climate I am loth to get into intricate debates about the difference between the words “implicit” and “explicit”, but, as the Secretary of State said, animal sentience has been implicit in UK law since the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822, and it remains implicitly acknowledged in current animal welfare legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I feel that this House and the Government missed a trick in 2017 by not transferring into UK legislation the part of article 13 of the Lisbon treaty that recognised that animals are sentient beings, because that would have been easy to do. That said, by not doing it, we now have an amazing opportunity to put animal sentience at the heart of UK legislation, and that is very important. I also welcome it as the Government’s fulfilling of a manifesto promise, which I strongly support.
I very much welcome the fact that cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans are now included in the Bill. That sets a really good example. The Government have commissioned a piece of work from the London School of Economics and they have listened to it. I am very encouraged by that; I just wish they would do it a little more often.
Although I welcome the Bill, I very much recognise the contributions from Opposition Members who say that we need to be clearer on some of the details and specifics. I recognise that, by definition, this is a brief and general overarching Bill, which is probably quite sensible. That said, I would very much like it to define the term “sentience” in some way. In the 2017 Bill consultation, 79% of responses called for the inclusion of a definition in the Bill. A useful definition made by the Global Animal Law Project and endorsed by the British Veterinary Association states:
“Sentience shall be understood to mean the capacity to have feelings, including pain and pleasure, and implies a level of conscious awareness.”
The Minister said in the other place, and also before us in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that it might well be difficult to put the definition into primary legislation because the science is evolving and so potentially it could evolve. We could get round that by placing it in secondary legislation that would be easily updated, so I think that the Government can move forward on that.
I very much welcome the formation of the Animal Sentience Committee, but we need to be clear about its independence and to make sure that it has strong expertise and experience in animal welfare, animal health and veterinary matters. It needs to have some teeth and some power, including power to roam across Government. I am very glad that the committee will be based in DEFRA; although I want it to have a roaming feature, I am more comfortable with it being in the Department that is the custodian for animal health and welfare, which I think makes a lot of sense.
Sir Bill Wiggin
Given my hon. Friend’s expertise and professional experience, what examples does he have from his own life of such a committee being necessary? Why does he therefore want it based in DEFRA?
Dr Hudson
I will come on to some examples of why I think the committee will be important, and how the Government and the Secretary of State respond to it will be useful in formulating policy.
I am glad that the committee will be embedded in DEFRA, but I very much hope that it will be listened to. I draw a contrast with the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which I and many hon. Members on both sides of the House called for, as did the National Farmers Union. We were really pleased to have it scrutinising trade negotiations. It produced a report, but the Government were very slow in responding and were a little partial in their response. I very much hope that the response to the committee from DEFRA, a Department in which I have a lot of faith, will be unlike some of the responses from the Department for International Trade to the Trade and Agriculture Commission.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will respond within three months. There has been a lot of fear that the Bill and the committee might be open to judicial review, but the fact that the Secretary of State needs to respond within three months may go some way towards mitigating that risk. I recognise that there have been concerns, however.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that a duty to create and maintain a cross-Whitehall animal sentience strategy would ensure strengthened ministerial responsibility, with greater oversight of the legislation’s impact and scientific opinions or advances?
Dr Hudson
It is very important for the committee to have a brief to look at policy across Departments. Yes, it is important that the Secretary of State responds, but it is equally important that if the committee needs information from other Departments, it should be made available. I thank the hon. Member for that intervention.
I agree with Opposition Members about adverse effects and the wording of clause 2, which relates to whether the Government have
“all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.”
I would like the Bill and the committee not only to include adverse effects, but to look at the positives—the ways in which the policy improves animal health and welfare. I firmly believe that we have the highest animal welfare and animal health standards in the world and that the UK can be a beacon to the rest of the world. If we put it in legislation that we will look at adverse effects on animals, we should also point out, shine a light on and show the rest of the world the positive effects on animal health and welfare. I look forward hopefully to some movement from the Government on that point.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when we left the European Union there was much scaremongering about animal welfare standards falling? Does he agree that the Government have demonstrated that those fears were absolutely unfounded, whether in their work on animal sentience or puppy smuggling or in their support for my Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, which goes into Committee tomorrow and will ban glue traps? Those are really important issues to my constituents.
Dr Hudson
Leaving the European Union certainly means that the UK can put legislation on the statute book to promote animal health and welfare. I would like the Government to go further, because there are things we can do to improve animal health and welfare now that we have left the European Union. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on which I sit, has produced a report, “Moving animals across borders”, that makes very strong recommendations about simple things that can be done.
I welcome the Bill, but I stress to the Government the need to please make animal welfare joined up across Government and across different policy areas. We need to act now to do that. The evidence is there in many of these different areas. Oftentimes, we do not need to consult and put it in the long grass; we can do the things that need to be done now.
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will list some things that we could do that the Bill will help us to do. I strongly welcome the pet theft legislation. I have been campaigning for it, and I am pleased that it has come in to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. That legislation is very much focused on the high-profile species—the dog—that has sadly been stolen in increasing numbers during the pandemic, and that is getting worse, but it is not just dogs that are being stolen; cats are being stolen every day and as we speak.
I strongly urge the Government to expand the legislation. I know there is a clause to say, “This can be done in the future. We will take evidence”, but cats, horses, ponies, farm animals and livestock are being stolen now. I represent a rural part of the world with a big farming footprint, and farm animal and livestock theft is a big issue for us. If we are now putting on the statute book that animals are fully sentient beings, and we are taking that into consideration in legislation, I strongly urge the Government that we need to create a huge deterrent to people who commit this abhorrent crime of animal theft.
On domestic public sector food procurement, I urge the Government to close the loophole in the Government buying standards that allows public bodies to buy food products at lower standards on the grounds of cost, if it is cheaper. We need to close that loophole. When I have raised this with Government, they have been very encouraging, saying, “Yes, we will be looking at that.” Certainly our Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee looked at that closely. If we are trying to be a beacon to the rest of the world, we must get our own house in order. I urge the Government quickly to close that Government buying standards loophole.
Opposition Members have talked about international trade. My views on international trade are on the public record. As an outward-looking nation, it is important that we strike trade deals with the rest of the world, but they have to be fair to both partners. Within that, the Trade and Agriculture Commission made a lot of clear recommendations on core standards and the animal welfare side of things, which we need to respect in those trade deals. Sadly, I feel that the Government and the Department for International Trade are being very slow in responding to that.
We need to have core standards in trade deals. We need to put out the message to the rest of the world that if they want to trade with us, they need to bring their standards up to those we find acceptable in this country. We are a beacon. We have high animal health and welfare and we can drive up standards around the world. There must be red-line products that we do not allow in.
I draw a difference with Opposition Members when it comes to hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), talked about. To a degree, that is not going to happen. The Government have been very clear that that is illegal in this country, and it will remain illegal. It is other products that we need to be thinking about in terms of substandard animal husbandry techniques.
I do not want these trade deals to undermine our fantastic British farmers. This is about not protectionism but standing up for our values. What do we believe in? This Bill shows that we firmly believe that animals are sentient beings and that we have a high regard for animal health and welfare. We need to be doing that with our domestic policy, but we also need to be doing it in our international trade deals, when we strike them.
The trade deal with Australia can be a positive thing, but we must make it work and it must be fair to both partners. As it stands, it is not fair to the United Kingdom. I urge the Government to look at the safeguards they have said they have put in place and to ensure that those safeguards have some teeth. We need the tariff rate quota mechanism that I have been calling for, but we also need an assurance that if the amount of beef—it is largely beef, but it could be lamb—coming into this country is too high, that mechanism can be used to turn down that supply. That is not protectionism; that is standing up for our farmers and our values. I also welcome the Government’s having moved, under pressure, to put animal welfare chapters into these trade deals, but I firmly believe they are not strong enough. They need to be strengthened.
There is a non-regression clause in the Australian trade deal, but it is not good enough to say, “Well, our standards will not get any worse.” We need to make sure that the standards come up to the standards that we believe are right in the United Kingdom. We are a beacon on this, and we can drive up animal health and welfare standards around the world.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee made a series of pragmatic and sensible recommendations on animal health and welfare in our report “Moving animals across borders”. Unfortunately, the Government have been a little slow and—to give a cricketing analogy—a bit straight bat on it. Our recommendations included raising the minimum age of dogs that come into the country to six months, to stamp out the abhorrent crime of puppy smuggling, and banning the import of dogs that have been mutilated by ear cropping and cats that have been declawed. We need to stop that. We need to ban the movement of heavily pregnant dogs, because that fuels the puppy smuggling trade.
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, which supports the argument that clause 2 ought to include positive measures. Would it not be great if we introduced legislation that addressed issues such as cropping dogs’ ears or declawing cats, which would show the world that, through this Bill, we are making progress on such issues?
Dr Hudson
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I agree with her. Pointing out where things are having an adverse effect is important, but so is pointing out positive measures. We need to put out the message about where we think things can improve.
I would also like to see—I have pushed this hard in the Chamber and would do so in the Bill Committee—improvements in the health checks on animals coming into this country, including pre-import tests for diseases such as canine brucellosis, babesiosis and leishmaniasis, and the reinstatement of mandatory tick treatment. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) talked about some of these things. Now that we have left the European Union, we can reintroduce the mandatory tick treatment for small animals that the Europeans stopped us doing. That might seem a semantic, purely veterinary point, but if we protect animals coming in, they are less likely to bring in diseases that are dangerous to our dog population, some of which have zoonotic potential and could affect people. I would also like to see reinstatement of the rabies titre checks for animals and an increase in the wait time to 12 weeks post rabies vaccination. That would indirectly stop the puppy smuggling trade because it would make it less likely that a fluffy little puppy would be coming through to fuel that market.
I declare an interest again as a veterinary surgeon with an equine background. We need to sort out the equine identification system as well. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horses are illegally exported to the continent of Europe for slaughter, and if we improved the identification of those animals, we could stamp out that abhorrent practice. The EFRA Committee has made recommendations to Government, and I urge them to respond. Unfortunately some of the responses seem to be a bit “Little Britain”— “Computer says no.” To quote a famous sports brand, I say to the Government, “Just do it.”
Finally, I want to raise again the crisis that is facing the pig sector in this country. If we are talking about animal sentience and valuing high animal health and welfare, we need to highlight that crisis. As the EFRA Committee has said, it is an animal and human welfare crisis. I say that as a vet who spent time in the field during foot and mouth supervising the cull of farm animals on farm. Those animals did not end up in the food chain; they were disposed of. I can tell the House how upsetting that is for farmers, vets, slaughter workers and all concerned. We need to mitigate and avert that. More than 30,000 pigs have been culled on farm, and I know that the Secretary of State and DEFRA have been moving on this, putting pressure on different Departments, for example to increase cold storage. We had the Minister for Safe and Legal Migration before us and we were, frankly, pretty dissatisfied with the responses. We need some joined-up thinking across Government to improve the visa situation so that people can come here to help solve this crisis. I say to Ministers, “Please act now to avert this catastrophe.”
The Bill needs some additions, but the Government have initiated much that is to be welcomed, and it important that that will be on the statute book. The Government have talked the talk, and I urge them to walk the walk. We have a duty of care for these sentient beings; let us put that into practice, and let us do it now.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). He made a comprehensive speech, and, not for the first time, I agreed with the colossal majority of what he said. It is also a huge honour to follow the new hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), who spoke earlier. I congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech—I know it is customary for us to say that, but it genuinely was an excellent maiden speech. He represents a beautiful part of the country, which he described very well. I had no idea that Kate Bush owed something to his constituency, but that is massively in its favour from my perspective.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke fondly about his predecessor, the late James Brokenshire, who entered the House on the same day as me, and of whom I was always fond. People speak fondly of James because of the way he conducted himself. It is sometimes very easy to say, “I like X”—a member of another party—“because we agree on certain issues”, but it was not that I considered James to be a particularly liberal Tory, although he may have been. That was not the point; it was how he conducted himself in this place, in meetings, and in all that he did. He showed grace and decency, he treated people as he found them, he was utterly honourable and trustworthy, and he was a very competent Minister. We miss him hugely.
We also welcome the hon. Gentleman massively, and I look forward to hearing many more speeches from him. He spoke today with great knowledge of the subject of the debate and with great insight, and, for what it is worth, I agreed with what he said. I think we may have reached a stage at which the number of Conservative Members who have spoken in favour of the Bill matches the number who have spoken against it, which is good to know .
I am broadly in favour of the Bill, because I think that how we treat animals is a moral indicator of how we are as a culture and as a society. It is a measure of our own humanity, so it is right that we as a country are proud of being a nation of animal lovers. Often the way to get any group of people to behave well is to remind them of how good they are, so it is important that we cling to this self-definition; but it is also important that our legislation follows that, so we will of course support the Bill’s Second Reading.
As a member of the European Union, this country, through article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, enshrined the acknowledgement of animal sentience in legislation. I welcome the fact that—following an unnecessary delay that has been mentioned by a number of Members on both sides of the House—we are now closing that gap. However, I think that the Bill represents a missed opportunity. Members do not need me to remind them of my views on whether it was wise to leave the European Union, but in the case of a number of aspects of our departure, we have opportunities to go one better than how the EU left us. In respect of the legislation at least, we have ensured that in theory we will now be no worse than we were in the EU. In practice, though, as several Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, if we sign trade deals with countries whose animal welfare standards are poorer than ours, we will put ourselves into a position where we are worse than we were before.
The most recent example is our trade deal with Australia. It is important to recognise that the Animal Sentience Committee will have no powers, as far as we can tell, to ensure that those deals—and further deals in the future—do not undermine animal welfare. It is not just a question of the treatment of animals and recognition of their sentience within the borders of this country; it is also a question of how countries that we deal with, in our name, treat those animals. If sovereignty means anything, it means our ability to affect other countries in so far as they relate to us; in the trade deal with Australia, we have failed to do that. This is true on three counts. When it comes to husbandry, I do not need to explain much about how the geography and the nature of farming in Australia differ from ours in the United Kingdom. The vast plains and the ranch-style farming in Australia mean that, to a large degree, there is no husbandry there.
Dr Hudson
I gently disagree with the hon. Member. Although he and I agree on many aspects of what we are discussing, as a vet who has worked on farms in Australia, I think he is making a very sweeping statement about the calibre and nature of farmers across Australia. He is correct that the geography and environment there is very different, but I can tell him from personal experience that many, many farmers out there farm to the highest standards, including when it comes to animal husbandry. To say that Australia has no animal husbandry is, frankly, incorrect.
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He will recognise, particularly having been in Australia, the nature of that husbandry. In Cumbria, the welfare of livestock is tended to week in, week out. As many of my constituents who have farmed in Australia have informed me directly, the first time that someone in Australia knows that one of their animals might be ill is when they find its sun-bleached bones on the plains the following season. That is a different form of farming. Australians are not instinctively cruel people; that is not the point I am making—[Interruption.] I am sure that Members on both sides of the House understand that. I am saying, however, that lower standards are cheaper, including standards that do not require mandatory closed circuit television coverage in abattoirs, which we have here, or the restrictions that we have here on the transportation of live animals.
Given that we know that poorer welfare standards are cheaper, these trade deals—particularly the one with Australia—offer a financial and economic market advantage to countries with poorer standards than ours that export to us. That not only undermines the morality of the UK’s commitment to high animal welfare, but massively undermines our farmers. Every farmer in Cumbria and the rest of the United Kingdom suffers because the UK Government have chosen to do a deal with a country that we have much in common with, but that does not acknowledge the animal welfare issues there. That is why the Animal Sentience Committee and the recognition of sentience in the Bill, which I support, will not have an effect on all the animals affected by decisions taken in this place. This is an abuse of an opportunity—a missed opportunity—and a waste of our sovereignty, but the Bill is good in so far as it goes, so I welcome it and will vote for it.
I do criticise those Members—not my neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, but some of his colleagues—who have been critical of the Bill not because it does not go far enough, but because it goes as far as it does. They are wrong in that. People have said that the Bill is a threat to farming, but it is no such thing. I speak to farmers throughout my communities and further afield, and they welcome the Bill. They are committed to animal welfare—it is in their DNA.
We should recognise, however, the threat to farmers from trade deals, and from the Government’s dogged insistence on phasing out the basic payment scheme before the arrival of the new environmental land management scheme. Just last month, farmers lost between 5% and 25% of their basic payment, and there is no sign, even slightly over the horizon, of anything to replace it. That will put small British family farms out of business, and there will be a knock-on effect on animal welfare, because part of the reason for our animal welfare culture and why our standards are as high as they are in this country is that they are based on the model and example of the British family farm.
Although I welcome and will support the Bill, and think that there is much to be said for it, I want to rush through some areas where things need to be improved. First, I hope that the fact that the duty to enforce recognition of animal sentience falls on the committee and not primarily the Secretary of State will be changed during the passage of the Bill. That is not right; it gives less responsibility and power to the Secretary of State.
I am also very concerned that clause 3 requires the Secretary of State only to lodge before Parliament a response to reports from the Animal Sentience Committee. That could be a two-line dismissal, and then what would we do? I guess the Opposition could call an Opposition day debate, and we could ask questions at Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, but as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, the opportunities for scrutiny are minimised. The task of initiating these things is all put on Opposition Members or Government Back Benchers. Set pieces will not be a part of the process, and it would be entirely possible for the Secretary of State effectively to dismiss any report pretty perfunctorily.
As has been said by a number of colleagues from across the House, we should not treat this matter purely in the negative, although unfortunately at the moment the Bill does that. If we are so proud of our heritage and our high animal welfare standards, why is the committee and its work not about promoting good practice around the country, and in every aspect of our life in so far as it impacts animals, as well as about trying to stamp out bad practice? Again, that feels like a missed opportunity to have gone further and done better. As I have strongly implied, the Animal Sentience Committee should have the power to comment on trade deals. My fear is that, on those matters, it could end up—a bit like the Trade and Agriculture Commission—being a watchdog that may bark occasionally but does not have very much bite. The Government are certainly under no compulsion or obligation to take any notice of it whatsoever.
Many animal welfare charities have expressed concerns to me about the lack of resource for the Animal Sentience Committee. I acknowledge that point, as it goes with our concern about the absence of parliamentary scrutiny and the relegation of these serious issues to a body that is one place removed from this place. The committee chair will be “hired”, for want of a better word, for 20 days a year, and members of the committee for 15. There is no dedicated secretariat—I understand that will be provided by DEFRA staff—and no obvious independent budget. All that adds up to just about ticking the box, and just about copying what the EU did, but without anybody watching over our shoulder. Meanwhile, we are not doing anything. We are meant to be a global trading nation whose footprint and impact is felt around the world. What a missed opportunity to make that impact and do something good when it comes to animal welfare. So this is not three cheers; it is perhaps two, or more likely one, but it is better than nothing, and I will vote for the Bill.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this important debate. The Secretary of State’s speech was reasonable, moderate and balanced, and I congratulate him on bringing forward the Bill. I appreciate the strong views highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and I hope he will get the clarity he requires as the Bill proceeds through the House.
We have had a good debate covering wide aspects of the Bill, but I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). He made an excellent maiden speech, and we look forward to more of his speeches in the coming weeks and months. Personally, I look forward to working closely with him in Bexley on behalf of all residents of the borough, and to continuing the work that James, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) and I have done to promote our borough as one of the best in the country. I wish my hon. Friend well in his parliamentary career, and congratulate him on being elected to represent Old Bexley and Sidcup.
Britain is, of course, a nation of animal lovers, whether those animals be pets or wild. I have had a number of pets over the years. I got interested in animal welfare because I had a beagle called Skipper, and they were doing tests on beagles to do with smoking—a dreadful situation—in appalling laboratories. Now we do not have that, but there are still areas of animal welfare in which we need to do more. It is therefore good that we have such a Bill and are able to put forward our views.
Many of my constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford are pet owners and are passionate about animals and animal welfare. Pressure from public opinion has resulted in this measure coming forward and being in the 2019 Conservative party manifesto, and I welcome those things. Britain has a proud history of animal welfare, and has always been a global leader, and I very much hope that, being outside the EU, we can go much, much further. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) about his expertise as a vet, and I learned a lot listening to his excellent speech. I am sure the Government will continue to improve the lives and welfare of animals. They launched the action plan for animal welfare to ensure that we go further, and I welcome that passionately.
I have read the enlightening debates on the Bill in the other place. I have great interest in the Bill’s many issues, and very much hope to participate further in Committee and as the Bill makes its passage through the House.
The Bill will formally recognise animals as sentient beings—a scientific fact—in domestic law. I welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that we have some of the strongest protections in the world for pets, livestock and wild animals. Following excellent research from the London School of Economics and Political Science—the university that I attended—the Government rightly extended the scope of the Bill so that it recognises that decapods and cephalopods can feel pain. They are therefore covered by this vital legislation.
The scientific community is always conducting research to improve our knowledge and understanding of animal sentience, so the Bill allows the Secretary of State to extend protections to any invertebrate species in the future, should it become apparent that they are sentient beings. That, again, is sensible. The debate has shown the House, and even those who have considerable concerns about aspects of the Bill, at their best; we can go forward, talk about the issues, and advance the interest of animals.
The sentience committee was mentioned. Its members will be appointed by the Secretary of State, and I am sure that it will be made up of experts in the animal field. The committee will not be allowed to change legislation; it will be required to report on whether central Government policy decisions have considered the effect on animal welfare. The findings will, quite rightly, be made public, for transparency. The committee will not result in legislation through the back door, as recommendations will be only advisory. However, Ministers will be required to update Parliament on the committee’s recommendations and the Government’s response. We will therefore have opportunities to raise and debate issues as the Department and Secretary of State give responses. It is important that we continue to monitor animal welfare issues closely, so I welcome what the Government are doing.
We always like our pets, but we also like to go into the countryside and see a wide variety of animals; it is part of the country scene. Although I am an urban man, having grown up in suburbia and representing a suburban seat, I none the less appreciate the importance of animals for all manner of reasons, and from all manner of experiences in life. Many people are keen on their pets, and never more so than during the covid-19 pandemic, when people were often on their own and relied on their pets for company, love and affection, and to sustain their mental health.
Animals are important across the whole field—that is why the Bill is so important. I strongly recognise how passionate the Ministers are about this subject, as well as those who represent rural constituencies. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) is making sedentary comments, as usual. I support the Bill, and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward and implementing a manifesto commitment.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
First, let me draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I farm. What a delight it was to listen to such a full tribute to my friend James Brokenshire. He was a lovely man and a good friend, and we miss him very much. He has a worthy successor in my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). What large shoes he has to fill. I am sure that he will do his very best.
Concern for animal welfare is, as everyone has said, something on which we pride ourselves in this country, and on which we already lead globally. The sentience of animals has long been recognised in this country, as is evidenced by the animal welfare legislation passed by Parliaments over the last 200 years. My great-great-grandfather was the MP for somewhere in Birmingham—I think it was Yardley. I asked the Library to look up any speeches he made in 1885, and all it could find was a speech on rabbits and hares. Here I am, 137 years later, still on animal welfare. Nothing has changed because we care about sentience in animals. That is not going to make the Bill necessary. The Bill is completely unnecessary.
Every Member who has spoken in the debate has listed things that they think are more important than the Bill when it comes to animal welfare. They are right. There are so many things on which we could do a better job. Parliamentary time is not an endless opportunity. This is the place for Governments to bring in changes and improvements to the lives we and our constituents lead. We are elected for fixed periods of time, so every day is precious, and every opportunity to improve, simplify or even tweak our legislation is both a privilege and an obligation. That is why unnecessary tokenism and gestures, although they might feel nice, are a missed opportunity. The Bill is one of the best examples of that—glittering with good intentions, just like the road to hell, but absolutely and completely unnecessary.
First, the Bill creates an open goal for prevention. If someone wants to prevent a planning application, they can refer it to a quango and get a three-month report. There are questions about the proposed committee that will be formed to determine whether the sentience of animals has been considered by Government policy. What happened to the bonfire of quangos? DEFRA has already created a quango in the Environment Act 2021, and now it thinks we need another one. It is not so much a bonfire of quangos as a breeding ground for quangos. While most life forms fall under the scope of the Bill, the taxpayer, that most undervalued of vertebrates, would appear not to do so.
Parliament has always proceeded on the basis that animals are sentient, and has legislated for animal welfare as a result. The definition, or lack thereof, in the Bill is somewhat irrelevant. What animals are considered to be sentient can be changed to suit. All this will do is prevent things. Want to plant more trees, build more houses, improve infrastructure or open a new power station? None of that will be straightforward, just in case we might hurt the feelings of a mouse or a cuttlefish in the process. [Interruption.] Yes, cuttlefish are cephalopods.
The Bill directly contradicts our pledge to level up this nation. My constituency has a moratorium on house building because of phosphate pollution in the River Wye. House building is proven to contribute only a tiny fraction of that pollution, but house builders and aspiring homeowners are being punished. The Bill will be terrible news for those people, as undoubtedly, in the wildest, most natural and beautiful of constituencies, some lovely creature will be discovered in situ. Its sentience will now need to be considered and more unelected bodies will have the power to subvert the building of those much-needed homes. What is conservative about that?
The core aspect of the Bill is to embed consideration of animal welfare into the policy decision-making process, as if we could not manage that by ourselves. That consideration will be made by the Animal Sentience Committee, an opaque body. To the naive, that will appear a noble stance for the Government to take. However, there are serious misgivings about what the committee will set out to achieve. The role of the committee is apparently to scrutinise not the substance of the policy decisions, but the process by which the decisions were reached and whether all due regard has been paid to animal welfare. However, the draft terms of reference suggest that the committee could have a role in scrutinising policies. That would be at odds with the very legislation bringing it into existence.
My question to the Minister, therefore, is who the membership of the committee will report to. Will it be at arm’s length? Most importantly, what safeguards will be in place to ensure that the committee will not act as a vessel by which farming, wildlife management and the rural economy are attacked? If anyone has any doubts that that might happen, they should listen to the contributions of Opposition Members. The way in which the Bill has been greeted should fire off the alarm bells in everybody’s minds. Greater detail is needed on what this committee is truly being set up for and what its aims are. We already have thousands of quangos in this country, and if we are not careful we will descend into the quagmire of anti-democratic legislation.
This is a crucial time for agriculture and rural life in the UK. As we leave the common agricultural policy and move to the environmental land management scheme, many farmers will be concerned about what the future holds. The Conservative party is a party of the farmer, for the farmer, so let us ensure that future animal policy recognises the calibre of our farmers, their land management practices and the deep care they have for their animals. They have not asked for this Bill, and they do not need it. This Bill is a waste of time and utterly unnecessary—
Sir Bill Wiggin
Yes. I am about to go into one, so I will happily give way.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman outlines what he thinks are threats to farmers, but I do not agree that the Bill is a threat to British farmers. However, he alluded to the transition from basic payments to ELMS being a threat, and in that case I think he is right. Would he recommend that the Secretary of State pegs basic payments at their current level and keeps them there until ELMS is available for every farmer?
Sir Bill Wiggin
It is difficult for me to answer that, because I am a member of the ELMS pilot scheme, so I am deeply involved in the formation of ELMS. What I would say is that public money for public goods is the right way forward, with carbon captured in the soil and a corresponding payment made to farmers so that we can balance up the subsidy deficit that British farmers will face compared with their European competitors. At the end of the day I do not believe in subsidy for anything other than agriculture, and we subsidise only in order that our goods are competitive globally—if do not pay our farmers enough, our produce will not compete internationally and our farmers will be at a huge disadvantage.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that the committee’s work will be retrospective. Any citizen could suggest to the committee that the Government should change policy in a certain area. The committee would then look into that and make a recommendation to the Minister. That is a real gift to lobbying groups to achieve what they want, and the Government would be under difficulty to withhold it.
Sir Bill Wiggin
As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The real shame about this legislation is that here we are at Second Reading and every single colleague on both sides of the House has thought of better things for the Government to deal with, whether it is ELMS, as suggested by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), or any of the other suggestions I have heard from Opposition Members. This Bill is a waste of time; it is utterly unnecessary and therefore wrong. We should not pass Bills that state the obvious and that are hostages to fortune, we should not create more quangos, we should not vote for unnecessary legislation —and we certainly should not vote for this Bill.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Fear not, Secretary of State and Minister—the voice of the modern Conservative is bringing up the rear of the debate. May I start by paying tribute to the newest member of the bunny-hugging wing of the Conservative party, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and congratulate him on using the debate to make his maiden speech? Many of our constituents care passionately about animal welfare issues, and my hon. Friend has done an amazing job in representing them today.
As a long-time advocate on animal welfare issues, and in the past sometimes a lone voice on issues such as the badger cull, I have found it encouraging to see more Members joining the Government side of the House speaking out about the wellbeing of animals. I think that that has been helped by the fact that, over the last 10 years, Conservative-led Governments, and particularly this Secretary of State, have delivered enormous progress on these matters. We now have tougher sentences for animal cruelty offences, the world’s strongest ivory trade ban, bans on commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens and on the use of wild animals in circuses, and much more.
At present, we also have two key pieces of legislation progressing through Parliament—the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, which we are debating today, and the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Both will make good on various manifesto commitments and help to improve the lives of millions of animals. However, it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to press for the immediate introduction of new legislation to ban the import of horrific hunting trophies—I do not think that is more important than this debate, but I do think it is equally important.
For this debate, I read through House of Lords Hansard, and I am enormously proud of Lords Benyon and Goldsmith, previously of this parish, who were often comrades on similar matters in previous Parliaments. They have done a phenomenal job in introducing this legislation and amending it where needed.
One such amendment related to decapod crustaceans and cephalopods. I warmly welcome the inclusion of those species within the scope of the Bill and pay tribute to the numerous charities and campaigners, such as Crustacean Compassion, who worked so hard to have this included in the Bill. I am pleased that the Government listened; I thank the Secretary of State and Ministers, who took notice of what was said and acted on the overwhelming scientific evidence proving that those species can feel pain. The UK will join just a handful of countries in the world, including Australia and Switzerland, in recognising decapod crustaceans as sentient beings and will introduce steps to further improve their welfare, such as pre-slaughter stunning and a ban on ice storage while alive.
Contrary to some on the Government side of the House, I welcome the establishment of an Animal Sentience Committee and am encouraged that it will work to consider the ways in which policy across Government can have an impact on animal welfare. I hope Government Departments will work effectively with the committee, including those responsible for policy areas less obviously associated with animals and animal welfare. I also welcome the terms of reference and the fact that the committee may consider how Ministers have had a positive effect on animals as sentient beings in the policy- making process.
However, I fear the ASC may lack the operational freedom to look at different areas of policy that could be improved further; as it stands, the central focus on adverse effects suggests a minimal effort at reducing potential harms to animals. I would welcome reassurance that the committee will be able to suggest positive and proactive steps to improve animal wellbeing, as advocated by the British Veterinary Association. A dedicated budget and the inclusion of appropriate veterinary and animal welfare expertise would remove the burden on civil servants, ensure that Ministers were provided with independent, scientifically backed recommendations and help to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of best practice in animal welfare legislation.
While I welcome the fact that it will continue to be up to Ministers to assess how certain legislation may impact animal welfare and to weigh up the costs and benefits in relation to other important considerations such as social, environmental and economic matters, I do not believe it is unreasonable that the committee be able to consider other ways in which Ministers can improve regulation further. We have previously expressed a desire for the UK to go further than any other country on animal welfare legislation, improving on article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which still allows for cultural activities that cause unimaginable animal suffering. I hope we do not lose sight of that commitment.
There is much more to be done, ranging from reviewing the use of snares and glue traps—my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) has a ten-minute rule Bill on that going into Committee tomorrow—to looking again at scents in trail hunting, considering the welfare of hens, protecting seals from intentional disturbance and coming good on ending the badger cull. There is more that we can do, but I welcome the Bill we are discussing today.
Finally, I repeat my thanks to Ministers and officials in DEFRA who have worked on this important Bill, which ensures that there is no loss of legal protections for animals following our departure from the European Union. I look forward to supporting this Bill wholeheartedly and following the rest of its progress through Parliament.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
This is an important Bill, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this Second Reading debate. There have been some thoughtful and engaging contributions—some very interesting ones—and I think we saw a House willing to work together to deliver a Bill that is fit for purpose.
It was fascinating to hear from the Government’s Back Benchers, in particular from the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin), and I look forward to some great debates with them on the Bill Committee. It is a shame we are not dividing today, because I am sure we would have had some rebels voting with us this evening.
I particularly want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for his specific and forensic action on the wording and for his helpful comments throughout the speech he made. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her action to provide legislation for the Government in the past, and particularly for her amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in 2017.
I of course welcome the new hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) to his place, and I thank him for his maiden speech. As one by-election winner to another who has succeeded after the sad passing of their predecessor, I understand the difficulty he has felt, but I pay tribute to him for his moving and thoughtful speech today. I welcome him to this place, and I look forward to working with him in the future.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). I share her love of cats, and I will now be seeking out the site she mentioned on Twitter. More seriously, her wish to see the Bill strengthened and improved as it progresses is very welcome. Obviously, the expertise as a vet of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) is very welcome, especially on this Bill, and I welcome the input from the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch).
As the House heard from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon)—my new boss, whom I welcome to the shadow DEFRA team—the Opposition welcome this Bill, but, as ever, we want it to go further, be stronger and do more. Labour is the party of animal welfare, and a special mention again goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for all his work on these issues when he was in the shadow Cabinet. From bringing forward the landmark Hunting Act 2004 to protecting the treatment of domestic animals under the Animal Welfare Act, Labour has always placed the welfare of animals high on the policy agenda.
There is growing consensus among scientists and policy makers that animals are sentient beings capable of feeling emotions and experiencing pain. A UK parliamentary petition run by the Better Deal for Animals campaign calling for an animal sentience law recently received over 100,000 signatures, and it was debated in this place on 16 March 2020—it seems like another lifetime ago.
Colleagues who thought that unravelling our membership of the European Union would be sorted by putting a border down the Irish sea will be surprised that we are here because of our decision to leave the European Union. Our departure means that this country no longer has legislation that recognises animals as sentient beings. That is why the Opposition welcome the Bill and the opportunity to strengthen our country’s approach to animal welfare that it provides.
As my noble Friend Baroness Hayman said in the other place:
“The formal legal recognition of animal sentience sends a clear message that we are committed as a country to protecting the welfare of animals, but for this to be meaningful, any commitment on paper must be followed up in practice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2021; Vol. 812, c. 1942.]
The noble Baroness is correct, as ever, and that is exactly where we will pick up. Colleagues in the other place have continued to raise concerns about the current state and reach of this Bill. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), whom I welcome to her first Bill in her new position, needs to be very clear about who will sit on the Animal Sentience Committee, how it will be funded, what engagement there will be with the devolved Administrations and how we can be sure that Ministers abide by the reports that come from this independent committee. The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that there will be “expertise and experience” on this committee. Can she outline exactly how this will be brought together?
We have the chance to make this Bill fit for purpose now and our responsibilities as Members of this House require us to do the best by our constituents, but we also have a responsibility to our natural world, our wildlife and animals. To honour that responsibility, we must be ever vigilant. That is why this Bill is so important: it provides us with another opportunity to look at our approach to animal welfare and what we can do to keep our animals safe.
That is also why we must take this Bill seriously, and we must work together to strengthen it and show that, on some key issues, this House can unite and deliver real change. When this Bill moves to Committee, as it will do when it passes Second Reading today, I hope to work constructively with the Minister, the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and others to deliver a Bill that is really fit for purpose.
A number of colleagues have touched on the views of some of the important stakeholders out there in the real world, and I want to do so, too. First, I want to thank all those campaigners and organisations that have been in touch and provided such helpful briefings. The Better Deal for Animals coalition has expressed its support for the Bill, but it says:
“Whilst we welcome the Bill in its current form, we acknowledge that the Bill could be further improved by the addition of a new duty to require ministers to proactively and strategically engage with sentience issues, including through a requirement for the government to maintain a cross-Whitehall Animal Sentience Strategy.”
The Opposition agree.
The Countryside Alliance is clear that it fully supports legal recognition of the sentience of animals, as we do. The British Veterinary Association is clear that the committee must include appropriate veterinary and animal welfare expertise and that this House must pass legislation that enshrines animal sentience in UK law; we agree on those points, too.
We will ask Ministers to work with us to strengthen the Bill and tackle the loopholes used by those who go hunting every Boxing day and the outsourcing of animal cruelty triggered by the trade deals negotiated by this Government. Baroness Hayman rightly pushed for
“guarantees that the Government will consult on membership; that there will be an open, transparent recruitment process; that wide-ranging expertise will be ensured; and that the committee will have genuine independence and not be incorporated as a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee, as we believe this could potentially damage its ability to hold the Government to account.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2021; Vol. 812, c. 1943.]
I agree, and I want the Minister to provide that reassurance.
The Bill is about an issue that we all take seriously and want to address. The Opposition will approach the Bill in a constructive manner that improves it and makes it fit for purpose. Our natural environment and animals deserve nothing less, and that is what Labour will deliver in Committee, on Report and back in the other place until the Bill reaches Her Majesty’s desk. I look forward to working with Members on this important Bill in Committee; I hope that the Government will listen to our reasoned amendments to strengthen and improve this long-awaited Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to our lively and wide-ranging debate. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for his excellent maiden speech; I am delighted to have his support. As he said, animal welfare is important to his and all our constituents.
I know that my hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) are all upholders of animal welfare who care for their own animals. Indeed, I often look fondly at Christmas cards from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire; they are signed by him and his wife but often bear a picture of him with a cow from his herd, which is quite interesting.
I am pleased to associate myself with the comments about our former colleague the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, with whom I worked to try to ensure that more cancer nurse specialists are there when people need them. We miss his wise counsel, but we welcome wholeheartedly our new hon. Friend.
The Bill is the latest in a series of steps that the Government are taking to develop and strengthen animal welfare protections. As we have heard from many hon. Members, it builds on the UK’s proud tradition of protecting pets, livestock and wildlife. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid out, our nation has a long and proud history in the area, and our action plan for animal welfare is making positive progress.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) pointed out, the Bill has been well discussed in the other place. She also alluded to other Bills. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 came into force in June, increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty, and has been welcomed by hon. Members. The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill is currently going through the House. We are supporting private Members’ Bills: the Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill and the Glue Traps (Offences) Bill, which we will debate in Committee tomorrow. We introduced a Government amendment, which I know many right hon. and hon. Members have welcomed, to tackle illegal hare coursing in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. We are progressing a range of other commitments in the action plan, including on cat microchipping, and are moving forward on many other things.
Members asked many questions; I aim to answer them all, but if I do not, my door is always open. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said that we had not yet had a conversation; I am keen to work to deliver good legislation not only for the countryside that I represent but for all our constituents. Our primary job is to make sure we get it right.
I was asked how sentience is defined in the Bill. Our scientific understanding of sentience has come a long way in recent years, but it is well defined and continues to evolve. Baroness Hayman’s work included the reviewing of 300 pieces of research to bring forward the definition of decapods and cephalopods. The situation will carry on evolving, so it would seem to be counter-intuitive to have a fixed definition, because the definition itself is not fixed. We therefore do not deem it necessary to define sentience for the work going forward. We can all recognise that animals are sentient and their welfare should be considered in any decisions we make.
As we have said, the public feel strongly about this issue, which is why we have introduced this legislation. I welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) who, with this vast experience and strong expertise, highlighted the point that the committee will need to cover those areas of expertise. It is for that reason that we are not over-prescriptive. Indeed, as I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), somebody in one of the devolved nations could have the key expertise and we should look throughout the United Kingdom to ensure we have the right people on the committee to draw on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border also mentioned constituents who lose dogs and horses. I agree that there are other things we should be doing in the animal space, but we are moving forward with them. The Bill is tightly drafted for a distinct reason, which is why it merely has simple clauses to make sure we get it right.
I thank the EFRA Committee for all its work to get the Bill into a much better place. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) is now in his place.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I apologise to the House for not being here for the debate; I have been chairing the EFRA Committee. The advisory committee will need members with good practical animal welfare experience and an independent chair. It will also need to be given the proper resources and we will need more transparency in respect of the process of advising the Government. I really hope we can have a strong animal welfare process that is actually workable.
Jo Churchill
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the letter that he recently wrote to me. We intend to do exactly that and I shall come to that in a moment.
The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment and provides legal recognition that animals are sentient beings. As I have said, it is a tight, short Bill that establishes an animal sentience committee to consider how individual central Government policies and decision making take account of animal welfare. The Bill contains provisions to ensure that Ministers respond to Parliament in respect of reports published by the animal sentience committee. It establishes that committee and empowers it to scrutinise Minister’s policy formation and implementation decisions, with a view to publishing reports containing its views on whether Ministers have paid all due regard to animals’ welfare needs as sentient beings.
The Bill places a duty on Ministers to respond to the reports by means of a written statement to Parliament within three months’ sitting time and confirms that non-human vertebrates such as dogs, birds, decapod crustaceans and cephalopod molluscs and invertebrates such as lobsters and octopuses are sentient—that is, capable of experiencing pain or suffering. Together, these measures constitute a targeted, timely and proportionate accountability mechanism, as so aptly described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett).
The hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) asked why the Bill talks only of adverse effects. It is because the Animal Sentience Committee’s role will be to encourage policy decision makers to think about the positive improvements they could make to animal welfare, rather than just minimising adverse effects. Meeting the welfare needs of animals means avoiding those negative impacts, as well as providing for positive experiences. The reference to an adverse effect allows the committee to consider whether a policy might restrict an animal’s positive experience.
I was asked whether the Animal Sentience Committee will produce an animal welfare strategy, and the answer is no. The Government’s current and future work on animal welfare and conservation is set out clearly in the action plan for animal welfare, and the role of the Animal Sentience Committee is not to devise future policy or strategy.
I was asked whether the committee could produce an annual report. That task is not established by the Bill, although that would not be necessary. There is nothing to prevent the committee from assessing improvements annually, if that fulfils its legislative purposes, or from issuing a report should it so wish.
Luke Pollard
The Minister slightly misunderstands the point. It is not that Members want the Animal Sentience Committee to produce an annual report but that we want the Secretary of State to have an annual parliamentary moment when the findings of those reports can be discussed and debated on the Floor of the House. Rather than being buried in a report in the House of Commons Library, will it be debated by parliamentarians?
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I gently point out that there are plenty of other devices for ensuring plenty of parliamentary time. I am sure that we will unpick that in Committee.
Ministers will remain responsible for balancing animal welfare against other important matters of public interest. We are and will remain fully accountable to Parliament for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon spent some time asking whether the Bill increases the risk of judicial review, and it has been carefully considered and worded to ensure there are only two areas in which we could instigate grounds for judicial review if Ministers fail to fulfil them: by not appointing a committee or by not bringing forward a report in a timely fashion.
I was also asked how the Animal Sentience Committee differs from the Animal Welfare Committee. The latter offers substantive expert advice, whereas the former is a scrutinising body—that is the essential difference. The Animal Sentience Committee is there to give another line of evidence and to help Ministers make decisions, but policy decisions are and will remain a matter for Ministers, for which they are accountable to this House.
Ministers are under no legal obligation to follow the committee’s recommendations. However, there is no point in having a committee that brings forward evidence unless we take it seriously. As I say, it will be balanced in the round to make sure competing interests such as the rural economy or a particular enjoyment, angling or whatever—all those things that are good for people’s mental wellbeing—are considered when we make our decisions.
The key point about the terms of reference is that the Animal Sentience Committee will be classified as an expert committee. It will be funded from within DEFRA’s existing budget and supported by a small secretariat. This will not run and run and be an unsupported Government quango, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire. The Bill is drafted to keep sentience at the forefront of policy making and implementation, in line with its statutory functions.
Wide-ranging points were made by colleagues, which flowed into medical research and respect for people’s religious needs. The Bill is tight, and the reason it is a small, tight Bill is that it is important that we are aware that it does not change existing legislation. The committee does not make value judgments.
Hon. Members asked about the inclusion of decapod crustaceans, crabs, lobsters, molluscs, octopus and squid. I want to be absolutely clear about the reasoning behind the effects of that decision. At every point, it is about respecting and recognising animal sentience, and being scientifically led.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I sense the Minister is coming to a conclusion, but she has not answered one of my questions about the composition of the committee. Will she give an assurance that it will take into account rural and agricultural interests?
Jo Churchill
As I represent the constituency that I do, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I will give him that assurance. The Opposition made the point that breadth of expertise is extremely important in order to have confidence in this Committee.
Jo Churchill
If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I want to push on as the Chamber is full and it is only fair that I conclude, but I will take her intervention in a second.
It was originally thought that only vertebrates could feel pain, but decapods and cephalopods are invertebrates with complex nervous systems, and I welcome their inclusion. In 2020, DEFRA commissioned the external review of the available scientific evidence, and evaluated the findings of over 300 pieces of peer-reviewed evidence. We carefully considered the recommendations, as we added that measure to the Bill. I reassure hon. Members that the Bill does not and will not change any existing legislation, or place any additional burdens on any part of industry or individuals.
Emma Hardy
The Minister is always kind at taking interventions. Before she concludes, can she comment on the use of testing on primates that was raised by the SNP spokesperson?
Jo Churchill
With respect, as the Chamber is full, I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady and talk further about that. It was largely to do with medical testing and military work with animals, and I would be happy to talk to her about medical animal testing, to which it is vital that we have a proportionate approach.
In summary, the Bill offers a proportionate and evidence-led recognition of animal sentience in UK law. There is over whelming public demand for sentience legislation. We committed to introduce it in our manifesto, and similar pledges were made by parties represented on the Opposition Benches. I look forward to working with hon. Members across the House to deliver on our promises, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 10 February 2022.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.
Charities Bill [Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Charities Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Gareth Johnson.)
House of Commons Commission
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I will not detain the House for long. It is clear that there is an interest in the recognition of Somaliland, something I entirely support as a representative of many constituents of Somali origin. I just wish to ask the Leader of the House a couple of administrative questions.
First, I welcome the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) to the House of Commons Commission. It is a great honour to serve with her on the Commission. We make many important decisions about the nature of this House, its operations and its staffing.
I have tried really hard to do the adding up this afternoon. It may be that I have missed something, but it appears to me that there has been a vacancy on the Commission for some time. Will the Leader of the House comment on why now is the appropriate time for that appointment? I am also aware that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has the great honour of being the representative for Westminster. We will shortly be discussing the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, which is in her constituency. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to advise me and other members of the Commission on whether any issues might arise from that?
I reiterate, overall, my welcome to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to the Commission and I look forward to working with her, but I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman were able to answer those questions.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I will try to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. My speaking notes only go for about 50 minutes or so, but I will try to rattle through them as quickly as possible so we can get to the debate secured by the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson).
I would like to reiterate some of the questions put by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). I am interested to know why the position has gone unfilled for such a period of time. I would also like to ask why it is going to a Conservative Member. Obviously, I understand the need for balance across the Commission. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) will be an assiduous and diligent member of the Commission, and we all look forward very much to working with her, but she is replacing a Liberal Democrat, in the form of Mr Tom Brake, who unfortunately lost his seat at the last general election. Is it the case that the position could be filled from another party across the House?
I like the suggestion that we try to make the House of Commons Commission as accessible as possible to Members. Maybe we could all be included in deciding who should be on the Commission. What about an election for another member of the House of Commons Commission? Let us think creatively about how we construct some of our great parliamentary institutions, such as the Commission. I think Members across the Chamber would be delighted to have an election to see who should take this very important place on the House of Commission, and they would have the confidence of everybody in this House. It would not be based on party political allegiance, but involve everybody in a democratic debate about who we want to represent the House on the Commission to do the very important work that we all know the Commission devotes itself to. That would be a diligent and sincere way of making sure this House is looked after.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
I am grateful for the support of the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), and the representative of the SNP, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). We all work very closely together on the Commission. Likewise, I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I am delighted to be proposing to appoint my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) to the House of Commons Commission.
The Commission, as hon. Members will know, is responsible for the administration of the services of the House of Commons, including the maintenance of the Palace of Westminster and the rest of the parliamentary estate. The House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, as amended, provides for four Members of the House of Commons to be appointed by the House as members of the Commission, in addition to Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House, a Member appointed by the Leader of the Opposition and four external members. This appointment would fill the fourth vacant slot for a Member to be appointed by the House.
The hon. Member for Bristol West asks why the position has been vacant for so long. It has been a matter under discussion in the normal way between various parties to see whether it would be beneficial. The particular qualities of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster make this a very suitable appointment to make at the moment, not least because her constituency covers the parliamentary estate. Before her election she served as a councillor for, and indeed was leader of, Westminster City Council. Her executive experience at the council, including managing the refurbishment of City Hall—something we should bear in mind as we come to restoration and renewal— will prove invaluable to the Commission, which will have to address important issues of that kind, involving some discussions with Westminster City Council. Maintaining good relations at the highest level with Westminster City Council is certainly of importance to us.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asked, “Why not a Liberal Democrat?”, which is always a popular question in this House. I might say, “What is a Liberal Democrat? Are there Liberal Democrats any more?” I notice that this debate is not attended by a Liberal Democrat. The Liberal Democrats used to be the third party in this House. We got used to that, and it took us a bit of time to recognise that the hon. Gentleman’s party is now the third party, so it is accorded the courtesies that used to be accorded to the Liberal Democrats, and that is democracy.
It is important to note that the Government will not have a majority on the Commission, exactly as was recommended by the Governance Committee, which I served on, actually, under the distinguished chairmanship of Jack Straw. We are maintaining the principle that the Government do not have a majority, but if the new member had not been a Government Member, we would have had 4:2 against the Government, which does not seem appropriate in view of the current set-up of the House of Commons.
There is much for the House of Commons Commission to discuss. I am grateful for the support that we have received. I am particularly grateful that the House is, I hope, going to approve the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who I think will prove a most distinguished member of the Commission. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 7, 8 and 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1382), dated 8 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 December 2021, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1435), dated 14 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15 December 2021, be approved.
Sanctions
That the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1404), dated 8 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 December 2021, be approved.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.
UK Government Recognition of Somaliland
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I am very grateful for the privilege of being able to bring this Adjournment debate to the House today.
In 1960, Somaliland emerged independent from the British empire after many years as the British Somaliland protectorate. For five days it was independent, before it took the step to merge with what was then the Trust Territory of Somaliland, historically Italian, to form a union. Both nations entered that union with optimism—a sense and a view of creating a pan-Somalia where all Somalis would be able to come together. The hope, for so many of those in Somaliland, was that this would be a union of equals.
Sadly, over the following 30 years, those hopes and aspirations for what might have been were not fulfilled. Instead, as the years progressed, the situation got worse, with military dictatorships and, tragically, people from the north of Somalia in historically British Somaliland being discriminated against. What started to emerge was attacks on civilians. There were mass killings of tens of thousands of Somali civilians. It was one of the few conflicts where fighter jets took off from cities in one area in order to bomb the cities that they had taken off from, indiscriminately killing thousands of civilians.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
My constituency has a very large population from Somaliland, whose families suffered, as the right hon. Gentleman has described, in that conflict. Last year, Somaliland celebrated 30 years since the declaration of independence. It has built up its own independent Government, its own currency and democratic elections. It has shown the capability to establish a state. Is it not time that the UK Government formally recognise its right to self-determination and its need to be an independent state?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. The key reason for this debate is to discuss the fact that Somaliland has developed so much. In those years of conflict—where so many Somalilanders had their lives under threat, and so many hundreds of thousands were displaced, both internally within Somaliland and externally—that dream and that vision of creating their own homeland once again and re-establishing those old territorial borders burned bright, and that is what they were able to achieve in 1991.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw the House’s attention to my interest as one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on Somaliland. It has been a privilege to work with the right hon. Gentleman on these issues. Will he also pay tribute to my predecessor, Alun Michael, and the many members of the Somalilander community in Cardiff and across the UK for exposing those atrocities at the time, including in this House and elsewhere, and explaining what had gone on to the world? Will he commend them on what they did at that time?
Gavin Williamson
I pay tribute to the hon. Member’s predecessor and the many people who live in his constituency. In his constituency is a very established Somaliland community that has been there probably far longer than he or I have been on this earth. This country has deep links with Somaliland that go back not just many decades, but a century and more, with many Somalilanders calling Britain their home, as well as Somaliland itself.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has secured this important debate. Many of us have been supporting Somaliland as an independent state, and we very much welcome the fact that he is here. On that point, he will know no doubt that many of Her Majesty’s naval ships for 100 or more years have had lascars from Somaliland—stokers and others—who built the first mosques in this country. Does he not agree that recognising the Somalilanders here in the UK is also about recognising our own past and our own future together as investors in a new Africa? It would demonstrate that independent states that govern themselves well in democracies can succeed, and we can partner with them.
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is absolutely right. By taking the brave step to recognise Somaliland, we would not just be opening up opportunities for Somaliland itself, but opportunities for British investors and British business to go there and work, very much creating the gateway to the whole of the horn of Africa.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has brought this most important subject to the Floor of the House. I visited Hargeisa when I was Secretary of State for International Development, and we spent quite a lot of time on exactly the issues that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee have just raised. There is an enormous degree of normalcy there. The democratic structures, when they have elections, have held in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. There is proper governance. I have travelled on a bus in Hargeisa that was a result of British investment. The case that my right hon. Friend is making about Somaliland becoming an independent state is one where the Foreign Office normally takes the view that it does not want to lead it, but it would support it. Is he aware that the African Union is at least passively acquiescent in that view, if not actively supportive?
Gavin Williamson
On both areas that my right hon. Friend raises, he is absolutely right. One flies into Hargeisa airport, and it is a safe place to visit. One can get a bus to the centre of Hargeisa, as he did. When I visited, I must confess I did not get a bus, but I will endeavour to do so the next time I visit. He is equally right that this is an opportunity. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office so often wants to be led on these issues, but there is sometimes a moment for Britain to lead, as against to be led.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about leading the world. Throughout the world, where western nations do not get involved, China does, and recently we have had many discussions about China’s influence. Does he therefore agree that when we look at development taking place in Somaliland, we can see that it is in our strategic interests and that of western countries not just to see what happens but to take an active, leading role and not allow that vacuum to be filled with those who, perhaps, we have difficulties with?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend is so correct. If we look to Djibouti, to the north of Somaliland, we see the Chinese investment that is going in. Where there is a vacuum, others do step in. If this country showed the leadership that it can by recognising Somaliland, that would show the Somaliland Government the value that we put on their friendship and partnership.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for securing the debate. I am honoured to represent a Somaliland community in Swindon. Building on the points made by right hon. and hon. Members about Somaliland’s strategic importance, and in particular its proximity to international shipping lanes, we all know that with British leadership under our good friend the noble Lord Hague, we led the way in dealing with piracy emanating from the horn of Africa. Is this not another opportunity for Britain to show leadership and recognise stable government in a region that is in pitifully short supply of such a quality?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. and learned Friend is accurate in his assessment. Even though we are not yet in a position of recognising Somaliland, we already have that level of co-operation with Somalilanders. When I visited Somaliland as Defence Secretary, I saw at first hand the co-operation that British forces already had with Somaliland in protecting its coastal waters—and by doing so, keeping them safe for the international community.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate and commend the Government on the support they have been providing to the Administration in Somaliland. Liverpool Riverside has a long-established Somali community and Somalilanders. Will he join me in calling for the UK Government to support a binding referendum within two years to allow Somalilanders to express their democratic will, guaranteed by the international community?
Gavin Williamson
I am not sure whether you are an expert on Somaliland affairs, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this is the opportunity for you to brush up on them. The hon. Lady makes an important point, but there has already been a referendum in Somaliland, and it was absolutely clear about the wishes of the Somaliland people: they want to see recognition, to be independent and to have that independent state. However, if that is a hurdle to establishing international recognition for Somaliland, the Somaliland Government may wish to look at that.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has been extremely fortunate not only in the House allowing him a lot of time to debate this important topic but in the number of hon. Members in their places supporting him and the cause of Somaliland. Wembley has a huge Somaliland community of expatriates who have said to me that, in all likelihood, a new Somaliland would desperately want to join the Commonwealth. Does he agree with them?
Gavin Williamson
From my visit to Somaliland and my discussions with so many Somalilanders in the UK, I have a real sense of kinship between Somaliland, Britain and other Commonwealth nations. I think that Somaliland would very much want to join the Commonwealth, and I hope that the Commonwealth would welcome them with open arms.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I have the privilege of chairing the all-party group on Somaliland, and we have a large Somaliland community in Sheffield. The way he described the formation of what is currently legally Somalia was really interesting. Immediately on gaining independence, Somaliland was an independent country, and it voluntarily chose to enter into a union. The concerns about changing post-colonial boundaries do not apply in the case of an independent Somaliland; post-colonial boundaries, it was an independent country. The idea that Mogadishu now has any remit in Somaliland is a piece of nonsense, and it is time the Government recognised that.
Gavin Williamson
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The boundaries being proposed are exactly the same as those that were agreed between Britain, Italy, and Ethiopia, and with the French in numerous treaties prior to that. Somaliland is not asking for a change to the boundaries, as they are very much what was there in 1960. There are precedents when it comes to unwinding acts of union and confederacies. One need only look to the other side of Africa, at the confederation between Senegal and Gambia, which was unwound in the late 1980s. This is not unprecedented. We are suggesting going back and recognising what were well-established international boundaries that we ourselves recognised and drew up.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. The Defence Committee has just produced a report on the Navy and the importance of the sea in defence, and he mentioned his visits as Secretary of State for Defence. Does he agree that it is vital that we recognise Somaliland, given the strategic importance of the location in terms of defence?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is accurate in pinpointing the strategic importance of Somaliland. That is one of many reasons why it is so vital that not just Britain, but the United States and other NATO members lead the way in recognising Somaliland—not just because of the many brilliant things that have been done there, but because of the country’s strategic importance. The question is how we reinforce and support that Government.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
If I may pursue that point, is it not desirable for a stable state in a region that is becoming increasingly unstable to achieve that level of recognition? We talk a lot about supply chain vulnerability; this is one of the most vulnerable places we have found. Even one ship blocking the Suez canal caused ripples right the way throughout industry. We should also recognise the importance of enabling communities here and in Somaliland to move freely, have passports that are recognised, conclude international agreements, and unleash the country’s energy. Having a properly administered state in the region would enable those communities to do those things. Is it not time that we grasped the nettle and recognised Somaliland?
Gavin Williamson
There is a level of consensus bubbling up that is not always typical of debates in this House. It is incredibly important to demonstrate the will and feeling of the House on this important issue. The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about supply chains. DP World already invests in the port of Berbera, and the welcome investment from British International Investment—the old Commonwealth Development Corporation—amounts to hundreds of millions of pounds. The Government recognise the importance of Somaliland, and we are willing to invest hundreds of millions of pounds there, because we realise that it opens up so much of the horn of Africa to British goods and investment. However, we still do not recognise the state of Somaliland, which is a real tragedy. It is so sad to see that so many Somalilanders have difficulty travelling to Somaliland. They cannot fly direct from the UK, but have to go via either Addis Ababa or Dubai. By taking the step of recognising Somaliland, we can make so many British citizens’ lives easier.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate; the attendance shows the strength of feeling across the House. Does he agree that recognition can take several forms, and that the Government could take interim steps to show willing, and to demonstrate progress towards the formal recognition that we all want? That could include the Department for International Trade—or the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which has responsibilities to DIT—channelling food and aid through Somaliland. That way, Somaliland will not be at the wrong end of the supply chain; it often ends up with a raw deal.
Gavin Williamson
That is absolutely correct. For so long, international development aid has been channelled through the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Government in Mogadishu, which sadly means that people in Somaliland have often not had the assistance that this Government expected them to get. A perfect example of that is vaccines. A large supply of vaccines was sent to the people of Somaliland, but it was channelled through the Government in Mogadishu. By the time it arrived in Somaliland, sadly, there was only a few days left in which to dispense most of the vaccines.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I do not have any Somalis in my constituency, but I have a great love for the country because my ayah came from Somaliland when we lived in Aden. I remind the House that the Aden Protectorate and the Somaliland Protectorate were very closely linked; I remember my father flying over to Somaliland as part of the Aden Protectorate Levies when there was that close link. The people of Somaliland have a real affection for this country. That goes back a long time, and it would be absolutely right of our Government to encourage, support and allow Somaliland to be a real nation.
Gavin Williamson
We have seen the people of Somaliland pay a price for the defence of this nation in both the first and second world war. If people go to Somaliland, they can see the Commonwealth war grave cemetery. So many Somalilanders gave their life in defence of this country and beat fascism on the horn of Africa. We owe a debt of honour to the people of Somaliland, and should restore to them the freedom that they fought to preserve for us.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member on securing this debate, which has demonstrated an exceptional degree of unity across the House in support of his proposal. He makes a good point about the debt of honour that we owe to the people of Somaliland. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) highlighted that we have a strong community of people who owe their origins to Somaliland in our city. In recognition of that, the council passed a resolution in 2014 adding its voice to the demands for independence. Does the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) agree that the parliamentary and local elections held last year were another successful democratic moment in Somaliland, further reflecting the maturity and strength of democracy in the country, which is an essential building block for recognition of statehood, and which the Government should recognise?
Gavin Williamson
I do not often advocate that a Government should follow the leadership of Sheffield City Council, but on this occasion I certainly do. The Government should try to catch up with what that city council has been doing. So many communities—Sheffield, Liverpool, Cardiff, Bristol, Swindon; we could go on and on—have welcomed Somalilanders, and Somalilanders have made these great cities and great communities their home, and will continue to do so.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated just how important this topic is to all of us here. Newport is home to the second-largest Somaliland community in Wales, and I want to place on record my thanks for the community’s amazing contributions to the city over the years. Has the right hon. Gentleman given any thought to how the devolved Governments can play a role in supporting the people of Somaliland as they continue to seek formal recognition?
Gavin Williamson
I strongly believe that this is a United Kingdom endeavour, in which we can all move forward in strengthening the bridges that already exist between the United Kingdom and Somaliland. Many steps have already been taken in municipal and devolved government to encourage the links between our great nations of the United Kingdom and Somaliland, but now is the time for the UK Government to take the lead—for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office not to be shy, and not to think that policy is stuck in the 1960s.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing a debate on such an important subject. There has been unanimity this evening on the many reasons why we should recognise Somaliland, but does he, as a former Education Secretary, view and accept Somaliland as a champion of education in Africa for both boys and girls? We have heard about how the devolved Administrations and this Government can assist, develop and support Somaliland. In that context, the education system is not only something to be treasured, but perhaps a way in which we can provide support.
Gavin Williamson
One of the most precious things that a nation can have is democracy. That means justice, but it also means the education that we give our children. Those who have the privilege of visiting Somaliland will see both boys and girls being educated. There is no discrimination there; Somalilanders want to educate all, because they recognise that that is what will strengthen Somaliland for the future.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend has heard representations from people in a number of places where there are large Somaliland communities. Does he agree that the level of remittances to Somaliland from the diaspora is enormous? Some years ago, it was about six times the annual state budget. Perhaps, following this debate, the Minister could consult his officials on trying to make remittancing easier, so that there is more competition and lower charges, and the enormous Somaliland community in the United Kingdom can send money back through the remittancing structure without paying exorbitant fees.
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of remittances going to Somaliland. This Government do not make that easier for people. Their view that Somaliland is locked in with Somalia makes it much more difficult for businesses to operate there, and to ensure that a flow of money from the diaspora community in this country goes back to Somaliland. The FCDO, working with Her Majesty’s Treasury, could take up this practical issue and consider how it could make improvements. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond to that point at the end of the debate.
Somaliland is a country that has incredibly proud links with our country. When we have been in need and have asked for help, it has responded by sending its young men to defend our values and our freedoms. In 1991, it emerged from years of subjugation to the regime in Mogadishu—from having so many citizens, including children, killed in cold blood—and it was able to establish its borders once more. It was able to put in place the structures for a legal system and elections. All across Africa, we are always asking for countries to have proper legal systems, to educate their boys and their girls and to ensure the establishment of democracy. In May last year, we saw the parliamentary elections in Somaliland. They were peaceful; they were calm; they were fair. We saw the roll-out of iris-recognition technology, the first use of that technology anywhere on the continent of Africa, to ensure that they were fair and properly run.
All that goes to show the maturity of this country. In Somaliland, we have seen different parties enter government and leave it without questioning the veracity of their opponents’ claim. Indeed, as I recall, one presidential election was won by a margin of 80 votes. That vote was accepted, and we saw a peaceful transition. I cannot help thinking that there are some western democracies where, if the margin was quite so close, there might have been a little bit more controversy than we saw within Somaliland.
Somaliland has been an amazing, shining beacon of everything we want to see flourish in Africa. It is the example we want others to follow, but it needs our help and our assistance, because around it are real challenges. To the south, in Somalia, we see the challenges of al-Shabaab. We see the disorder and difficulties in Ethiopia and some of the real security challenges in Djibouti.
Somaliland is a country that wants to be our friend. It is a country that turns to us and asks us to show leadership. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, instead of delivering the pre-prepared brief that no doubt every Foreign Office Minister has read out for the past 60 years, to show some guile, some leadership and some imagination—to show that he is a politician, not just a tool of Foreign Office officials to read their words. I have worked with him in the Whips Office; I saw some moments of merit.
As politicians, and as this House, we must show leadership on this issue. We must show our friends in Somaliland that we are willing to defend them as they have defended us. Even if the Minister cannot give us all the promises we would like to hear—even if he cannot say at the Dispatch Box today that we can recognise Somaliland—he needs to go away, sit down and work out how we take the next steps. We cannot spend another 30 years pretending that the reality on the ground, an independent Somaliland, does not exist because it is not on the Foreign Office map. We must respond to those realities. We must lead on foreign policy. We must show our Somaliland friends that we are there for them and that we will deliver for them—that we will not just talk about our history, but talk about how we can make history together in the future.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an unusual pleasure to be able to speak in an end-of-day Adjournment debate, because of the time. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), the former Defence Secretary, and thank him for securing this debate. It has been hugely powerful, and the voices that have been heard on both sides of the House show the strength of feeling among hon. Members and Somaliland communities here in the UK on many of the issues he raised.
I declare my interest as one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on Somaliland, which has existed for a long time in this place. In the spirit of this debate, I am pleased to say that it includes Members from all parties and both Houses. Many of them, like the right hon. Gentleman and I, have travelled to Somaliland and seen for ourselves the hugely impressive progress that has been made, particularly since those very dark days that he started his speech by discussing—the atrocities that were committed and the literal levelling of Hargeisa, the capital city—and the remarkable progress since, largely driven by Somalilanders themselves and members of the diaspora. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the former International Development Secretary, who is still in the Chamber, mentioned the importance of remittances, and the role of Somaliland communities here in the UK in raising funds and supporting projects in Somaliland has been absolutely crucial to that rebuilding since those dark days.
I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Alun Michael, who did so much in this place to raise Somaliland’s concerns and to work with people from many different parties, communities and civil society groups, and with different parties in Somaliland, to ensure that our friendship and the progress that we had seen continued.
The all-party group visited Somaliland just a few years ago. It was the first visit we had been able to undertake for some time, and it was remarkable. I had heard so much about Somaliland from Somalilanders in Cardiff and then I was able to see it with my own eyes. We met civil society groups, women, young people, members of the legislature from both houses, and members of the Government. We also saw some of the progress that was being made and heard about the work the UK Government had done to support development projects, trade, economic development and security.
Rushanara Ali
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as Government recognition, we should also recognise, as he has, the important contribution that Somalilanders have made to the development agenda? The Government’s decision to cut the aid budget from £121 million in 2020-21 to £71.2 million this year is setting the nation back, so the Government need to reconsider that.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend raises an important point. She knows my views on the aid budget—I have expressed them in this place many times, and I know they are shared by many Conservative Members. There have been some welcome investments in Somaliland through the aid budget and, as the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire mentioned, through the investment made by the former Commonwealth Development Corporation—now British International Investment—in Berbera port and the DP World partnership there, which has been very important and welcome. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that those cuts have impacted on our ability to work on a whole series of issues in a whole series of countries and strategic locations, and they were an error, as we have debated many times in this place.
As has been mentioned, the history of the Somaliland community and our friendship links goes back well beyond all of us in this Chamber. In fact, in Cardiff they go back to the middle 1800s. Cardiff was one of the largest coal ports in the world, exporting to the world and setting the price of coal, and friendship links, particularly with the horn of Africa, the Arabian peninsula and elsewhere, were absolutely crucial. That is one reason why there is such a strong Somaliland community in Cardiff, as well as a strong Yemeni community and many other communities from around the world, which made up the incredible part of the community I live in—Butetown or Tiger Bay.
At the heart of that has been the incredible contribution from Somalilanders, which continues to this day. They take great interest in what happens not only in Somaliland but, crucially, at home in Cardiff, and they are key in many of our community organisations and institutions. It has been a pleasure to hear from many of them in advance of this debate—I do not want to name names, because I will upset people by missing them out, but all those who contact me regularly know who they are, and they continue to stand up for the interests of Somaliland and Somalilanders.
Somalilanders have a proud history in Cardiff, which also stretches to military history, with those involved in the Somaliland Camel Corps and the Somaliland Scouts. Those Somalilanders, along with many people from across the Commonwealth—from across the former empire and dominions—fought alongside us in world war one, world war two and many other conflicts. That is often overlooked, but we in Cardiff recognise those contributions regularly. We also recognise the contribution made by those who served in our merchant navy. Every year when we celebrate merchant navy memorials in Cardiff bay and elsewhere and look at the lists of names, we see Somali names and names of people from countries all around the Commonwealth that we have friendships with.
Bob Stewart
I well remember Somali soldiers coming across from the horn of Africa to the Aden protectorate and my father having the honour to command really good soldiers and decent men.
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. The hon. and gallant Gentleman makes an important point. We as a country need to recognise far more that our friends from across the Commonwealth have made contributions, and in some cases the ultimate sacrifice, in conflicts throughout many generations.
I want make a few practical points. First, we should recognise the strong links between so many cities across the UK and Somaliland. There are many British-Somaliland dual nationals, yet they experience many difficulties with travel, visas, restrictions—all sorts of things go on. We must ensure that support is available to them. That is difficult given the current situation in Somaliland, and we heard from many members of the British-Somaliland community on our visit about issues that arose if they lost a passport or wanted documentation authorised. They asked why the British Council did not have a bigger presence there.
I met young people who want to come and study here in the UK and build links between UK universities and educational institutions in Somaliland. They are often denied those opportunities. We could be doing so much more at a practical level to support those with dual nationality and dual heritage.
Kim Johnson
I support my hon. Friend’s point about the need for the British Council to be located in Hargeisa. Does he agree that the Government may need to think about the funding to enable that to happen and to develop relationships with Somaliland?
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. The British Council plays a key role around the world. The cuts to it have been deeply concerning and have been raised by hon. Members from all parties in the House. The issue was specifically raised when we were there, and I hope our links in that area can develop.
Huge progress has been made in health and development in particular. I have had the pleasure, as many across the House have, of meeting the remarkable former first lady and Foreign Minister Edna Adan on many occasions. If hon. Members have not listened to her “Desert Island Discs” and other fantastic interviews with her, I would strongly encourage them to do so. She is one of the most remarkable women I have had the pleasure of meeting, and I had the pleasure of visiting the hospital that Edna helped to resource and establish. She provided significant funding out of her own pocket. It is a maternity hospital; a training hospital to improve maternal health outcomes in Somaliland. Remarkable work is being done there, but so much more could be done if we were to develop our friendships further and ensure that the support was there for that.
We have seen remarkable progress in education. I visited Hargeisa University, a remarkable place doing brilliant work, where the majority of students are women and girls. That is exactly the sort of example that we want to set around the world, ensuring that young women and girls are able to thrive and seize all the opportunities that should be available for them, whether in Somaliland or elsewhere on the global stage.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution to an extremely good debate. Does he agree that Somaliland stands as a beacon of hope and shows what can be achieved where there is democracy, and that that is part of the reason why the UK Government should officially recognise it for the work that it does and the leadership it can offer within Africa?
Stephen Doughty
The leadership and the example that Somaliland has shown is there for all to see, and it is certainly there for those who have had the pleasure of visiting, as I have. Its progress in so many areas has been long overlooked. Progress has been made in trade and we met many businesses that wanted to expand their trading relationships with the UK and with their neighbours. Indeed, that is one of the crucial driving factors behind the investment in Berbera port by DP World, the UK and others. It is critical, not least when other trading routes may be more difficult and may be in the interests of strategic—I do not want to say “opponents”—challenger countries in the world that may have a different agenda. It is crucial that we are getting in there and supporting the development of trade links.
The politics has already been mentioned. Significant progress has been made in elections and democracy. Multiple elections have been held at both presidential and parliamentary level. I have met representatives of all the parties and civil society. Not everything is perfect, but significant progress has been made over recent years, and the UK has played a key role in supporting the practicality of elections and ensuring that they are free and fair. Election observation missions have often had strong UK support and included UK contingents.
Hon. Members have mentioned the security situation. I would love to see the day when a more reasonable approach is taken to travel advice about Somaliland. There have been recent improvements, but unfortunately some of the advice that is given at the moment puts people off travelling and building those links. I urge the FCDO to look again at the travel advice to Somaliland and see whether it can be more open, because in reality it is a very safe place to engage in business, education and travel. We do not want to see potential friendships and links pushed away.
Several hon. Members, particularly the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire, rightly raised the strategic location of Somaliland. There is very serious concern about the activities of opponents—Russia, China or others—operating in the region. We have a strong friendship; Somaliland wants a strong friendship with the UK. It is a key strategic location, and we would be very foolish not to recognise that in our global Britain strategy and our wider strategic posture around the world, not least in relation to a place that wants a close friendship with us.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) on securing the debate. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) raised the specific issue of strategic placement. Does he agree that if we use our Commonwealth connections across Africa, we can highlight not just Somaliland’s strategic importance for military and diplomatic links, but its strategic place within the future development of the Commonwealth?
Stephen Doughty
That point has been raised with me on a number of occasions by the Somaliland Government and members of the Somaliland community. Although at the moment Somaliland cannot attend the Commonwealth summit as a full member, our all-party group has raised the question whether observer status or attendance in another capacity might be possible even now.
Building links through the Commonwealth and other international organisations will certainly be critical. As I mentioned, it was a delight to have the support of the Inter-Parliamentary Union for our APPG links, because there is a huge opportunity for mutual training, exchange and links between our Parliaments. There is a real desire for that on both sides; again, the Commonwealth could be key.
I end by re-emphasising the huge contribution that Somalilanders have made to Cardiff and to the UK, and the huge benefits of that mutual relationship of friendship and respect. It is a relationship that has not had enough attention; it needs far more, both from our Government and in this place. I am delighted by the voices that we have heard speaking up today in friendship, support and solidarity with Somaliland: they send a very strong message to the Government. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is an absolute pleasure to contribute to this debate. I often make contributions to Adjournment debates, but they are usually interventions, so perhaps tonight I will get the chance to say a wee bit more.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) on securing the debate. He said many things that I totally agree with. He mentioned the words “union of equals”; I hope that that will take place. There has been much talk of Somaliland citizens having the support of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland through and alongside their participation in wartime activities. That is very important—that strong relationship is clearly there. I hope that our Minister will reply very positively.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which the right hon. Gentleman and others referred to, I wish to draw the House’s attention to something that concerns me: the situation of Christians in Somaliland. It is heartbreaking that so few Christians remain in Somaliland because most have been driven out by extreme persecution or even killed. It is estimated that only a few hundred Christians live there today, but it is impossible to know the exact number because of the secrecy that they are forced into as a result of the divisive clan mentalities and vigilantism that pervade the country.
Christians suffer ostracism and discrimination from their wider families and communities wherever they are discovered. The few Christians remaining in Somaliland are forced to worship in secret for fear of attacks from extremists. The extremist group al-Shabaab, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, propagates anti-Christian ideology and threatens converts to Christianity with execution on discovery.
Many women in Somaliland are under threat. The situation is even worse for those who are discovered to be Christians—fearing rape, forced marriage or being stoned to death. I hope that tonight’s debate will illustrate and raise awareness of those things, and perhaps they can be addressed through the requests that we are making.
Our Government have made it central, in the Ministers who have been appointed, that in foreign policy we have a particular focus on religious persecution, the persecution of ethnic minorities and human rights issues. Those are key to my approach. I make a plea to the Minister for improvements in those things to be central to any steps forward that we all wish to see.
I do not have anyone in my constituency from Somaliland, as far as I am aware, but that does not lessen my support for what the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire said. Those who have Somalilanders in their constituencies, such as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who has a strong community, know that political factors are at play in the conflict. The religious motivation for attacks in the region cannot and should not be denied, with Christians suffering the worst of the persecution.
All the contributions tonight have clearly shown that we wish to help Somaliland economically, but central to any agreement must be human rights guarantees and religious freedom. We must help if we can. Others have referred to the democratic process and the education opportunities that we can build on, with jobs, a strong legal structure and improvements to health through covid vaccines, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
There has been much talk of the history that unites us, but it is important—I love history: it is probably one of the few subjects that I enjoyed at school and did fairly well at—that we also look to the future. The UK Government have stated that they will not formally recognise Somaliland as a sovereign state until it initiates a process to do so with the Federal Government of Somalia, but human rights issues and religious liberty need to improve. I agree that it is important that the UK retains diplomatic relations and a supportive presence in Hargeisa through this process, to ensure that there is no breakdown in relations between Somaliland and other African countries.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the House. This debate has benefited from the presence of a large number of Members who all want the best for Somaliland. I believe the Minister wants the best for Somaliland and its people too, and that is what we are trying to achieve. Somaliland needs our help, and perhaps the debate tonight will be our opportunity. Let us not be found wanting. The time has arrived and the contributions from everyone tonight are an indication of our request to the Minister and the Government to do well for Somaliland.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I did not intend to speak tonight, but I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) on securing the debate today.
When I was first elected in 2005, I was only selected as the candidate for my constituency about 10 weeks before polling day. During that short election campaign, I was approached by people from the Bristol Somaliland community. It was the first that I had even heard of the place, but by the time I came here I was a firm supporter of the need for recognition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) paid tribute to his predecessor, Alun Michael, and news of my support had somehow reached Alun on the grapevine. I remember him accosting me in the Division Lobby on my first vote and saying that we needed to campaign on Somaliland. He was on the Front Bench at the time, but a year later in 2006 we set up the all-party group, and I am pleased to have been an officer pretty much ever since. I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the mainstay of that group, organising all our meetings and being an expert source of information on what is going on in Somaliland.
As has already been said, Somaliland is a beacon of democracy not just in the horn of Africa but in Africa. It has held peaceful elections, and the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire referred to the election in 2003 when the presidency changed hands by 80 votes. If Donald Trump had lost by that amount, we would never have heard the end of it.
What was slightly disappointing about the most recent election is that, although there was yet another peaceful handover, quite a lot of progress still needs to be made on female representation. There was one woman MP, but now there are zero, out of 82 elected MPs. There was also low turnout in some areas. Through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy or other mechanisms, I hope we can do a bit more work on that front.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth in paying tribute to Edna. I, too, have visited the hospital in Hargeisa and she is a formidable woman. Indeed, I have met many formidable women campaigning on issues such as FGM, maternal health services and recognition for Somaliland.
I echo what my hon. Friend said about the economic opportunities that would be available if we recognised Somaliland. I have heard there is amazing scuba diving on the north coast by Berbera, which could be opened up as a peaceful tourist destination if it were not associated with Somalia. Many other economic avenues could be explored, and I share the concerns of people who are worried about Chinese influence if we do not step in.
The main thing I want to say is that Somaliland is clearly an independent country, and it has functioned as such since 1991. It established itself as a post-colonial independent country, albeit for a very short time, before it went into partnership with Somalia. The message that the UK will recognise Somaliland but we want to be the second to do so is frustrating. There is sometimes a bit of concern about being seen as too colonialist and it being rather patronising that we are the ones who grant nationhood on the country.
Mark Malloch-Brown was a very good Minister for Africa in Gordon Brown’s Government, and he really engaged with the APPG on Somaliland. I thought we were getting somewhere. He had had conversations with various African countries and the African Union, and it looked like we were almost there on recognition. The last we heard was the current Minister for Africa, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), say in November 2021:
“Our policy remains that it is for Somaliland and the Federal Government of Somalia to decide their future”.
It has nothing to do with the Federal Government of Somalia.
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady raises an important point. That is effectively giving the final say, the decision-making power, to a country that does not have free and fair elections, that does not have judicial and legal systems and that does not educate boys and girls. We are effectively rewarding poor behaviour and being harsher on those who demonstrate the type of behaviour and the type of system we want to encourage.
Kerry McCarthy
That is exactly my point. The future of Somaliland has nothing to do with the Federal Government of Somalia, and it should not be in their hands. We need to be brave and step up to the plate. The Minister needs to find a country that will go first so that we can go second—I think some of the Scandinavian countries, Canada and some African countries have talked about it. If we do not do that, we will find ourselves here in another 10 years’ time as Somaliland celebrates its 40th anniversary of de facto independence without being recognised.
I finish with a plea to the Minister. Will he step up? If we will not be the first, could he find someone who will be?
The Minister for Europe (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) for securing the debate, and I have learned of his long-standing and enthusiastic engagement with Somaliland. I am afraid that, probably like so often in the past, I might well disappoint him a tiny bit today, but I will try to answer many of the points he made.
I am also grateful for a debate that has been a pleasure to listen to, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions—the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty); my right hon. Friends the Members for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell); my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland); the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat); the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner); my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson); the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar); my right hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart); the hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Newport West (Ruth Jones); my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly); the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood); my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden); and the other Members who made speeches. They all demonstrated the depth of passion that there is for Somaliland, and many described how their constituents from Somaliland are so active in such a positive way in their constituencies, which I think is a testament and a tribute to them for making such a positive contribution.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire detailed Somaliland’s proud links and friendship with the UK, and I would like to think that what he detailed is absolutely correct. The Minister for Africa—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford)—would have been delighted to take part in the debate, but she is currently visiting east Africa, so it is my pleasure, as Minister for Europe and in post for less than a month, to respond on behalf of the Government.
Somaliland has a remarkable and unique story, and its people are rightly proud of their homeland and its achievements. Our relationship with Somaliland dates back to at least the 19th century, when a number of seafarers and merchants settled in Britain, and later the UK established a protectorate. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth mentioned not just the contributions of people from Somaliland to the city that he represents and to the United Kingdom, but the deep links and communities they have formed across Cardiff and beyond. Quite rightly, indeed, he mentioned his predecessor and his role in establishing the all-party group in this place, as well as the interest that has grown from it.
Today, we enjoy a really close partnership with Somaliland. We are the only western country with a permanent office in Hargeisa, through which we engage with the Somaliland Government on a range of issues—from trade and investment to climate change and development. The Somaliland authorities also have an office in London, and we have regular contact with their UK representative and his team.
The Government understand the strength of feeling towards Somaliland and the interest, which has obviously been demonstrated in this Chamber today, about the issue of recognition. In recent years, Somaliland has made great strides towards an inclusive democratic process, and that forms the bedrock of its stability. That was detailed in some ways by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and a number of other hon. Members. Last May, we saw successful local and parliamentary elections, and I am glad to say that the UK was the largest donor to that process, including in funding a mission to observe the elections.
Gavin Williamson
Will my hon. Friend tell the House what he thinks are the defining characteristics of what he would describe as a nation state?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I would be delighted to tell the House, but not at this point in time, because I am going to continue my contribution—
Chris Heaton-Harris
If my right hon. Friend wants me to come to that point, I shall happily do so, but possibly later in my speech.
It is now important to ensure that the presidential elections and reforms to the Upper House of Parliament go ahead as planned. In a region where democratic transitions are not always the case, Somaliland, as detailed by many right hon. and hon. Members, has demonstrated that one person, one vote elections are possible and that inclusive democratic processes can be achieved. I heard the salient and wise speech on religious freedom from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I thank him for that contribution.
Somaliland is also making great progress in trade and investment. The development of Berbera is the most notable example. By 2035, trade through there could support more than 50,000 jobs in Somaliland. We have also forged a partnership with Dubai Ports World to invest in logistics facilities along the Berbera corridor, which runs from the coast of Ethiopia. These investments have the potential to drive economic growth and boost stability across the Horn of Africa. Again, those are hugely positive developments, and again, we are proud to play our part. British International Investment, the UK’s development finance body, is investing in the port with Dubai Ports World as part of a $1.72 billion investment into freeports in Africa. We are using official development assistance to construct a new road bypassing Hargeisa that means that journeys past the city will take, we hope, just 30 minutes instead of up to 12 hours because of congestion. Those investments will not only boost prosperity but bring greater regional integration, which will support peace and stability.
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about the fact that the UK Government have felt able to invest in the port of Berbera and in the infrastructure of Somaliland. Does he think that such a level of investment would have been able to be done in Somalia? I think the answer would be no because of the security implications. Will he lay out what, in his view, are the defining characteristics of a nation state, and then comment on whether he thinks Somaliland corresponds to any of those defining characteristics?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I was about to come to the point about security, because we have also collaborated on security. The UK has supported training on human rights for Somaliland’s police and security services, and has contributed to 20 years of work on mine clearance. Happily, we expect Somaliland to be declared mine-free in the near future.
Gavin Williamson
In the spirit of debate, which is of course what this Chamber is for, is my hon. Friend able to respond to either of my questions as to whether he thinks it likely that the British Government would have been able to make the same investment in Somalia that they have done in Somaliland, and whether he could set out what he believes are the defining characteristics of a nation state, both of which I think he should be able to respond to as a Minister?
Chris Heaton-Harris
As my right hon. Friend asked me a question that he then answered in the same question, I will continue with my speech.
Somaliland has also made strong progress in development, which we have been proud to support. Education, particularly for girls, is a priority, as it is across all our work. Our Somali girls education programme has reached over 13,000 girls in Somaliland to support their learning and transition from primary to secondary school, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North noted well. Through the Global Partnership for Education, the United Kingdom has supported the development of Somaliland’s College of Education and trained nearly 2,200 teachers.
Sadly, climate change is having an increasing impact on Somaliland and the wider region. We are very concerned about the current drought, which has resulted in acute water shortages and reduced food security, particularly for 80,000 people living in rural areas. Early action is essential and the UK is developing a package of measures to address the drought. We are also working with international partners to ensure that additional funding is made available as soon as possible.
The strength of the partnership between the United Kingdom and Somaliland is clear, but I know that sovereignty remains at the top of the agenda for many people from Somaliland, so I want to address that question. I acknowledged earlier the strength of feeling on the issue, which is of real importance to people in the region and in diaspora communities around the world. There is a range of views on the subject and strong convictions exist on all sides of the debate. In part, that reflects the complex and at times painful history that followed the brief independence, in June 1960, of what had been British Somaliland.
The United Kingdom Government’s position on this matter has been consistent, and it will not come as a surprise to my right hon. Friend, as it is exactly the same as it was when he was in government. We value the close and productive relationship with Somaliland, but in line with the rest of the international community, we do not recognise it as an independent state. We firmly believe it is for Somaliland and the Federal Government of Somalia to decide their future. It is for neighbours in the region to take the lead in recognising any new arrangements.
Rushanara Ali
I want to draw a parallel to the country I was born in—Bangladesh. The UK Government took a leadership role and supported the right to self-determination of the country in which I was born during the war of independence between Pakistan and Bangladesh. It did not say that Pakistan should determine the future of the independence of what became Bangladesh. Does he not see how ridiculous the position he is taking is?
Chris Heaton-Harris
No, I do not. I believe it is completely correct for neighbours in the region to take a lead in recognising any new arrangements.
Gavin Williamson
If we take the position that the Minister is espousing at the Dispatch Box, which is that he wants there to be discussions between Somaliland and the Federal Republic of Somalia, that is something that people have engaged with extensively for many years. Does he also recognise that there cannot be a situation where the Federal Republic of Somalia can have a veto over independence? Britain has a role in convening and leading the discussions, especially as the UN penholder on Somaliland and Somalia.
Chris Heaton-Harris
My right hon. Friend makes a proper point, as he always does, but the UK Government’s position on the matter has been consistent. It was consistent at the time that he was in government and it remains the same. We have long encouraged dialogue between the authorities in Mogadishu and Hargeisa on the future relationship, and we continue to do so.
Bob Stewart
A nation state, according to me, is a grouping of people who all speak roughly the same language and have similar heritage. They become a nation state when people recognise them. I do not think it is fair that Somaliland becomes a nation state only if the people around it, who are traditionally against it, agree to that. We could take the lead, and I plead with my hon. Friend—a very good friend—to put it back to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that we should be changing our attitude on that.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my right hon. Friend for his point and the constructive manner in which he put it. My colleagues in the FCDO will doubtless be watching the debate, and will have seen the positive and supportive nature of it.
Chris Heaton-Harris
At all? I believe I have been giving way fairly regularly, but of course.
Gavin Williamson
Will my hon. Friend inform the House when the policy on Somaliland was last reviewed and how extensive that review was?
Chris Heaton-Harris
As Minister for Europe, I am afraid I cannot give my right hon. Friend that information, but I will happily write to him.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. On a practical point and in the light of the interventions that have been made, the Minister is well aware that there is currently huge political instability in the Federal Republic of Somalia, including huge chaos and infighting among the Government, along with many other problems. With whom should the Somaliland Government be having discussions? That is a practical question that they have raised with me, given the chaos we have seen in Mogadishu in recent months.
Chris Heaton-Harris
The answer is with their neighbours, the African Union and those who are properly interested. Indeed, there is a representative body in this country with which we engage. Those conversations should obviously continue through the appropriate routes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said, I am a politician and I understand that that position obviously cannot please all parties. I recognise that the supporters of Somaliland independence will quite rightly continue to make their case.
Let me conclude by assuring the House that although we believe that it is for Somaliland and the Federal Government—
Chris Heaton-Harris
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire and I will remember our happy days in the Whips Office—interesting House procedures do step in every now and then.
Let me draw my remarks to a conclusion by assuring the House that although we believe it is for Somaliland and the Federal Government of Somalia to decide their future, we remain committed to a close and productive partnership. We will continue to support the Hargeisa authorities and the people of Somaliland on their democratic journey. We will do that by investing in Somaliland, in pursuit of trade and prosperity, by building security for all Somalilanders and by supporting development and resilience to the impact of climate change.
I again thank all Members for their contributions to this excellent debate, which I have truly enjoyed. I look forward to having similar debates in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.
Charities Bill [ Lords ]
Tuesday 18th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Charities Act 2022 View all Charities Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 68-I Marshalled list for Report - (10 Dec 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain social distancing as far as possible. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission.
I will start by outlining the procedure for Second Reading Committees, which are uncommon. This Committee is charged with recommending to the House whether the Charities Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time, or whether it ought not to be read a Second time. The debate in this Committee replaces a Second Reading debate in the House. After this Committee has made its recommendation, the question on Second Reading in the House will be decided without further debate.
The rules governing a Second Reading debate in the House apply in Second Reading Committees. In particular, Members may speak more than once only by leave of the Committee or through interventions. The Minister, however, has the right of reply at the end of the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I beg to move,
That the Committee recommends that the Charities Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. This Bill brings in modest but important technical reforms that will allow charities to function more efficiently by implementing the majority of the recommendations from the Law Commission’s “Technical Issues in Charity Law” report. The reforms in the Bill are the product of extensive consultation and represent a great example of the Law Commission’s work to simplify complex areas of the law, and I am pleased to be discussing the Bill’s Second Reading in Committee.
Currently, charities are too often burdened by complicated regulation and administrative costs. This Bill will simplify processes, in turn enabling charities to ensure that their focus and resources are for public good. I thank my noble Friends Baroness Barran and Lord Parkinson for guiding this Bill so ably through the other place, and I put on record my thanks to all peers in the other place, including Lord Hodgson and so many others, who contributed to the thorough scrutiny of this Bill, ensuring it reaches us in good shape.
Both the Law Commission and the Charity Commission have provided their expertise to enable the Bill to reach this stage, and I am grateful for their continued support as it continues its passage through Parliament. I am delighted that the Bill has received cross-party support and has been warmly welcomed by the charity sector. I hope it continues to receive deserved recognition through the remaining stages.
It is important to remind the Committee, as did the Chair, that this Bill follows the special procedure for non-controversial Law Commission Bills. This means that the Bill is limited to implementing those recommendations from the Law Commission’s report. Under this special procedure, the Bill was introduced into the other place, where it was subject to considerable scrutiny, and the Government made some necessary amendments to the Bill. I am grateful to all those involved in making these changes as they will help fulfil the Bill’s aims more efficiently.
Charities legislation can be complicated, uncertain and unduly burdensome. That unfortunately forces many charities to obtain expensive legal advice, and distracts them from carrying out their charitable purposes. Not only does overly complex legislation negatively impact charities, but it hinders the Charity Commission in carrying out its important regulatory role. The changes in this Bill are therefore necessary for both the charity sector and its regulator, providing charities with more flexibility, time, and resources to focus on their charitable purposes while reforming unnecessary or overly bureaucratic processes.
At the same time the Bill maintains appropriate regulatory oversight, protections and safeguards, ensuring the protection of charities from abuse. Certainty and clarity in the law is of the utmost importance, and the Bill will provide trustees with increased flexibility to act in their charity’s best interests. There is no doubt that we owe both our charity sector and our regulator a clear and simple legal framework. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the Bill strikes a sensible balance between protecting charities’ assets and avoiding unnecessary expense and regulation.
This is a highly technical Bill implementing several important changes, and I will shed light on some of its main contents to help Members understand its positive impacts. This Bill will simplify processes for amending governing documents that are currently cumbersome and inconsistent across different charity structures. It will do that by creating a new, clearer statutory power for all unincorporated charities to amend their governing documents by resolution. That will align amendment mechanisms as far as possible across the different legal structures that charities can take. It will also be more straightforward for royal charter charities to make amendments to their governing documents, providing a new power to amend any provision, subject to Privy Council approval.
The Bill will also make it easier to use funds from a failed fundraising appeal for other similar purposes, which has long been a challenge faced by many charities. That will save time and resources for charities where a fundraising appeal has failed, for example, by preventing them from having to search for and contact donors of small donations to ask them if they would like their donation returned because a fundraising appeal did not reach its goal or raised too much money for its specific purpose.
The Bill also makes changes to trustees’ powers in relation to permanent endowment—assets held by the charity with a restriction on the use of capital. Trustees will be able to exercise greater flexibility in making decisions that are in the best interests of their charity, allowing them to better utilise their permanent endowment, whilst protecting the enduring nature of such funds. Alongside greater flexibility, a clearer definition of permanent endowment has been provided. It includes a new power for trustees to borrow from their permanent endowment and streamlines the existing power available to trustees to release those funds.
The Bill also makes changes relating to ex gratia payments—payments that charities feel morally obliged to make, but lack a legal power to do so. For example, if someone left money to a charity in their will, but gave their solicitor instructions to grant some of the amount to a family member instead, but then died before the will had been changed, legally the charity must take the money, but it may feel morally obliged to honour the gift to the family member. Currently it would need to decide whether to make the payment at a trustee meeting, and then wait for Charity Commission, Attorney General or court approval before making such a payment. That is time consuming and can involve costs that are disproportionate to the value of the payment itself. The changes in the Bill will allow charities to make relatively small ex gratia payments without seeking Charity Commission consent. The changes will also allow trustees, if they so wish, to delegate the decision to make these payments to the charity’s staff.
Currently, there are a number of burdensome statutory requirements around disposals of land by charities. The measures in this Bill will tackle those challenges by creating a simpler process and paves the way for secondary legislation to broaden the pool of advisers at a trustees’ disposal.
The Charity Commission will also be provided with supplementary powers in respect of misleading, offensive or very similar charity names to remove anomalies and prevent an inappropriate name appearing on the register of charities.
There is no doubt that charities cannot function without the vital role of trustees, almost all of whom are volunteers. The Bill will, subject to appropriate safeguards, allow charities to source goods from trustees, when doing so would be in the charity’s best interests, by resolving a gap in the current law. The Charity Commission will also be able to authorise trustees to be paid for specific work they have carried out for the benefit oftheir charity in limited circumstances.
In relation to saving administrative costs when it comes to incorporations and mergers, this Bill will ensure legacies in wills can be automatically transferred to a merged charity and will automatically confer trust corporation status on corporate charities in their capacity as trustees of charitable trusts.
On reducing burdens on trustees, protection will be provided to them to avoid charities being discouraged from pursuing litigation due to the risk of trustees personally having to pay the costs of charity tribunal proceedings.
Collectively, the measures will ensure that charity law works effectively for those delivering vital charitable services, especially given the huge pressure the sector has faced during the course of the pandemic. The measures will also ensure appropriate regulatory oversight and safeguards are in place to maintain public trust in this important sector.
The many notable benefits of the provisions I have outlined will have positive impacts on the sector. Small charities will especially benefit from the simplified legislation and reduced administrative burdens as they may not have access to legal advice. The changes will also make life easier for trustees by reducing administrative burdens and easing some of the regulatory pressures they face. Trustees will be able to act with confidence in their charity’s interests. In turn, we anticipate public trust to flow from charities working unhindered and able to focus fully on their charitable mission.
I reiterate that this Bill brings in welcome reform to charity law. It has widespread support and, as I have outlined, it is the product of extensive consultation and has been subject to rigorous scrutiny. I am honoured to have the pleasure of bringing this Bill before this Committee and the House. I hope the Committee will give this Bill its full support, so we can proceed swiftly with its remaining passages and begin working with the Charity Commission on its implementation. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Gary, and I am pleased to speak on the Opposition’s behalf. I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks and echo his thanks to everyone involved in the passage of the Bill through the Lords and in cleaning it up into the good state that we see it today.
Like probably all of us in this Committee, I am a member or supporter of several charities. For the record, I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and note that I am a trustee of Drug Science.
The charity sector’s contribution to society could not have been shown more clearly than during the coronavirus pandemic, with countless organisations and volunteers doing fantastic work to support vulnerable people. Charitable groups and organisations have ensured that rough sleepers have had access to food and shelter, delivered food to those in need and supported the vulnerable and those who had to shield during the darkest days of the pandemic. I pay tribute to all volunteers and staff in the charity sector, which forms such an important part of our civil society. Charities play a vital role in our communities and will continue to be vital to Britain’s covid recovery in the months ahead.
During the Bill’s passage through the Lords, there was agreement on all sides that the new measures represent important progress towards allowing charities to amend how they operate and making it easier for them to achieve their core purpose. The Bill seeks to make a series of changes that will make it easier for charities to navigate the law and to carry out their functions effectively, while retaining important safeguards.
I will not repeat the detail that the Minister outlined, but the Opposition support the Bill, which takes on board the majority of the Law Commission’s recommendations and makes several significant changes for charities, reducing red tape and making it easier for them to amend their governing documents, such as small changes to charitable purposes, to dispose of land efficiently, to use their resources more effectively and to avoid disputes over whether a trustee has been correctly appointed or elected.
The Law Commission’s “Technical Issues in Charity Law” report, which informs the changes in the Bill, was published in September 2017. Labour backs our charity sector and backed the report. We wonder whether these changes could have been brought to the House more swiftly, but we are pleased that the Government have finally brought the Bill forward.
Approximately 169,000 charities are registered with the Charity Commission in England and Wales, with a combined annual income of over £83 billion. The sector employs 3% of the total UK workforce, and more than 944,000 trustees are supported by over 6.2 million volunteers. All those charities and the millions of people who support their work might have benefited if the recommendations has been brought into law more quickly, but the Labour party supported the Bill’s passage in the Lords and will of course be doing the same in the Commons. We do so because the recommendations will fundamentally make running a charity easier and more efficient.
Among other things, the Bill clarifies certain powers of the charity tribunal, expands the Charity Commission’s role to deal with misleading, offensive or duplicate charity names, allows charities to amend their governing documents or royal charters more easily, permits more flexibility in the use of permanent endowments and makes it simpler for charities to combine their operations.
The implementation of the Law Commission’s recommendations is estimated to deliver cost savings for charities of at least £28 million over a 10-year period. The uncertainties in the law and the unnecessary regulation that discourage participation, delay charities’ activities and compel them to spend money on expensive legal advice will be removed, which will make life easier for charities to fulfil their charitable purposes.
However, in supporting the Bill, I ask the Minister to clarify why the Government did not accept all the Law Commission’s recommendations. In particular, recommendation 40, which states that
“it should be possible to obtain authorisation to pursue ‘charity proceedings’ under section 115 of the Charities Act 2011 from either the court or the Charity Commission in circumstances where the Charity Commission would face an actual or apparent conflict of interests”.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I too wanted to pick up on recommendation 40, because the Government’s response refers to non-legal remedies without setting out what they are. As a result, how to seek proper restitution must be made clear to trustees and charities.
Jeff Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I hope that the Minister will respond in his summing up. The sector was widely supportive of the suggestion, which would provide reassurance for those seeking authorisation and ensure that the Charity Commission is not compromised when making judgments in such cases.
Will the Minister also expand on the Government’s decision not to adopt recommendation 43, which sought to remove the requirement that the Charity Commission obtain the consent of the Attorney General before making a reference to the charity tribunal on a question concerning charity law or its application to a particular case. Organisations from across the charity sector share the view that the Charity Commission is well placed to highlight potentially challenging issues within charity law and that the current requirement for consent presents an unnecessary barrier to ensuring that issues of charity law can be considered and addressed by the tribunal.
On the topic of the Charity Commission, Members will have seen the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s hearing last Tuesday regarding the rather shambolic appointment—and now resignation —of Martin Thomas as chair of the Charity Commission. It is remarkable that the appointments system did not pick up the allegations of inappropriate behaviour, despite the charity in question formally reporting the incident to the very regulator that Martin Thomas was appointed to head up, so perhaps the Minister will set out how the Government plan to tighten the system to avoid a similar situation.
As I said earlier, the changes set out in the Bill mean that charities can spend less time jumping through excessively bureaucratic hoops and more time focusing on their core mission. They will also help to protect the public by, for example, stopping them being misled by a charity that deliberately adopts a name similar to that of another charity. We accept that phased implementation will allow charities to put processes in place to manage the new regime.
Like the Law Commission and the Charity Commission, Labour supports the sensible measures in and principles of the Bill and recommend that it be read a Second time.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my opposite number, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, and the hon. Member for York Central, who has extensive and significant knowledge in the charitable sector and civil society overall—I applaud her work over many years.
I am pleased that the Bill has such obvious support across the House and in the other place, and I look forward to taking it through the Commons. We share the ambition that charities should not be weighed down by disproportionate or unnecessary burdens, so that they can focus on their charitable objectives and on what they do best. Charities are a force for good in society and, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington said, England and Wales alone have 167,000 registered charities, all of which carry out excellent and indispensable work to help those in need. By working closely with the Law Commission and the Charity Commission to provide consistency and clarity in law through this Bill, charities can feel confident that we have understood their concerns and that we are on the right path to help them fulfil their purposes.
To address some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, he was right to express a sense of urgency here, because we are trying to address quite a number of issues. We would all like to move at speed, but this is an incredibly complex area of law. We have had the challenges of dealing with covid, but there has been extensive stakeholder engagement. I understand the sense of urgency, but this is a complex area, and we wanted to ensure that we did things correctly.
On recommendation 40 of the Law Commission’s “Technical Issues in Charity Law” report, the Government stand by their decision to reject it and set out its reasoning in their response. The removal of the safeguards in section 115 of the 2011 Act would be a disproportionate response to the unlikely possibility of an application being brought to the Charity Commission that created a conflict of interest. Such a scenario, if it ever arose, could in any event be addressed in other ways. However, I am happy to discuss the matter with hon. Members or to write to them if they have outstanding concerns.
On recommendation 43, the Law Commission recommended that the Charity Commission should be able to make a reference to the charity tribunal without first having to get consent from the Attorney General. The Government rejected that recommendation on the basis that the Attorney General has a duty on the Crown’s behalf to protect charitable interests in England and Wales, and the mechanism assists the Attorney General in fulfilling that duty. The Government concluded:
“The Attorney General’s consent for references to the Charity Tribunal is an important element in the system which should not be removed.”
The matter was thoroughly debated during the Bill’s passage through the other place, and the amendment to insert recommendation 43 was not accepted.
Charities have played an unprecedented role throughout the course of the pandemic, and the measures in this Bill will enable them to carry on doing their vital work in communities throughout the country without unnecessary controls. I thank hon. Members for their contributions today, and I hope this Second Reading Committee will support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, may I remind Members that they are expected to wear masks and to maintain distancing as far as possible? This is 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 lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the estate. That can be done at the testing centre in the House or at home. If Members have speaking notes, please send them to Hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Wendy Morton)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
The regulations we are considering today will support the continued smooth operation of essential channel tunnel traffic and provide long-term certainty, clarity and confidence to cross- border operators, both current and prospective, regarding the future train driver licensing framework for the channel tunnel. They will make the necessary amendments to domestic train driver licensing legislation to enable the implementation of a bilateral agreement that has been signed by the UK and French Governments on the mutual recognition of British and European train driving licences in the channel tunnel zone.
The regulations amend the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010, which set out the licensing and certification requirements for train drivers operating on the mainline rail system in Great Britain. The 2010 regulations transposed into domestic law an EU Directive on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in member states of the European Union—directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the EU Council.
As part of the preparations for the UK leaving the EU, the 2010 regulations were amended by statutory instruments in 2019 and 2020. The 2019 regulations corrected inoperabilities arising from the UK’s departure from the EU and established a “Transitional Period,” enabling the continued recognition of European train driving licences in Great Britain for a period of two years from exit day. The 2020 regulations made further amendments to the 2010 regulations by extending the recognition provisions, so that European train driving licences issued up to 31 January 2022 would also be valid until that date.
Following the end of the transitional period on 31 January 2022, the recognition of European train driving licences in Great Britain will end. The regulations we are considering will provide for the continued recognition of European train driving licences in the UK half of the channel tunnel and cross-border area when the transitional period expires. That will support the recognition of European and British train driving licences in the channel tunnel zone on a fully reciprocal basis under the related UK-France bilateral agreement. The regulations will therefore have a significant positive impact on cross-border operators and drivers by providing long-term certainty on the train driver licensing requirements for the channel tunnel zone, which on the UK side is up to Ashford International station for passenger services and Dollands Moor station for freight services. On the French side, it is up to Calais-Frethun for passenger trains, and Frethun freight yard for freight services.
The arrangements will also considerably reduce the administrative burdens on operators and the drivers they employ by enabling British and French drivers to operate within the channel tunnel zone without the need to hold two separate licences—one issued in the UK and one in the European economic area.
The regulations, and by extension the agreement that they will implement, are fully compatible with the Government’s fundamental red lines in the channel tunnel negotiations with France, which are to support the continuation of cross-border services, while conferring no role for the EU courts or the European Rail Agency in UK territory and avoiding dynamic alignment with EU law.
Information-sharing provisions are included in the regulations to give effect to requirements of the bilateral agreement. Under those requirements, the Office of Rail and Road will have powers to share information with the equivalent French authorities, for example, in relation to any concerns regarding the validity of a licence or compliance with licensing requirements on the part of either a holder of a European train driving licence operating in the channel tunnel zone in Great Britain, or a holder of a British train driving licence operating in the channel tunnel zone in France. The bilateral agreement will impose equivalent obligations on the French licensing authority, the EPSF, enabling information to be shared on a reciprocal basis.
The new regulations will also maintain the requirement for train drivers to hold a complementary certificate alongside their licence. Those certificates are issued by operators and confirm a train driver’s competence and knowledge of the route, rolling stock and infrastructure on which they are operating. Again, the agreement will mean British and French train drivers will be able to use one complementary certificate to drive throughout the entire channel tunnel zone, as opposed to needing complementary certificates issued in both Britain and France. To that end, the regulations amend the scope of recognition of complementary certificates issued under the 2010 regulations to include the area up to Calais-Frethun in France.
In summary, the regulations will reduce administrative burdens on cross-border operators and enable them to plan their businesses into the future with confidence. Most importantly, they will support the long-term continued smooth operation of cross-border services through the channel tunnel, which, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, bring significant economic and social benefits to the UK. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Stringer.
The last time I responded on behalf of the Opposition in a statutory instrument debate on the important matter of Brexit implications for our rail network I urged the Government to be ambitious in their view of our track connection to Europe. I urged them to support Eurostar services when covid-19 threatened their existence and to provide clarity on the important intricacies of rail services that run between here and mainland Europe. Sadly, neither was provided by the Government, so I am pleased to note that the regulations before us provide greater clarity on future train driving licences as the transition period relating to them comes to an end.
I think that we can all agree that as we legislate to implement the various consequences of leaving the European Union, safety regulations should be of the utmost importance. That is vital to ensuring the safety of passengers, protecting the highly skilled work of drivers and continuing the smooth running of our cross-border link. By doing so, we will guarantee that, as our network mergers with those of our European neighbours, proper regulation and legal requirements are met.
I hope that the new agreements reached will provide some clarity about the future framework of train driving licences for operators and drivers alike. The regulations will ensure that European train driving licences will not cease to be valid in the channel tunnel border area from 31 January 2022 and that British-held licences will be recognised up to Frethun freight and the passenger tunnels in Calais.
As the Minister said, the initial regulations provided a two-year recognition period, which will last until 31 January 2022, so the urgency of the matter is absolutely clear. However, I have some concerns that I would like the Minister to address. The SI stipulates that the ORR will continue not only to recognise the European train driving licences within the channel tunnel zone, but will ensure the issuing of British train driving licences. Can the Minister say whether that arrangement will continue when Great British Railways comes into operation? Will the body that will manage that entity have sufficient capacity to ensure that those processes continue? Although the Shapps-Williams plan for rail notes that the
“ORR’s existing role as safety regulator will continue”
some responsibilities will be taken on by Great British Railways. Considering that that new organisation will be operable by 2023, I know that operators and drivers would appreciate some clarity on the matter. Sadly, the proposed £2 billion cut to rail services does not fill me with confidence about that.
Much of the SI seems to rely on communication and information-sharing with our French counterparts, to ensure that safety and other related standards are met on our network. I hope that the Minister can assure me that measures are in place to ensure full co-operation on both sides. Can the Minister confirm that France is on track to sign the agreement? If not, what would be the impact? What steps would the Government take to mitigate the consequences? I know that the Government have a reputation for last-minute, often botched, agreements, but we must ensure that delays arising from unnecessary administrative burdens are avoided. We must heed what we have seen in the HGV sector.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is this Government who have consistently sought to maintain the connection from the UK to the rest of Europe? Almost 12 years ago, the Government sought to connect London with Frankfurt by direct train. It was not the Government who sought to frustrate that with issues related to the channel tunnel, but the French Administration. Would the hon. Gentleman care to consider that fact?
Mr Dhesi
The Labour party has continually argued that the Government need to support Eurostar to ensure connections with mainland Europe, but they have ignored us time and again. The lack of services has been a bugbear for many right hon. and hon. Members with Kent constituencies, with trains no longer stopping at Ashford and Ebbsfleet. A great deal needs to be done and that is why many individuals are disappointed with the Government’s performance.
To ensure the smooth running of cross-border services should be an important priority for our rail network. Indeed, the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), shared that belief and noted just last year that the continuation of those services was needed to provide significant economic and social benefits. I hope that we bear that in mind in the future and seek to maximise the benefits for passengers, operators and freight services.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer.
Yet again, we have last-minute regulatory legislation, and nobody put this on the side of a bus or, indeed, of a train. The SNP welcomes attempts to retain the close relations that we once had with EU member states prior to Brexit, with mutual recognition of credentials in the channel tunnel zone between Great Britain and France. Without Brexit, we would have retained such mutual recognition automatically, without the palaver of rending it in legislation a year after Brexit and two years since the transitional period. This is, of course, less than what we had before.
It is ironic that the Minister claims that the regulations reduce the administrative burden when they introduce new ones. The 2007 directive established a common regime for licensing and certifying train drivers in EU member states with a view to harmonising the regulatory regime to enable train drivers to move more freely across countries. The UK has now left that efficient pan-continental system. We benefited from freedom of movement, and it has been good for many us and those working across Europe. The UK’s actions to reduce freedom of movement dramatically are to our detriment.
Information-sharing provisions are included to give effect to the requirements of the proposed bilateral agreement. Under them, the ORR will be able to share information with its equivalent French authority, the EPSF. Although the SNP welcomes cross-country information-sharing, our party recognises that the UK has left important EU security institutions, and that may well have an impact on our overall public safety.
This is clearly a time-sensitive issue with the transition deadline at the end of the month. Can the Minister clarify exactly why there has been such a delay? The ORR produced documentation on the issue back on 29 July last year. The Government introduced the relevant draft legislation on 18 October last year, yet here we are, with two weeks to go before the deadline. What are the implications of that delay? How many people are eligible for the European train drivers licence? I am just curious to know how many people may be affected. What impact has that had on jobs and practical operations?
The SNP is keen to see the continued smooth operation of channel tunnel traffic. It provides economic and social benefits to the UK, and to Scotland, and we hope that regulations will provide some long-term clarity, certainty and confidence to cross-border operators regarding the train driving framework for the channel tunnel.
Wendy Morton
I thank hon. Members for their helpful and constructive contributions.
I note what the hon. Member for Slough said about safety and clarity. As I said in my opening remarks, the regulations are designed to support the continued smooth operation of essential channel tunnel traffic. They are designed to deliver long-term certainty, clarity and confidence to cross-border operations now and into the future. He also referred to the ORR—as a new Transport Minister, I am still trying to learn all the abbreviations. I take on board his comments, but in terms of the ORR and the Great British Railways, I think that strays into slightly different territory beyond the regulations.
It is important to recognise that it is in the mutual interests of the UK and France to support the recognition of train driver licences reciprocally. The bilateral agreement will deliver the smooth operation of channel tunnel traffic. I can assure the hon. Member for Glasgow Central that officials have done a huge amount of work to prepare the regulations.
The regulations will make the necessary changes to ensure that the UK is able to implement an agreement with France on the recognition of British and European train driving licences in the channel tunnel zone. They will provide long-term certainty to the train driver licensing framework applicable to the channel tunnel. They will also support the recognition of cross-border train driving licences on a fully reciprocal basis. That will allow cross-border drivers to continue to operate as they do now, providing certainty, clarity and confidence to passengers and the industry. That will reduce the administrative burden and support the continued smooth operation of those important rail services.
I am grateful for the opportunity to consider the regulations and I hope that the Committee will join me in support of them.
Question put agreed to.
Draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Amendment of Schedule 2 Exemptions) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Amendment of Schedule 2 Exemptions) Regulations 2022.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.
Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 outlines specific rights under the UK general data protection regulation, or UKGDPR, that can be restricted if they would likely prejudice either the maintenance of effective immigration control or the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control. That is known in shorthand as the immigration exemption.
The regulations amend the immigration exemption following the judgment handed down in the case of the Open Rights Group (and another) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In this case, the Court of Appeal held while there was nothing in principle unlawful about having an exemption for the purposes of maintaining effective immigration control, the legislation itself did not fully reflect the safeguards required by article 23.2 of the UKGDPR. As a result, the Home Office made a commitment to amend the immigration exemption, setting out additional safeguards, where further safeguards were considered relevant. The deadline for bringing those changes into force is 31 January 2022.
As part of the process of preparing the draft regulations, the Department has consulted with the parties to the litigation and with the Information Commissioner’s Office and has considered carefully their observations and comments, making amendments to the draft as appropriate. It may be helpful if I provide some brief details about the new safeguards.
The right of the data subject to be informed of the immigration exemption’s use, save in certain circumstances, is now on the face of the legislation, once again proving our commitment to be as open and transparent as we are able. We have also put in place an immigration exemption policy document explaining how the immigration exemption must be operationally applied and the circumstances in which data rights might be exempted. The IEPD has been published and we will, of course, keep it under review.
Publication will also give stakeholders the opportunity to offer their views on the IEPD, and where it can be improved, we will act to make it so. We are committed to addressing legitimate concerns, promoting high standards in the application of the immigration exemption, and protecting individuals’ personal data. We believe the IEPD builds on the rights and safeguards already enshrined in legislation and adds to the existing guidance the Home Office has published, and the Information Commissioner’s Office has published. As we said in court, we follow the ICO guidance and welcome the comments it will likely wish to make, and have already made, on the document.
To be clear, we are also specifically limiting use of the immigration exemption to the Secretary of State. We wanted to put beyond doubt that the immigration exemption may not be used by so-called ‘rogue landlords’ to restrict a person’s rights, a point specifically raised in court and by other parties.
I want to be clear that by laying the regulations, we are not seeking to remove anyone’s rights but to add more safeguards to them, and to increase transparency about how the immigration exemption will be used. That builds on the guidance that the ICO has issued, to which we are adhering, and will continue to do so.
I hope that I have given the Committee a good sense of why the regulations will make a positive difference to our law, and I commend them to it.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.
I heard the Minister set out the Government’s position and his suggestion that they are committed to fair processes. The Minister must recognise, however, the gravity of the proposed amendment. The Government have been dragged here to make that amendment because they lost a ruling at the Court of Appeal. Given the background of the Windrush generation case—the judge actually commented on that—does the Minister recognise the gravity of a situation in which campaigners have to go to court, subsequently win against the Government and the Government then have to introduce the regulations before us? The Government’s strategy was ill-judged in the first instance. I would be interested to understand the Minister’s thoughts on the campaigners’ view that the judgment and the proposed amending regulations do not go far enough to address the concerns of those who won the case.
In the second quarter of 2017, the success rate against the Home Office on immigration cases was 47%. That figure was part of the successful argument presented to the court by the campaigners. It has also been found that 10% of cases where a search of the Home Office database identified an individual as a disqualified person who should be refused a bank account were wrong. The Home Office has made terrible mistakes, and it should not require public campaigners to go to court to bring the Government into line.
The Opposition support the proposed regulations, but I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about my observations.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
As everyone knows, we are here because the Court of Appeal found that schedule 2 was inadequate and does not provide enough safeguards. I welcome the fact that the Government have not sought to appeal that decision in the hope that they can remedy the situation via legislation, but the proposed regulations do not address the unlawful conduct identified by the court. GDPR recital (41) makes clear
“a legislative measure should be clear and precise, and its applications must be foreseeable to persons subject to it”.
The draft statutory instrument does not meet that requirement. The basic problem is that the Court of Appeal decided that article 23(2) of UKGDPR required additional safeguards. The SI does not provide that, and it does nothing to provide any clarity about or expansion of the existing safeguards.
Lord Justice Warby expressed his provisional view that such safeguards should be “part and parcel” of the legislation, but instead the draft SI refers to guidance that is removed from the legislation. First, the SI cannot be considered “part and parcel”, and secondly, such guidance has no force in law and can be changed with ease and without scrutiny. Thirdly, the guidance has not been approved by Parliament. It does not have the status of a code of practice that is approved by Parliament. I raise those pertinent points because my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) raised those very issues with exemptions back in 2018. If we fast forward four years, here we are with the same problem.
Given the court case arose after it was revealed that the UK Government were using the exemption to deny 60% of applicants access to their data, is it any surprise that the legislation is still wholly inadequate? The very wording is inadequate because the exemption policy document can be changed by the Secretary of State if they consider it appropriate. With the added backdrop of the broken nature of the Government’s hostile immigration system, and the need for overall reform in multiple areas, and although I welcome the fact that the Government are at least trying to do something, ultimately the draft SI does not solve the problems identified. If anything, it actually gives the appearance that its purpose is to serve and protect the Home Office and to give the Secretary of State the power to do as they see fit. With that in mind, I have to say that the SNP will oppose the regulations.
Kevin Foster
I appreciate the points raised by hon. Members. As has been said, we have not appealed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. In response to the SNP spokesperson, we felt it better to engage with the issues and seek to resolve some of the concerns. I understand the point about why not address all of the concerns in primary legislation but we felt that given concerns to do with data-processing, primary legislation raises certain issues, whereas published guidance is available, and in fact we have already published in draft and we have received comments. We expect that to be an evolving document. Of course, there would be an issue had we decided to issue private guidance, and questions would be asked about whether we were trying to avoid scrutiny.
We expect the published guidance to balance the need to give individuals access to information where appropriate and, for the sake of argument, not requiring the need to inform someone that we are taking immigration enforcement action or the details on what intelligence we may or may not have on activities, particularly on those who may be involved in potential criminal activity. Although we recognise that there is a crime exemption, we believe that there are circumstances where we need a specific immigration exemption as well, rather than try to extend the criminal exemption to cover immigration. Hence the action we have taken.
We believe that the regulations meet the objectives that were set out in the judgment. We appreciate that there will always be those who take a different view, and there will always be opportunity for oversight from the ICO and judicial oversight. We cannot change the regulations at will if that then undermined the purpose of the core legislation. We believe the regulations represent a positive step forward that will resolve the core concerns. In particular, it is made very clear that their use is restricted to the Secretary of State, given that the purpose is to maintain effective immigration control, not to give an excuse to third parties to try to withhold data that should be released. That core point has been raised by many, but we should be clear that the exercise of the power lies with the Home Secretary in terms of defence of the immigration system, and not with a landlord or agent who may seek to argue the exemption when required to declare information.
We believe that the regulations are the appropriate step forward. We recognise that we are responding to a court judgment, but we did not seek to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court because we thought that the points made in the judgment were reasonable and ones that we could accept. I repeat that the document will be an evolving one.
Michael Fabricant
A very brief one, indeed. Is my hon. Friend confident then that there will not be another appeal? My hon. Friend would then be back here again coming up with another amendment. Does the SI actually meet the requirements of the court and the judgment?
Kevin Foster
We believe that it does. I can never guarantee that someone will not take legal action against the Home Office. The campaigners won and it would have been the Home Office that would look to appeal to the Supreme Court. As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South noted, we decided not to appeal but to engage with the judgment and introduce additional safeguards instead. The principle of having this type of legislative exemption was deemed to be perfectly rational, but it was felt that there was a need to be clearer and to have certain published safeguards on its use.
Given some of the data-sharing arrangements with the European Union on adequacy arrangements and the carve up it applied, we have engaged with the European Commission, and we are confident about our policy. Can I guarantee that no one will launch a legal challenge against the Home Office in future? No. We live in a country where people are able to do that. I have set out the purpose of the regulations, however, and the need for them. As I said, this is not about taking away anyone’s rights or weakening any protections on data access, rather the regulations are designed to strengthen those protections and to produce a living document that can respond to emerging issues and trends, and can be amended where appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Strengthening the Union as it Relates to Wales (First sitting)
(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Bore da a chroeso. Good morning and welcome. It might be helpful to remind Members that you have until 11.25 am for this debate. We will meet again at 2 pm for a debate that will last another two hours, until 4 pm. We have about 20 speakers, so I will ask people to be brief in their openings so that we can get some Back Benchers in this morning as well as Front Benchers. Please bear that in mind, because I want to call everybody. I have no power to impose any time limit, but brief contributions would be appreciated by all.
Under the resolution of the House of 1 March 2017— St David’s day—members of the Committee may speak in Welsh. I ask, however, that points of order be made in English. Simultaneous interpretation is available on channel 2 of the headsets that you should have. Any speech delivered in Welsh will be found in Hansard in both languages. Please switch off headphones when not in use to prevent feedback.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the matter of strengthening the Union as it relates to Wales.
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Davies. I know you would love to make a longer contribution, but sadly on this occasion we will be denied that particular pleasure. This is the first Welsh Grand Committee for some time, and it is a huge pleasure to introduce it. I welcome colleagues. Another cause of celebration is that it coincides with the birthday of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire—as if there were not enough to enjoy about today’s proceedings, we can add that to our list.
The country is talking of other political matters at the moment, but I want to spend my time this morning talking about the UK Government’s achievements in Wales, why the Union matters and why, thankfully, three out of four voters at the last opportunity still supported Unionist parties in Wales. In a week when apologies are on everyone’s lips, I will be making no apologies for this being the most active and engaged UK Government in Wales for the last 20 years; no apologies for standing up, when necessary and forced, to a Welsh Government who sometimes seem to enjoy all the responsibility but little of the accountability when it comes to Welsh matters; no apologies for taking a very proactive approach to covid and recovery, particularly in our economic interventions; and no apologies at all for delivering what 54% of the people of Wales voted for back in 2016, despite numerous efforts by some of our political opponents to reverse, delay or deny what happened in that referendum.
I will start with a reference to the Union—I make no apologies for my Unionist credentials, either. Sometimes, our attitudes as politicians of the Union can be wilfully misrepresented. For me, the Union is not a political movement or party; it is not instead of national identity, but as well as it. We all know that it is perfectly possible—we see it among our constituents all the time—to be patriotic and enthusiastically champion everything that is Welsh, but at the same time to recognise the value of the Union. How often have we all heard, even in Plaid Cymru seats, people say, “I’m passionately Welsh but I’m also British”?
In my mind, the question is not, “Could Wales survive on its own?”. An accusation that is occasionally, and sometimes legitimately, levelled at us—because of the manner in which we have sometimes constructed our arguments—is that we are suggesting that Wales could not survive on its own. I have never subscribed to that view. However, I have always asked, if Wales was to survive on its own, what would be the economic, social and cultural cost of taking that step? My attitude to the Union is one of respect, but it is also one of reality—of wanting to take a really detailed look at some of the more complex areas of the debate, around defence, currency, intelligence, security and international trade.
Simon Hart
If I could get into my stride and warm up a bit before I take interventions, I would be very grateful.
The question for today is, “What have the UK Government delivered for Wales while covid has been the dominant news story?”. I will not share it with hon. Members because it would take far too long, but I have two and a half pages of very varied, but very significant, achievements that the Government have been able to deliver—sometimes in collaboration with the Welsh Government, sometimes not. For example, £121 million has been directly invested through the first round of the levelling-up fund. The diversity of this is worth noting.
The Government have increased the Army footprint in Wales, the only part of the UK that saw an increase—from 6.7% to 7.3%. The Queen’s Dragoon Guards will return to Wales, to Caerwent, in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth. There will be a new reservist unit in the constituency of Wrexham. We are saving Brecon barracks—such an important part of the social and economic heartlands of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. We put £30 million into developing the first centre for rail excellence, which is between Port Talbot and Brecon, and will create 150 direct jobs.
The small ruminant rule has been lifted. Who would have ever thought that the small ruminant rule would play such a significant part in our lives? The lifting of it, which is enabling Welsh lamb to be marketed in the United States for the first time in nearly 25 years, is a significant moment for our farming industry. With the Welsh Government and the First Minister, we set up the coal tip safety taskforce—jointly chaired by the First Minister and me—securing £31 million for the Tylorstown tip and creating the first register of coal tips and their safety in Wales. No doubt there will be more on that.
There are other things, too: the £4.8 million investment in Holyhead hydrogen hub, and accelerated funding for the Cardiff city, Swansea bay, north Wales and mid Wales city and growth deals. The mid Wales growth deal, worth £55 million, was signed by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth only last week. We have invested £31.9 million to develop electric propulsion systems in Cwmbran, and there is Wales-specific funding through the British Business Bank of £130 million. I could—and I will—go on, and I know my hon. Friend will go on later.
There is lots to say, and it is all positive, imaginative and innovative. It is all about jobs—sustaining existing jobs and creating new jobs as we come, we hope, out of the pandemic for the last time. Probably the best example of the strength and value of the Union is the way in which we have been able to join forces with so many people in our pandemic response. I could go through a long list, but hon. Members should cast their minds back to the furlough scheme: one in three jobs in Wales was protected, at very short notice, by the might of the UK Treasury.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to thank the TUC? It was its representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that led to the furlough scheme.
Simon Hart
I am very grateful for the intervention, because I would like to thank a number of people. I do not think this scheme was the particular brainchild of any one group of people or other, but it was an urgent response to a serious and potentially catastrophic issue, so I extend my thanks to anybody who may have had a stake in that process. However, I particularly commend the Treasury. In all our time as Members of Parliament, we have probably not always thought of it as an organisation that moves at lightning speed, but on this occasion it did move at lightning speed, and it has saved hundreds of thousands—millions—of jobs in the process. The Chancellor took decisions that nobody thought possible at the time and implemented a scheme at a speed that nobody thought feasible at the time, and one in three of our constituents on the payroll in Wales had their job secured as a result.
Simon Hart
May I give way to the hon. Member for Arfon before coming to the hon. Member for Llanelli?
Hywel Williams
Dwi’n ddiolchgar iawn i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol am ildio. Ar nodyn hanesyddol, byddai Lloyd George yn dweud nad oedd yn dweud llawer o ddim byd am y pum munud cyntaf, er mwyn caniatáu i’r Siambr lenwi, wrth gwrs. Credaf bod hyn yn esiampl. Tra mae wrthi yn gwneud y diolchiadau, ydy’r Aelod gwir anrhydeddus am restru nid yn unig y buddion sy’n dod o’r Undeb, ond hefyd y costau? Hefyd, i Aelodau anrhydeddus yn ystod y dydd, a yw’r Llywodraeth am nodi yr hyn yr ydym yn ei golli o fod yn yr Undeb?
(Translation) I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. On a historical note, Lloyd George used to say that he did not say much for the first five minutes, to allow the Chamber to fill up, of course. I believe this is an example. While the right hon. Gentleman is expressing his thanks, will he list not only the benefits but the costs of the Union? Will the Government also note for hon. Members throughout the day what we lose from being part of the Union?
Simon Hart
I could not catch the hon. Gentleman’s question, partly because I could not get the headset to work at that speed, but the Under-Secretary of State for Wales passes on the fact that it is about the cost of the Union. Perhaps, when the hon. Member for Arfon is able to make his contribution, he will be able to expand on his arguments. As I will come to later in my speech, the value of the Union is what really matters as far as we are concerned. As I mentioned earlier, if any kind of coherent argument is to be made against the Union, it needs to be made in the context of its value rather than necessarily its cost.
I will mention one thing that always baffles me about the Plaid Cymru approach to the Union. For the last four and a half years, we have heard endlessly, relentlessly and somewhat tiresomely about the fact that Wales could not possibly survive outside the European Union; we have been reminded endlessly that our economic health has depended on our membership of it. The nation of Wales happened to take a different view from the hon. Gentleman, but I would love to know why he thinks that it is possible to survive outside the UK when apparently it is impossible to survive outside the EU.
Simon Hart
I am not going to give way again, because I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Llanelli.
Nia Griffith
Indeed, actions were taken quickly by the Treasury, but what happened in October and November 2020, when there was a huge delay? The Welsh Government recognised the need to use that half-term to have that firebreak, yet there seemed to be no movement by the UK Treasury. Where was the close working there? Where was the good relationship? Are there not ways, now, in which we could improve that relationship and make it work better, so that the UK Government take more notice of what the Welsh Government are saying and work better with them?
Simon Hart
Our intergovernmental relations paper was published last week. That would probably help me to answer the hon. Lady’s question. I think I am right in saying that back at the time of the example that she gives, the Treasury did make absolutely clear to the Welsh Government what was possible and what was not in that timescale. I am afraid to say that the Welsh Government, in that case, completely ignored the information that was given by the Treasury, and then made what I thought was a rather salacious effort to exploit that in the press, when they knew very well that the Treasury was working to the fastest legal speed that it was able to. That was one of those cases where there was a little bit of political opportunism at a time when the nation was looking to us for a practical solution.
Several hon. Members rose—
Simon Hart
I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
May I draw my right hon. Friend back to the point about the furlough scheme, in the context of the strength of the Union, because I think the point about that scheme is even better than he alluded to? The truth is that the scheme was a much bigger success than anybody had anticipated. Far from there being a crisis of unemployment at the end of 2021—as so many Opposition Members had predicted—when the furlough scheme was unwound, we actually had a boom in job creation and no employment shortage up and down the country, so full credit to the Treasury and the decision making of the Chancellor and his colleagues.
Simon Hart
My right hon. Friend is right. The decision-making point that he makes is particularly apposite, because these decisions were being made at breakneck speed in unbelievably unpredictable conditions and under significant pressure, and they turned out to be the right calls. They were made for the right reason, at the right time. It is no coincidence that the unemployment figures now show that there are over 400,000 more people in work than there were before the pandemic.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The furlough scheme was a great success, and I commend the Government for bringing it in. I do not know whether the Minister had the same experience as me, but throughout covid one of the difficulties was explaining to constituents the differences between Welsh and English policies. It was sometimes very difficult to get to the bottom of them, in particular with financial support for businesses in Wales, which could only be announced once the Welsh Government had had the money from the UK Government. That was difficult to explain to people, and to get out to people in a proportionate time. The single biggest question I have now is, why is HS2 considered to be an England and Wales project, when it does not benefit Wales at all?
Simon Hart
A neat means of getting in on the HS2 question.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I believe that a consistent approach to interventions, whether regulations or financial interventions, would in many cases have been more desirable for exactly the reason he pointed out; it would have been simpler to understand precisely what was on offer and exactly why we were doing things in the way we were. It was unfortunate that, from time to time, those arrangements were not as consistent as they could have been.
By the way, the hon. Gentleman’s point enables me to say that it was very important that the financial contributions that we were able to make to the Welsh Government were upfronted, rather than the usual Barnett system of them being provided retrospectively.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The issue here is consistency. I pay full credit to the Treasury when it acts properly and constructively with the Welsh Government, as it did over the Celsa Steel plant in my constituency during the height of the pandemic. It was a sensible co-operation and I thank the Secretary of State’s office for assistance on that.
On the cladding issues, which affect thousands of my constituents—a serious situation that they have faced under covid—there is not that co-operation between the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Welsh Government to tackle it. There is a desire for co-operation with some sound politics behind it, as thousands of people are in very difficult circumstances, but often announcements are made up here without consultation with the Welsh Government in advance, so that they can supply information to the thousands of people affected.
The Chair
Order. Twenty-one people want to speak, so may we try to keep interventions short, in the asking and the answering?
Simon Hart
I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth that co-operation and collaboration is generally speaking a preferable route; it works both ways. The IGR—the intergovernmental review paper, which I commend to him—will address a number of the concerns that he has raised.
On the instructions of the Chair, rightly, let us press on. I do not have a lot more to cover, but the point about collaboration with the Welsh Government is well made. Of course, I completely accept that a bespoke approach is important. However, there are also occasions—we have to admit this, on whatever side of the political fence we sit—where evidence does not support the decisions that have been taken.
In the past few weeks—although the matters that have overtaken us are another example—curious interventions have suggested that people might be fined for going to work, but not necessarily for going to the pub. They could do indoor exercise, but not parkrun, which is well known to be a contributor to people’s physical and mental health, and they could watch rugby from the clubhouse but not from the touchline. Things like that start casting doubt into people’s minds about whether the interventions are evidence-based. Going back to the beginning of the pandemic, I recall the calls that we all heard to follow the science. However, the science seemed to be limited to medical science only, when economic and social sciences are almost as important elements of the evidence that we need to follow as anything else.
Let us cut to the quick: what have the UK Government done? We have become the fastest growing economy in the G7. We are a world leader in the vaccine roll-out. We have done more tests than any other country in Europe. We have got 400,000 more people in work than at the beginning of the pandemic. That is because we are part of a fantastic Union. It is because we recognise the value of the cross-border economic zones, whether that is Mersey Dee, Western Gateway or Mid-Wales and the West Midlands.
I want to finish with this: it is about the future, it is about being optimistic, it is about being creative, it is about sustaining the jobs we have and being imaginative about the jobs we need and the jobs that we can create. It is all about delivering. The Cabinet meeting today is all about delivering. It is about jobs, it is about livelihoods, it is about working with the Welsh Government but also not being afraid to challenge the Welsh Government when we think they have got it wrong. It is continuing the work that we are doing to assist and support them in their responsibilities on things such as coal tips.
Through the levelling-up fund, the shared prosperity fund and the community ownership fund, we will continue to deliver jobs and prosperity not just to well-known parts of Wales, but to every part. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be vigorously signing growth deals left, right and centre. We did the mid-Wales growth deal just a few days ago. We will recruit the first ever Veterans Commissioner in Wales to look after the interests of Welsh military veterans. And we will deliver––I always said it was when, not if––the first free port in Wales. We edge ever closer to that moment. We will continue to remain optimistic and co-operative as far as the Welsh Government are concerned in attempting to get that crucial job-creating opportunity on to the books and on to the map in Wales in the very near future.
We will, of course, be central to our plans for net zero in Wales, whether that is small modular reactors, floating offshore wind or continuing to highlight the fact that Wylfa Newydd is probably the world’s––let alone the UK’s––best site for large-scale nuclear. We will look at the value that a nuclear cluster in north Wales can bring, whether that is medical isotopes, thermal hydraulics or any of the other technologies that were unheard of not that long ago but may possibly now have their epicentre in Wales. That is what levelling up is about. That is what the strength of the Union brings to our country, and at no stage does it ever compromise the fact that we are a proud nation in ourselves.
As we come out of one of the more challenging periods of our history, we have a fantastic opportunity to deliver on all those commitments. I do not believe that voters anywhere in Wales much want to hear us talking about a constitutional convention or arguing about who has got what powers and who has responsibility for what. We all know what we are responsible for: the UK Government know what they are responsible for; the Welsh Government know what they are responsible for. As far as I am concerned, the UK Government must get on, do the things we do, do them as well as we can, as lively as we can and as proudly as we can. I am not remotely ashamed of, and nor will I ever apologise for, the fact that the UK Government will be more visible, more active, more effective and more successful in achieving the things that we all want, whether they are social, cultural or economic. Now that we have the pandemic somewhere in our sights, our absolute focus in every Department of the UK Government will be to deliver on that commitment.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that the English translation of contributions in Welsh will come through channel 2. I ask Members to unplug their headsets when they are not using them. That will mean that when someone speaks Welsh, everyone will have to plug in at once.
Jo Stevens
Bore da, good morning and thanks very much Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today with all Welsh Members of the House. After four years, we finally have a Welsh Grand Committee debate.
Where to begin? Shall we start with the Minister for the Union––the Prime Minister, whose job it is in everything he says and does to strengthen the Union? He holds the most important office, one vital to the integrity of our politics, our government and our democracy. How shameful is it for the Union to have a Conservative Prime Minister mired in law breaking, deception and incompetence, leading a Government whose Ministers, at best, attempt to deflect from his inherent personal failings and, at worst, publicly and repeatedly endorse both them and him? Far from being strengthened by the Prime Minister and the Government, the Union is being degraded and weakened. For all his flag waving and plastic patriotism, no Prime Minister has done more to undermine the Union than this one. He has irretrievably damaged public trust and confidence in the UK Government and in UK politics. That is a bad enough legacy at any time, but during a health emergency it is unforgivable. As the Leader of the Opposition has quite rightly said, the Prime Minister is
“the worst possible Prime Minister at the worst possible time”—[Official Report, 15 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 1051.]
It is not just the Prime Minister who degrades and devalues our Union. Denigration and disinterest towards all our devolved nations runs through the core of the Conservative party. Only last week, the Leader of the House branded the leader of the Scottish Tories a “lightweight”, just for calling for the Prime Minister’s resignation in the wake of Downing Street’s law-breaking parties. The following day, when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, the Leader of the House could not even remember the name of the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. These are not just slip-ups; they lay bare the true attitude of the Conservative party to Wales and to the Union.
Labour believes that our Union is strengthened through valuing the importance of our common endeavour, fostering co-operation between the nations and Governments of the UK, and sharing wealth according to need. We are better together than any of us would be apart, and each of our nations can speak with a progressive voice.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Treasury has banked nearly £4 billion of surplus from the miners pension fund. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should change the arrangements so they are much fairer to miners and their widows in our coalfield communities?
Jo Stevens
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and he is absolutely right. That is a perfect illustration of how the Government could act to do the right thing by our mine workers not just across Wales, but across the United Kingdom.
All our energies, at all levels of Government and across every nation of the UK, must be focused on recovering from the pandemic, but also on rebuilding our economy and addressing the climate emergency. That is why our Union of nations must be based on and strengthened by security, prosperity and respect.
I will deal first with security. Obviously, the first duty of any UK Government is the security of its citizens—that is, security for the United Kingdom, for Wales, and for every community, large and small, wherever we live. Instead of strengthening the Union, successive Conservative Governments have weakened the fabric of the UK and torn communities apart—nations, regions, cities and villages; north and south, and east and west. These policies are driven by the aim of creating division, controlling power and, despite what the Secretary of State says, undermining devolution.
There is no clearer example of the impact on our security than the rising numbers of victims of crime. The Government have decimated police staffing numbers, with cuts of more than 25,000 police force staff across the country, including 11,000 fewer police officers, 8,000 fewer police staff and 7,000 fewer police community support officers. The Welsh Government have stepped in and funded 500 PCSOs in Wales, and will fund a further 1,000 during this current Senedd term, but these political choices by the Conservative party have resulted in less safe communities and more crime in Wales.
Chris Bryant
When I met with my local police recently, they told me—it was not the first time they have told me this—that the number of domestic abuse cases in the Rhondda far exceeds the number of three local constituencies added together, and in addition, that the numbers for the Rhondda Fach far exceed those for anywhere else in Wales. The police need resources because each case is complicated and difficult. We need far more resources to ensure that we tackle those issues. How are we going to get those resources if the Government in Westminster will not provide them?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is exactly right. If we look at the statistics, we know that there is an epidemic of violence against women and girls across the UK and in Wales. Women and girls feel unsafe at home and on our streets. The number of women homicide victims is at its highest level for 15 years. Rape prosecutions and convictions are at a record low. Labour has set out dozens of proposals in our Green Paper, but the Government have rejected them. A Labour Government would take our security seriously and provide crime prevention teams in every neighbourhood. New police hubs would be visible in every community, because security, for Labour, is a matter of social justice.
We would also introduce new employment rights and protections, so that people felt more secure at work. The Conservative party promised an employment Bill—its manifesto has turned out to be a complete work of fiction—that would make Britain the best place in the world to work. That would strengthen the Union, wouldn’t it? But where is it? We have not seen it.
The pandemic taught us that everybody needs decent pay when they are sick. But that is not the case for millions of workers across the UK—for those on low wages or who have insecure work, or who are self-employed. When they have been ill or have had to self-isolate, it has been disastrous for them. The sorry state of sick pay in Britain was an issue before the pandemic, but the Chancellor’s inaction has made people poorer and led to an increase in the spread of the virus. We know that Ministers have had advice throughout the pandemic from SPI-B that decent statutory sick pay was the key mechanism that the Treasury could use to ensure that people could afford to self-isolate. The Secretary of State talked about the Welsh Government apparently not following advice, but his own Government did not follow the advice of SPI-B.
We have the least generous sick pay scheme in Europe, at just £96.35 a week, which the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), admitted he could not live on. Two million workers, mostly women, do not even qualify for statutory sick pay. The Chancellor continues to ignore that—yes to national insurance rises, but no to increased or improved statutory sick pay. A Labour Government would improve the level of statutory sick pay and increase its coverage to reflect the modern world of work, and we would value the many employers who do provide decent sick pay for their workforce.
The Secretary of State gave us a list, and I will do my own list of how to keep citizens safe during the pandemic. The Prime Minister missed five Cobra meetings at the start of the pandemic; he delayed three lockdowns; he allowed people to enter the UK without checks; he handed contact tracing to private companies with no record of it; and he handed personal protective equipment contracts to cronies with no record of supplying it. The Government created a scheme to help the hospitality sector that actually helped the virus. They overpromised and underdelivered every step of the way. Contrast that with the actions of the Labour First Minister in Wales, who listened to the science, considered the evidence, took the advice of experts and did absolutely everything he could to keep Wales safe.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
In the list of examples of the First Minister following the scientific advice, would the hon. Lady explain where the delay in stopping hospital discharges to nursing homes comes? That policy led to many people dying needlessly in Wales.
Jo Stevens
I do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s description. I am sure that when we have the UK-wide public inquiry into the pandemic response that the Government have promised—we are still waiting for it to start—those issues will be addressed.
Jo Stevens
I am going to make some progress because, as you have indicated, Mr Davies, 21 Members wish to speak.
Coming out of the pandemic, and after 12 years of the Conservative party starving our public services and failing to invest, we need to rebuild. Instead, we have inflation rocketing to 5.1%; GDP growth for this quarter has been revised down; and the Government are trapping all four nations in a low-growth, high-tax cycle, hitting working people with tax rise after tax rise, with national insurance and council tax going up in just a couple of months. By 2026-27, the average household will be paying over £3,000 more in tax than when the Prime Minister took office. Households are dealing with the cost of living crisis, and we heard about that from the Culture Secretary yesterday. There is a growing cost to businesses, with petrol, food and energy bills rocketing.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the cruellest cuts in the past few months was the £20 cut in universal credit? That has hit thousands of families right across Wales at the worst possible time.
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Probably every single Conservative Member here voted for that £20 cut.
Chris Bryant
Not everybody—the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) did not.
Jo Stevens
I apologise—nearly everybody.
We want the UK to be a prosperous country again, with a proper industrial strategy to improve our productivity and ensure that we buy, make and sell more in Britain, and that we equip people with the skills and opportunities to contribute to that.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Let me take my hon. Friend back to the BBC point. Does she not find it rather perplexing that while the Government will not deal with the increased costs of energy or food prices or tackle inflation, the Secretary of State for Culture says that saving people a few pennies every month—a few pounds every year—will somehow deal with the real problems faced by many constituents in Wales and across the UK? It is truly absurd that the Government think that will solve the cost of living crisis.
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is right. As my colleague the shadow Culture Secretary said yesterday, it is focusing on red meat rather than the dead meat of the Prime Minister.
The example of the BBC—vandalising an envied British institution in its centenary year—is a pathetic attempt to divert attention from the Prime Minister, whose premiership is hanging by a thread. Did the Secretary of State not tell the Culture Secretary that the BBC’s role in our creative industries in Wales is a huge success story? Every £1 of the BBC’s economic activity in Wales generates £2.63 in our economy. Growth in the number of creative jobs and businesses as a result of the BBC’s integral role in Wales has outstripped growth in the sector across the whole UK. Was the Secretary of State even consulted before the Culture Secretary was let loose on her Twitter account over the weekend? I know he will say that S4C is getting £7.5 million a year to support its digital offering, which is welcome. However, in 2010, S4C’s annual budget was nearly £102 million. This year, it is £81.3 million. That is a real-terms cut of £51 million by this Government.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
All this is taking place within a succession of stories about this Government wasting Welsh taxpayers’ money. We have the PPE contracts that we have talked about; the Ministry of Defence and its £13 billion of procurement; the Ministry of Justice and its lost projects; and the Department for Work and Pensions losing control of universal credit fraud. Just yesterday, the Treasury gave away billions from the relief schemes that it is not chasing up. Is that not a criminal waste?
Jo Stevens
Absolutely, and the list could go on. I could add the privatisation of probation services, which was a huge waste of money.
The Union could also have been strengthened if the Government had made a better fist of negotiations over post-Brexit trade deals and tariffs. We have the humiliating failure of the International Trade Secretary to get agreement from the US Administration for face-to-face talks on steel and aluminium tariffs. If the Prime Minister did not have to focus solely on his disintegrating premiership, he would be able to heed our call to personally intervene on this issue and show the leadership required to protect Welsh and UK jobs in steel and aluminium—
Jo Stevens
And in energy, indeed—my hon. Friend is quite right.
Finally, we probably could have had a whole Welsh Grand Committee on the issue of respect, because it is at the very core of strengthening the Union. Respect for people and places must be at the heart of our Union of nations. Everyone has a right to be treated with respect and no place should be left behind. Everyone matters. Respect between the four Governments of the United Kingdom needs to be embedded in everything we do.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Surely it would be a matter of respect to the nation of Wales and those who have suffered from covid for the Welsh Government to hold their own inquiry into the covid crisis, as is being done by the Governments of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is that not the ultimate respect that the people of Wales are due?
Jo Stevens
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman but, in fact, it was his own party leader who promised a UK-wide inquiry into the covid pandemic response, and I am sure that within that there will be specifics on each nation. However, that is what the Prime Minister has promised, and that is what we are still waiting for. We have not seen it yet.
The 2019 Conservative manifesto contained an entire chapter on strengthening the Union. I looked at it yesterday: a nice little script for the Prime Minister, guaranteeing that promises would be delivered. However, there have been broken promises already, such as his pledge not to raise national insurance. We have also seen a deliberate effort to undermine and roll back the devolution settlement. How about the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 for starters, or the promise that Wales would not receive a penny less in replacement funding than it had received from EU structural funds? We are £375 million down and counting. There is the deliberate bypassing of the Welsh Government on areas of devolved competence within the levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund, of which we have not yet had the details.
Stephen Doughty
Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that there also has to be respect over issues of cross-border importance relating to the environment? There were proposals to build an incinerator on the edge of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West. The Welsh Government have now introduced a moratorium on incineration, and the project will not go ahead. The UK Government were advertising for investment in the project, which was opposed by residents in Cardiff and Newport.
Jo Stevens
That is a perfect example of non-co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Government —completely the opposite of the examples that the Secretary of State gave. The UK Government’s approach towards the Welsh Government has basically been, “Less say and less money.”
Labour introduced devolution to empower Wales and Welsh communities, bringing decision making closer to the people of Wales, but the Government’s deliberate policy of disrespect for the Welsh Government and the people of Wales is undermining the devolution settlement and doing the opposite of strengthening the Union.
Jo Stevens
We will need a new and durable constitutional settlement, which is why the Commission on the Future of the UK, led by the former Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will chart a new course for our Union of nations. I am pleased that I will be part of the commission, along with the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, but remember that it was a Labour UK Government who delivered devolution from that knife-edge referendum win in 1997. Regardless of whether the Conservative party likes it or not, devolution now consistently enjoys high majority support among the people of Wales.
Jo Stevens
I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Respect for devolution, respect for the devolution settlement and respect for the Welsh Government has to be at the heart of our Union of nations. With a UK Labour Government in Westminster and a Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff, we will see that happen.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Davies. Mae’n bleser i wasanaethau dan eich cadeiryddiaeth chi a hefyd i wneud hynny drwy’r Gymraeg heddiw.
Rwy’n croesawu teitl y ddadl heddiw oherwydd ymddengys ei fod e’n cydnabod bod yna ddiffygion yn yr Undeb yn ei bresennol wedd a bod angen ei gryfhau er mwyn gwasanaethu pobl Cymru yn well. Felly mae gennym gyfle i drin a thrafod gwendidau polisïau’r Llywodraeth Brydeinig, ond hefyd efallai y cawn gyfle i ystyried y llwybrau sy’n agored i’n cenedl wrth i ni edrych tua’r dyfodol. Mae un llwybr wedi’i osod ar seiliau bregus y setliad cyfansoddiadol presennol, gwaddol cyfuniad anffodus o echdynnu economaidd ac ymyleiddio gwleidyddol. Mae’r llwybr yma’n gofyn i ni israddio ein hadnoddau a’n huchelgeisiau fel cenedl er mwyn gwasanaethu blaenoriaethau’r Undeb yn lle, a derbyn nad oes modd gwella ar y status quo.
Y llwybr arall, a bydd neb efallai’n cael syndod o glywed hyn, y llwybr yr hoffwn i ac—efallai bydd hyn yn syndod i rai pobl—yr hoffai nifer gynyddol o bobl ledled Cymru ei gymryd, yw’r llwybr sy’n arwain at annibyniaeth—llwybr llawn cyfle sy’n gofyn i ni ddyheu am ffyrdd tecach a mwy cynhwysol o lywodraethu, ond yn bwysicaf oll, yr her i gymryd y cyfrifoldeb dros wireddu hynny dros ein hunain.
Rwyf am ganolbwyntio fy sylwadau heddiw ar feysydd allweddol y dylai rhai sy’n credu yn yr Undeb weithredu arnynt ar fyrder os ydynt am gryfhau’r Undeb fel y mae teitl y ddadl yn crybwyll, oherwydd ar hyn o bryd, gwelwn eu bod nhw’n prysur danseilio’r berthynas rhwng cenhedloedd ynysoedd Prydain.
Yn fy marn i, mae problemau’r Undeb ar ei wedd bresennol yn deillio yn syml iawn o adeiladwaith diffygiol. Gwelwn Undeb rhwng sawl cenedl a rhanbarth yn cael ei ddominyddu gan un genedl ac un Senedd. Mae’r fath oruchafiaeth yn golygu y caiff hawliau a chyfrifoldebau’r cenhedloedd eraill eu hanwybyddu yn aml. Mae anghymesuredd y setliadau datganoli gwahanol ond yn gwaethygu’r sefyllfa, ond does dim awgrym bod gan y rhai sydd am weld dyfodol i’r Undeb unrhyw fwriad, na hyd yn oed awydd, i ddiwygio’r setliad cyfansoddiadol presennol er mwyn mynd i’r afael â’i ddiffygion.
Ystyriwch am eiliad sut y mae San Steffan wedi canoli grym yn gynyddol yn Whitehall ers Brexit, ac wedi ceisio uno gwledydd Prydain trwy orfodaeth yn hytrach na meithrin y cydweithrediad hynny rhwng ei Llywodraethau. Mae ond angen i ni edrych ar Ddeddf y Farchnad Fewnol 2020 neu’r Bil Rheoli Cymorthdaliadau am enghreifftiau o hyn. Mae’r ddau wedi cael eu gorfodi ar Gymru. Yn wir, wrth gyfeirio at yr ail fesur hwnnw, dywedodd Gweinidog Cyllid Llafur Cymru:
“Er gwaethaf awgrymiadau gan Lywodraeth y DU bod ymgysylltu manwl wedi’i gynnal, nid yw’r Bil ond yn adlewyrchy buddiannau cul Llywodraeth y DU.”
Pan wrthododd y Senedd y cynnig cydsyniad deddf-wriaethol, anwybyddodd San Steffan ei gwrthwynebiad yn llwyr. Felly yn hytrach na chydweithio, yr hyn a welwn yw deddfwriaeth sy’n tanseilio’n uniongyrchol alluoedd y gwledydd datganoledig i wella bywydau pobl yng Nghymru.
(Translation) It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to be able to do so through the medium of Welsh.
I welcome the title of today’s debate, because it appears to recognise that there are shortcomings in the Union in its current format and that there is a need for it to be strengthened in order to serve the people of Wales better. We have an opportunity to deal with the weaknesses of the UK Government’s policies, and perhaps an opportunity to consider the pathways that are open to our nation as we look to the future. One pathway is clearly set on the vulnerable foundations of the current constitutional settlement, with an unfortunate situation of political leadership. This pathway requires us to lower our ambitions, to follow the Union’s principles, and to accept that we cannot continue with the status quo.
The other pathway, which perhaps nobody will be surprised to hear is the pathway that I and an increasing number of people in Wales and the UK would like to take, leads towards independence, an opportunity to look for fairer and more comprehensive ways of governing and, most important, the challenge of taking responsibility for realising that for ourselves.
I will focus my comments on the key areas that those who believe in the Union should take strong action on as a matter of urgency if we are to strengthen the Union, as the title of the debate suggests, because at the moment, we can see that they are undermining the relationship between the nations of the British isles.
In my view, the problems of the Union in its current format emanate from a flawed structure. We are dominated by one nation and one Parliament, and such supremacy means that the rights and responsibilities of the other nations are frequently being disregarded. An imbalance in the different devolution settlements exacerbates the situation, but there is no suggestion that those who want to strengthen the Union have any intention or desire to reform the current constitutional settlement in order to address the flaws in it.
Consider for a moment how Westminster has increasingly centralised power in Westminster since Brexit and sought to unite the nations of Britain by enforcement, rather than nurturing collaboration between its Governments. We need only to look at the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the Subsidy Control Bill, both of which are being forced on Wales. Indeed, referring to the second piece of legislation, the Welsh Labour Finance Minister said:
“Despite suggestions from the UK Government that detailed engagement has been undertaken, the Bill only reflects the narrow interests of the UK Government.”
When the Senedd rejected the legislative consent motion, Westminster disregarded its opposition. Rather than collaboration, what we see is legislation that directly undermines the abilities of the devolved nations to improve the lives of people in their countries.
Hywel Williams
Onid ydy hyn yn codi allan o ryw ddryswch sylfaenol sy’n cael ei arddangos gan y Llywodraeth ac, yn wir, gan yr Wrthblaid swyddogol? Hynny yw, eu bod nhw’n aml iawn yn cymysgu buddiannau Prydain a Lloegr. Dw i’n meddwl y gwnaethon ni glywed Aelod anrhydeddus dros De Clwyd yn nodi hynny gynnau, pan ddywedodd o “Llywodraeth Lloegr”. Does yna’r un!
(Translation) Does not this situation arise from a fundamental confusion on the part of the Government and, indeed, the official Opposition? That is, they often confuse the interests of Britain and England. I think we heard the hon. Member for Clwyd South indicate as much when he referred to the “English Government”. There is no English Government.
Ben Lake
Rwy’n ddiolchgar iawn i’m Ffrind anrhydeddus am ei sylwadau. Yn wir, rwy’n un o’r rheiny sy’n credu’n fawr y byddai’r Undeb, os ydyw e am barhau tuag at y dyfodol, yn buddio’n llwyr o gael Llywodraeth i Loegr a Senedd i Loegr, oherwydd ar hyn o bryd does dim sefydliad o’r fath yn bodoli ac mae’n rhaid i’r Senedd Brydeinig a’r Llywodraeth Brydeinig wisgo dwy het. Rwy’n bell o fod yn berffaith, ond rwy’n credu ei bod hi’n anodd iawn i unrhyw Lywodraeth gyfiawnhau dwy swydd mor bwysig ar yr un pryd.
(Translation) I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I am one of those who strongly believes that the Union, if it is to continue in the future, would really benefit from there being a Government and a Parliament for England. At the moment, there is no such institution, and the UK Government and Parliament have to wear two hats. Despite the fact that I am far from perfect, I think it is difficult for any Government to justify two such important jobs at the same time.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
You talk about the UK Government not respecting devolution. I think the words you used, if the translation was correct, was a failure to reform, but is it not the case that since 2010—since we have had Conservative Governments—the Senedd has undergone several reformations? It is perhaps a little over 18 months since it has become a full-blown Welsh Parliament, and it is continually changing and evolving, as the people of Wales have expressed that it should. Is it therefore not the case that Conservative Governments have consistently shown respect for devolution, and not, as you say, undermined it?
Ben Lake
Thank you, Mr Davies. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend for that intervention. I acknowledge the truth of what he is saying, in that a number of the Wales Acts have been introduced in the last 10 years under Conservative Administrations, although I would point out that we still have an asymmetric devolution settlement in which Wales does not enjoy the same level of autonomy and discretion over policy areas that Northern Ireland and Scotland take for granted. Indeed, even certain city regions in England have greater discretion and influence over certain policy areas than the Welsh Government, such as policing. I will come on to that point in a moment.
Y meysydd polisi sy’n amlygu canlyniadau anffodus yr ymagwedd hon fwyaf yw polisi isadeiledd trafnidiaeth a llywodraethiant Ystad y Goron yng Nghymru. Os trown ni’n gyntaf at ein rheilffyrdd, mae’n ffaith bod nifer o aelodau ar ddwy ochr y Pwyllgor wedi crybwyll yn y gorffennol bod rheilffyrdd Cymru yn cael eu hesgeuluso’n ddifrifol dan y setliad presennol a bod gwaith adnewyddu a gwella’r rhwydwaith yn dioddef o danariannu sylweddol. Mae gan Gymru tua 11% o rwydwaith rheilffyrdd y Deyrnas Unedig, ond ar gyfartaledd mae’n derbyn dim ond tua 6% o wariant Prydeinig ar weithrediadau, gwaith cynnal a chadw ac, yn bwysig iawn, gwaith adnewyddu. Mae Llywodraeth Cymru wedi cyfrifo y bydd rheilffyrdd yng Nghymru yn dioddef tanfuddsoddiad o tua £2.9 biliwn yn y cyfnod rhwng 2001 a 2029 am y rheswm hynny.
Nid yw’r ffigurau hyn yn syndod, wrth gwrs, os cofiwn ni fod Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig wedi ymrwymo i fuddsoddi jyst £350 miliwn yng Nghymru yn y cyfnod hwn ar welliannau o gymharu â thua £50 biliwn ledled y DU. Yn wir, bu Llywodraeth Cymru yn go blwmp ac yn blaen am y sefyllfa, yn dadlau bod methiannau’r Undeb yn y maes hwn wedi arwain at ddibrisio a thanfuddsoddi yn rhwydwaith rheilffyrdd Cymru
“o gymharu â’r rhwydwaith yn Lloegr.”
Mae hyn yn amharu nid yn unig ar yr economi ond hefyd ar ein gallu i ddatgarboneiddio ein rhwydwaith trafnidiaeth.
Efallai y cawn yr enghraifft gliriaf o fethiant, ac yn wir ffolineb, y setliad presennol yn HS2, prosiect fydd, yn ôl un adroddiad gan Lywodraeth Prydain—ac rwy’n eithaf siŵr mai’r Trysorlys ei hun wnaeth gomisiynu adroddiad gan KPMG—yn golygu y byddai Cymru’n gweld colled o tua £150 miliwn y flwyddyn mewn allbwn economaidd. Ond er gwaetha’r ffaith yma, mae’r Trysorlys yn parhau i adnabod y prosiect fel un sydd o fudd i Gymru a Lloegr. O ganlyniad i hyn, mae Cymru mewn perygl o golli rhwng £4 biliwn a £5 biliwn mewn buddsoddiad yn yr isadeiledd trafnidiaeth, a hynny oherwydd yr ymdriniaeth a gaiff gan y Trysorlys.
(Translation) The main policy areas that manifest the unfortunate results of this attitude are transport infrastructure and the Crown Estate in Wales. A number of Members on both sides of the Committee have suggested that Welsh railways are being seriously neglected by the current settlement and that refurbishment work really lacks funding. Wales has around 11% of the UK rail network but on average receives only about 6% of the current expenditure on maintenance and, importantly, refurbishment and renewal work. The Welsh Government have estimated that railways in Wales will suffer an underinvestment of about £2.9 billion between 2001 and 2029 for that reason.
Those figures are no surprise if we bear in mind that the UK Government committed to investing around £350 million in Wales in that period on improvements, compared with around £50 billion across the United Kingdom. The Welsh Government were quite clear about the situation, arguing that failings of the Union in that regard had led to the devaluing of and underinvestment in the Welsh rail network
“compared to the network in England.”
That impairs not only the economy but our ability to decarbonise our transport network.
A clear example of the failure, and indeed stupidity, of the current settlement is the HS2 project. The UK Government said—I am sure that it was the Treasury that commissioned a KPMG report—that Wales could see a loss of £150 million a year in economic output. But despite that, the Treasury continues to recognise the project as one that is beneficial to Wales and England. Wales is in danger of losing between £4 billion and £5 billion in investment in transport infrastructure as a result of the treatment that it receives from the Treasury.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Rwy’n ddiolchgar i’r Aelod anrhydeddus am ildio. Ydy e’n derbyn bod Network Rail wedi dweud bod Cymru, yn enwedig gogledd Cymru, yn mynd i elwa o’r ffaith bod ni’n mynd i gael cysylltiadau gwell gyda Llundain oherwydd HS2?
(Translation) I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he accept that Network Rail has said that Wales—particularly north Wales—was going to benefit from better connections with London as a result of HS2.
The Chair
Order. May I ask people to speak up? Apparently, the translators could not hear what you said, David. Could you repeat it and speak up?
David T. C. Davies
Sorry, Mr Davies; that is not normally a problem I suffer from. Network Rail has said to us that it believes north Wales will benefit greatly from the better connections with London that will come about as a result of HS2.
Ben Lake
Rwy’n ddiolchgar iawn i’r Gweinidog am ei ymyriad. Mae Plaid Cymru wedi cydnabod o’r cychwyn cyntaf y byddai rhai o welliannau HS2—pe baen nhw’n cael eu gwireddu yn llawn, wrth gwrs—yn fuddiol i ogledd Cymru. Ond os edrychwn ni at Gymru yn ei chyfanrwydd, mae’r adroddiad a gomisiynwyd gan y Trysorlys ei hunan yn dangos y bydd colled net o £150 miliwn y flwyddyn mewn allbwn economaidd. Mae’n rhaid i ni ystyried yr effaith mae hyn yn ei gael a bod y Trysorlys yn gostwng y ffactor cymaroldeb a’r gwariant ar gyfer yr Adran Drafnidiaeth yn y datganiad cyllid.
Dyna pam rwyf am annog Aelodau yma heddiw i wrando ar argymhelliad y Pwyllgor Materion Cymreig y dylai HS2 cael ei adnabod fel prosiect sy’n buddio Lloegr yn unig. Fe fyddwn i’n mynd yn ymhellach, ac annog pobl i gefnogi datganoli cyfrifoldeb dros y rheilffyrdd i Senedd Cymru. Yn wir, yn ôl Canolfan Llywodraethiant Cymru, pe byddai’r cyfrifoldeb hwn eisoes wedi ei ddatganoli i Gymru, byddai buddsoddiad ychwanegol o hanner biliwn o bunnoedd wedi bod rhwng 2011 a 2020.
Enghraifft arall o ddiffyg yn y setliad presennol yw triniaeth yr Undeb o Ystad y Goron yng Nghymru. Er gwaetha’r ffaith y datganolwyd rheolaeth Ystad y Goron i’r Alban yn 2017, mae San Steffan yn cadw rheolaeth dros yr ystad yng Nghymru. Mae hyn yn golygu bod refeniw o adnoddau naturiol Cymru yn cael ei drosglwyddo i’r Trysorlys yn hytrach nag aros yn y cymunedau lle cânt eu cynhyrchu. Ddoe, fe welon ni bod Ystad y Goron yr Alban wedi cwblhau ei arwerthiant diweddaraf o hawliau gwely’r môr i ddatblygwyr ynni gwynt. Trwy 17 o brosiectau, mae’r Alban wedi sicrhau bron i £700 miliwn ac wedi denu consortiwm byd-eang o ddatblygwyr i fuddsoddi ymhellach yng nghadwyn gyflenwi yr Alban. Er bod ein hadnoddau adnewyddadwy ni yn llai yng Nghymru, dangosodd y rownd ddiweddaraf o arwerthiannau yr hyn sy’n bosibl yn ein hadnodd ynni gwynt morol. Gwelwyd gwerth portffolio morol Cymreig Ystad y Goron yn cynyddu’n sylweddol o tua £50 miliwn i dros £500 miliwn.
Mae Plaid Cymru wedi gwthio ers tro am ddatganoli Ystad y Goron ac rwy’n falch cael dweud bod y cytundeb cydweithredu rydym wedi’i gyrraedd gyda Llywodraeth Lafur Cymru yn cynnwys sicrhau ei ddatganoli fel prif amcan.
(Translation) I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. Plaid Cymru has recognised from the very outset that HS2 improvements, if they were fully realised, would be beneficial to north Wales. For Wales in its entirety, however, the report commissioned by the Treasury shows that there will be a net loss of £150 million a year in economic output. We have to consider the impact all of that, and the fact that the Treasury depleted the comparative factor for Department for Transport expenditure in the finance statement.
That is why I encourage Members to listen to the Welsh Affairs Committee recommendations that HS2 be recognised as a project that benefits only England. I would go a step further and encourage people to support the devolution of responsibility for the railways to the Senedd. According to the Wales Governance Centre, if that responsibility had already been devolved to Wales, there would have been additional investment of half a billion pounds between 2011 and 2020.
Another flaw in the current settlement is the treatment in the Union of the Crown Estate in Wales. Despite the fact that control of the Crown Estate was devolved to Scotland in 2017, Westminster retains control of the Crown Estate in Wales, meaning that revenue from natural resources in Wales is transferred to the Treasury rather than remaining in Wales. Yesterday, the Crown Estate in Scotland completed its latest sale, with 17 projects that will bring in £700 million, and attracted a global consortium of investors to invest further in supply in Scotland. Even though our renewable resources are fewer in Wales, that latest round of sales shows what is possible in our marine energy. Welsh Crown Estate marine energy increased in value from £50 million to more than £500 million.
Plaid Cymru has pushed for some time for the devolution of the Crown Estate, and I am pleased to say that the agreement we have reached with the Labour Welsh Government includes devolution as one of its main objectives.
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Gentleman is making a really interesting point about the Crown Estate and the Scottish Government’s announcement yesterday about the slew of investment going into offshore wind projects. He will know, as he also serves on the Welsh Affairs Committee, that we have the same opportunity in west Wales. Why does he think that devolving the Crown Estate to Wales will unlock investment in the Welsh offshore wind fields faster? What is different about an independent Welsh Crown Estate that it would change that?
Ben Lake
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Simply put, I think we will see quicker action. When action is taken, we can realise some of the abundant potential we have on the coast of his wonderful constituency in south-west Wales. We will see those benefits being retained closer to the community that he represents and closer to the communities in which the revenues are generated.
Rydw i’n brysur rhedeg allan o amser, felly wnai beidio cymryd unrhyw ymyriadau pellach, ond hoffwn sôn am ddwy broblem arall sydd yn codi o’r setliad presennol. Yr un pennaf yw’r hon sy’n ymwneud â’r system gyfiawnder. Tra bod cyfiawnder yn Lloegr, yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon wedi’i hintegreiddio yn llawn i bolisïau cynhenid y gwledydd hynny, yng Nghymru, cedwir pwerau dros gyfiawnder yn San Steffan. Dywedodd y Comisiwn ar Gyfiawnder yng Nghymru, dan arweiniad yr Arglwydd Thomas, nad oedd unrhyw sail rhesymegol i’r sefyllfa presennol a bod y sgil effeithiau yn rhai anffodus dros ben.
Rydym eisioes wedi clywed gan yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Caerdydd Canolog bod tangyllido cronig gan San Steffan mewn gwasanaethau cyfiawnder wedi golygu bod Cymru wedi gorfod llenwi’r bwlch a adawyd gan yr Undeb. Ond yn waeth na hyn, gwelwn fod polisïau San Steffan wedi cyfrannu at lefelau anghynaladwy o garcharu a olygai yn 2019 bod gan Gymru y cyfraddau carcharu uchaf yng ngorllewin Ewrop. Mae’r setliad cyfansoddiadol presennol, felly, wedi methu mewn dyletswydd sylfaenol: y dyletswydd hynny i sicrhau mynediad teg a chyfartal i gyfiawnder. Gan ddod i’r casgliad unfrydol bod pobl Cymru ar eu colled yn y system bresennol, argymhellodd y comisiwn yn 2019 y dylid datganoli cyfiawnder deddfwriaethol llawn ynghyd â phwerau gweithredol i Gymru. Fel dywedodd y Comisiwn Thomas, yn eithaf huawdl yn fy marn i:
“Mae angen gwell system ar bobl Cymru, ac maent yn haeddu hynny.”
Nid ynys yw cyfiawnder a dylid ei integreiddio â pholisïau ar gyfer Cymru gyfiawn, deg a llewyrchus.
Mi wnaf i ysgubo trwy ambell i ddarn o’m haraith, ond hoffwn ddweud bod Plaid Cymru wedi croesawu ers tro ymrwymiad rhethregol y Llywodraeth hon i ddatblygu economi Cymru a’i chefnogi i fod yn gydradd â gweddill y Deyrnas Unedig. Wrth wneud hynny, rydym yn disgwyl i’r Llywodraeth ddatganoli pŵer i ffwrdd o’r Trysorlys, sicrhau bod penderfyniadau a gweithredu yn digwydd yn nes at ein cymunedau, a bod eu rhethreg yn gyfateb i’r cyllid caiff ei glustnodi ar gyfer y dasg.
Mae’n rhaid i mi gyfaddef, serch hynny, bod yna eisioes rheswm i boeni na chaiff yr addewidion lu eu gweithredu, ac yn hytrach fod anghydraddoldeb rhanbarthol yn rhan annatod o economi a phenderfyniadau sefydliadol gwladwriaeth y Deyrnas Unedig. Er enghraifft, yn Llundain mae cynhyrchiant ac enillion rhwng traean a hanner yn uwch na chyfartaledd y Deyrnas Unedig, yn ôl yr Institute for Fiscal Studies. Yng Nghymru, mae ein cynhyrchiant o leiaf 15% yn is na chyfartaledd y Deyrnas Unedig ac enillion bron 40% yn is nag yn Llundain. Yng Ngheredigion, mae’r gwerth ychwanegol gros lleol y pen bron i 37% yn is na chyfartaledd y Deyrnas Unedig. Gwelwn, wedyn bod buddsoddiad mewn ymchwil, sy’n allweddol i sbarduno arloesedd a chynhyrchiant gwell, wedi ei ganolbwyntio ers tro yn Llundain a de-ddwyrain Lloegr, gyda gwariant y pen yn 2019 yn rhyw £577: mwy na dwywaith y swm cyfatebol i Gymru.
Nid mewn termau economaidd yn unig y mynegir yr anghydraddoldeb hwn. Gwelwn goruchafiaeth Llundain a’r de-ddwyrain ym mhob man, o argaeledd ac ansawdd cysylltiadau trafnidiaeth i gefnogaeth i amgueddfeydd ac orielau. Ystadegyn syfrdanol oedd bod gwariant y pen ar ddiwylliant yn Llundain rhwng 2010-11 a 2017-18 gymaint â £687 y pen—bron i bum gwaith cyfartaledd gweddill Lloegr, heb sôn am Gymru. I’r pant y rhed y dŵr, fel y dywed yng Ngheredigion.
Cyn cloi, rwy’n troi at yr argyfwng presennol o ran costau byw. Rydym yn gwybod eisioes bod sefyllfa Cymru yn un eithaf bregus yn y maes hwn, ac ar ben popeth, nawr mae’n rhaid i deuluoedd ledled Cymru wynebu argyfwng y costau ynni nad yw Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig wedi gwneud dim i fynd â’r afael ag ef hyd yn hyn. Mae’r diffyg yma yn cael effaith ofnadwy ar Gymru, lle mae 11% o aelwydydd yn byw mewn tlodi tanwydd a’r ffigwr ar fin gwaethygu. Yn anffodus, nid yw bod yn rhan o’r Undeb wedi ein hinswleiddio rhag yr argyfwng yma. Nid problem tymor bir fydd hi chwaith. Datgelodd y Gyllideb Prydeinig mai dim ond rhyw 0.8% y flwyddyn y disgwylir i incwm gwario gwirioneddol aelwydydd ledled Prydain dyfu dros y pum mlynedd nesaf. Roedd incwm gwario gros yng Nghymru yn gyfateb i ond tua 80% o gyfartaledd y Deyrnas Unedig yn 2019, sef yr ail isaf ar draws Prydain, felly mae’n syndod nad oes gweithredu ar fyrder yn digwydd tuag at y perwyl yma.
Yn olaf, ar ôl sôn am sefyllfa’r economi ar hyn o bryd, rhaid hefyd inni edrych tuag at y dyfodol. Yn fyr iawn, o ran polisi masnach, caf i ddim amser i fynd i berfedd y peth heddiw, ond yr hyn ddywedaf yw y pe bai gan Unoliaethwyr unrhyw fwriad i ddiogelu dyfodol yr Undeb, byddent yn ymrwymo ar unwaith i’r egwyddor bod rhaid i Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig geisio cael cytundeb y Seneddau datganoledig cyn arwyddo cytundebau masnach newydd.
(Translation) I am running out of time, so I will not take further interventions. I want to briefly talk about two problems that arise from the current settlement. The predominant one relates to the justice system. While justice in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland is fully integrated into the policies of those countries, powers for justice in Wales are retained in Westminster. The Commission on Justice in Wales led by Lord Thomas stated that there was “no rational basis” for the current situation and that the knock-on effects were extremely unfortunate.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff Central that chronic underfunding by Westminster of justice services has meant that Wales has had to fill the gap left by the Union. Even worse, Westminster policies have contributed to unsustainable levels of incarceration and have meant that in 2019 Wales had the highest levels of incarceration in western Europe. The constitutional settlement has failed in its fundamental duty—the duty to ensure fair and just access to justice. Coming to the unanimous conclusion that the people of Wales are missing out in the current settlement, the 2019 commission stated that full legislative powers for justice should be devolved to Wales. As the Thomas commission stated quite eloquently, in my view,
“The people of Wales both need and deserve a better system.”
Justice should be integrated into policies for a just, fair and prosperous Wales.
Plaid Cymru has for some time welcomed the rhetoric of the Government on developing the economy of Wales and supporting it to be equal to the rest of the United Kingdom. In doing so, we expect the Government to devolve power away from the Treasury and ensure that decisions and actions take place closer to our communities. Their rhetoric should correspond to the finance earmarked for the task.
I must admit, though, that we already have reason to be concerned that those promises will not be fulfilled and that, instead, regional inconsistency and inequality will be part of the state of the United Kingdom. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, productivity and earnings are between one third and a half higher than the UK average. In Wales, production is at least 15% lower than the UK average, and earnings are almost 40% lower than in London. In Ceredigion, local gross value added per capita is almost 37% lower than the UK average. Investment in research, which is key to propelling better productivity, has focused for some time on London and south-east England, with investment per capita around £577, which is more than twice the equivalent sum for Wales.
It is not only in economic terms that these inequalities can be expressed. We see the supremacy of London and the south-east everywhere, from the availability and quality of transport connections to support for museums and galleries. An astounding statistic is that expenditure on culture per capita between 2010 and 2017-18 was as much as £687 in that region—almost five times the average of the rest of England, let alone Wales. Money follows money.
Before I conclude, I will turn to the current crisis around living costs. The situation in Wales is quite fragile in this regard. On top of everything else, families across the whole of Wales now have to face the crisis around energy costs that the UK Government have done nothing to deal with so far. This flaw is having an awful impact on Wales, where 11% of households live in fuel poverty—a figure that is about to deteriorate further. Unfortunately, being part of the Union really has not insulated us from this crisis. It is not a short-term problem, either. The UK Budget expressed that real household income was expected to grow by 0.8% over the coming five years. Gross household expenditure in Wales only corresponded to 80% of the average for the UK in 2019—the lowest across Britain—so it is surprising that there has been no urgent action taken towards this issue.
Finally, after talking about the situation of the economy at the moment, we must also look towards the future. I will not have time to go into the detail of trade policy today, but I will say that if Unionists had any intention of safeguarding the future of the Union, then they would take action immediately on the principle that the UK Government have to seek agreement with the devolved Governments before they sign any new trade agreements.
Ben Lake
In a moment, very briefly.
Cyhyd ag y byddwn yn rhan o’r Undeb, rhaid iddi fod yn Undeb gyfartal, ac mae’n bryd i’r polisi masnach adlewyrchu hyn.
(Translation) As long as we are part of the Union, it has to be an equal Union. It is about time that trade policy reflects that.
Simon Hart
I know we have raised this before, but the hon. Gentleman has avoided talking about the fiscal deficit. We can have an argument about it; it is worth something like £15 billion. If he is going down that road, perhaps he would at least treat the Committee to what his vision of the tax regime would be under the arrangements that he suggests. He seems to have rather conspicuously avoided what that would actually mean for families and businesses in Wales.
Ben Lake
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that intervention. I only wish he had intervened earlier in the debate, when I might have had time to entertain him with some of my thoughts. All I would point out before closing is that, to my knowledge, I do not think the British state has run a surplus for many years in the past century, so if a deficit is good enough for the UK Government, why not for the Welsh Government?
I gloi, os ystyriwn holl diffygion y setliad cyfansoddiadol presennol, oes syndod o gwbl bod y rhai sy’n teimlo’n angerddol ynghylch yr Undeb mor bryderus i’w chryfhau? Mae Cymru yn haeddu gwell, yn fy marn i, ond does dim dwywaith y bydd rhaid i’r Undeb newid os fydd hi am oroesi. Y cwestiwn i’r Aelodau hynny sy’n ei chefnogi yw: ydyn nhw o ddifri amdani ac yn barod i wneud y newidiadau angenrheidiol hynny i sicrhau ei goroesiad? Neu a fyddan nhw, drwy eu hystyfnigrwydd, yn selio ffawd eu Hundeb annwyl?
(Translation) In conclusion, if we consider all the shortcomings of the current constitutional settlement, is it any surprise or wonder whatsoever that those who feel passionately about the Union are so concerned about strengthening it? Wales deserves better. There is no question but that the Union will have to change if it is to survive. The question for those Members who support it is: are they serious about it and are they ready to make the necessary changes to enable and ensure the Union’s survival—or will they be sealing the fate of their dear Union?
Stephen Crabb
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, although it does mean that we will not benefit from a contribution from you to today’s debate. I will start by commending the Secretary of State on calling this meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. It represents something of a revival, or a resuscitation, of the Committee, given that it looked like it was going to go the way of the Scottish Grand Committee and disappear from parliamentary proceedings quietly into the night. It is a timely moment to have a grand Welsh debate today, given the extraordinary period that we have come through as a nation and given the significant and serious challenges that lie before us. I hope the rest of the debate will be constructive and honest as we address these issues.
The pandemic has tested our nation’s financial and institutional capabilities, and proved a test to our constitution. We should all be able to agree today that, as we emerge from this current phase of the pandemic and hopefully enter a more benign phase, we can agree that the United Kingdom comes out of it with its relevance and importance highlighted more than ever. Contrary to what the Opposition have been primed to say, the fact is that the UK Government got the big calls right all the way through the pandemic. As the Secretary of State has highlighted, there was a period of very fast decision making at the time of uncertain, partial information and evidence. Whether one looks at the decisions around the furlough scheme and business support, the decisions around vaccine development, procurement and roll-out of the vaccines once approved, or at the most recent decisions on how we responded to the omicron variant and the very fine balance that we had to strike just before Christmas, taking precautionary measures but not damaging the economy, which had started to rebound following the earlier lockdowns, the Government’s decision making has been proved broadly correct. I look forward to the future review demonstrating that. The truth is that the UK compares very favourably with nations similar to ours, in terms of how ready we are to move ahead in this better phase of the pandemic, and to continue the economic growth.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
We have had in excess of 150,000 deaths from covid in this country. It is an absolute disgrace. My constituents in Cynon Valley had the third highest death rate in the UK. How can the right hon. Gentleman say that the UK Government’s decision making during the covid pandemic should be commended when we have had one of the highest death rates from covid in the world?
Stephen Crabb
I am sorry to respond to the hon. Member: it is not true that we have the worst covid death rate in the world. The standardised measurement of per 100,000 shows that Britain compares to similar sized nations such as Spain, France and Germany. There are a lot of other countries that have sadly experienced far greater deaths. Every single death is a tragedy, as the hon. Member is right to say. My other point in response is that decisions about public health in Wales were almost wholly the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
The decisions taken at UK level that affected Wales were around the financial architecture of how to support individuals, families and businesses. The public health measures were taken by the Welsh Government. As I will explain, generally the Welsh Government have veered to a tendency for more lockdown rather than fewer, wanting to be stricter, often on very flimsy scientific evidence—as the hon. Lady herself demonstrates in her question, to such little effect.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to the latest jobs data published this morning, with record job vacancies again and the employment picture continuing to improve. That is not what many people predicted for this phase of the pandemic, once the furlough scheme had been unwound. People were predicting a crisis of unemployment, but the truth is that that never happened. What happened was that the UK economy was well placed to rebound strongly last summer and it has continued to create jobs.
That is a really good thing, and it is down to the decision making of the Treasury team, to create that furlough scheme, which meant that there was not a tsunami of business failures and redundancies. Businesses were able to use that as a platform to grow again once the economy had been reopened. We do face challenges: the cost of living is certainly one of them, inflation, energy price hikes and, as revealed in this morning’s data, the fact that wage levels are not keeping pace with the cost of living, which is a serious issue that we need to address.
I reinforce the message of the Secretary of State that, when it came to those big decisions about how to get the country through the economy, the UK Government have been proved right. The Prime Minister continually emphasises the importance of seeing this as the one United Kingdom emerging from the pandemic. He is always incredibly polite and careful in his remarks about the Welsh Government and the First Minister. Even in private, when we coax him to say something critical about the Welsh First Minister, he is always incredibly polite, when sometimes we would like him to be stronger.
He is doing that in a genuine spirit of teamwork. That reflects well on the Prime Minister: he genuinely wants to foster a team UK ethos, respecting the fact that the Welsh Government have a different set of competences and have the freedom to take different decisions about public health protection measures. He is genuinely trying to foster an atmosphere of team UK.
Wayne David
I have a wry smile on my face because the right hon. Gentleman is talking about an individual we know does not exist. His view is not shared by the majority of his colleagues who are twittering and twattering in the corridors about the next leader of the party all the time.
Stephen Crabb
I am talking about our response to the pandemic and the Prime Minister’s determination to get this country through it as one United Kingdom, in the spirit of teamwork, as far as politics allows. I find the posture of Welsh Government towards UK Government throughout the pandemic disappointing and somewhat dismaying, because it is in contrast to the politeness from the Prime Minister about the Welsh First Minister and the sense of team UK that the Prime Minister has been trying to foster.
The stance of the Welsh Government has been constant, incessant criticism, complaint and grievance towards UK Government. I will highlight a few examples of the complaints from the Welsh Government, which are corrosive and not grounded in reality.
The most common complaint from the Welsh Government over the years is financial—they never get enough money from the UK Treasury. As Welsh politicians representing our constituencies, we always want more for our constituents if possible, but I have always regarded with a bit of suspicion the complaint that they do not have enough money. I look at some of the money that they have made available to Cardiff airport, to take a stake in sports car company TVR and some of the other odd investments the Welsh Government have made in certain property deals. I am a bit suspicious when they complain that they never have enough money. Certainly, when it comes to the pandemic, the sums of money that the Treasury has made available to the Welsh Government are unprecedented, really significant and really welcome.
One of the other grievances of the Welsh Government, as you know, Mr Davies, is about a lack of communication and dialogue between them and the UK Government. We both sit on the Welsh Affairs Committee, Mr Davies, and have had the chance to ask the Secretary of State about that, as well as other UK Ministers and Welsh Ministers. We are very grateful that Welsh Government Ministers make themselves available for our evidence sessions. The testimony we have heard from so many Welsh Government Ministers is that their own Departments’ dialogue with the UK Government is really good—lots of meetings and discussions. That backs up the point that the Secretary of State made in his testimony to the Committee that there has been an almost unprecedented number of meetings and forums between the UK Government and the Welsh Government during the pandemic. Far from it being a period when, somehow, the UK Government have been snubbing or not valuing the opinion of the Welsh Government, the pandemic has set a high water mark of engagement between UK Government and devolved Government.
The third grievance we have heard continuously from the Welsh Government, which is demonstrably false, is that somehow the UK Government were taking unsafe, reckless decisions about reopening the economy. We heard that very recently from the Welsh First Minister. The data just do not support that. As I said, every death is a tragedy in this country, but there is no evidence to suggest that the stricter—sometimes oddly strict—measures that the Welsh Government have taken have been based in sound science and have achieved any better outcomes. I look at some of the decisions that the Welsh Government have made around their restrictions, such as that nonsensical ban on outdoor parkruns, criminalising people wanting to go to their workplace—they could go to the pub but they could not go to work. There is a whole range of these things that are odd and divisive, and have made the Welsh Government and Wales an outlier in the United Kingdom.
Jo Stevens
I am rather confused by the right hon. Gentleman describing the Welsh Government’s recent covid measures as an outlier. The UK Government are the outlier. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not outliers in this case.
Stephen Crabb
I disagree, and I would point the hon. Lady to the most recent set of decisions on responding to omicron, which included some—what phrase did the Prime Minister use?
Stephen Crabb
Yes. [Interruption.] “Baroque eccentricities” is the phrase that the Prime Minister used to describe some of the Welsh Government’s decisions.
I will draw my remarks to a close in a moment. What most concerns me about the posture of the Welsh Government during the pandemic is just how divisive they have been. There have been times when I felt they tried to politicise the border and to lean into what I describe as nationalist sentiment. The Secretary of State opened his remarks by saying that the majority of people in Wales support Unionist parties, but is the Welsh Labour party really still a Unionist party? I look at that agreement that it signed with Plaid Cymru in the Senedd—Plaid and Welsh Labour Members are sitting together almost seamlessly this morning—I hear the First Minister when he appears before the Welsh Affairs Committee and says that the Union is finished, and I look at some of the other decisions taken by the Welsh Government to create space between themselves and the United Kingdom, and I question what kind of journey Welsh Labour is on. Welsh Labour used to be an absolute bastion of the Union and could be relied on to defend the United Kingdom. I question what kind of journey it is on, because I do not see it as that same Unionist party.
Nia Griffith
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, time after time, the First Minister has referred to the fact that, during the pandemic, Wales gave personal protective equipment to England, and Wales benefited from PPE coming from England to Wales? Most recently, Wales has given 10 million tests to England. Time after time, the First Minister has emphasised the importance of working together across the United Kingdom.
Stephen Crabb
I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention. I have heard Vaughan Gething describe himself as a Unionist. I may be wrong, but I am not sure I have heard the First Minister describe himself as a Unionist. I think there is a division at the heart of Welsh Labour that should concern us all, as it is in perpetual government in Cardiff Bay. I will leave that thought hanging. I thank Committee members for their time.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
We have until 11.25 am. Speeches should be around six minutes long. I call Beth Winter.
Beth Winter
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Davies, am y cyfle i siarad heddiw, ac am y cyfle i siarad yn Gymraeg.
Rydyn ni’n trafod cwestiwn yr Undeb Prydeinig, ac fel pob undeb arall, mae’r nerth yn dod o dderbyn a pharchu gwahaniaethau, gan gynnwys iaith, diwylliant a gwleidyddiaeth. Mae’r cyfarfod Pwyllgor heddiw yn ddigwyddiad amserol i ni, gyda’r cytundeb cydweithio a gyhoeddwyd yn ddiweddar rhwng y blaid Lafur a Phlaid Cymru i ddod â pholisïau radical i fodolaeth yng Nghymru, gan roi buddiannau pobl Cymru o flaen llinellau plaid cul. Roeddem yn gallu gwneud hyn yng Nghymru, a’i wneud mewn ffordd ystyrlon, oherwydd bod ein harweinwyr gwleidyddol yn deall eu bod wedi’u hethol i wasanaethu buddiannau’r bobl y maent yn eu cynrychioli ac nid am unrhyw reswm arall.
Hefyd, ein hanes sydd wedi’n gwneud ni fel yr ydym. Mae gan Gymru draddodiad o hanes radical, o godi’r faner goch gyntaf ar gomin Hirwaun, drws nesaf i’r pentref lle rwyf i’n byw, Penderyn, yn ystod oes y Siartwyr, hyd at sefydlu’r gwasanaeth iechyd gwladol. Y traddodiad hwn sydd wedi ysbrydoli Llywodraeth Cymru i ddatblygu polisïau o safon mwy uchelgeisiol na’i chymar yn San Steffan: er enghraifft, diogelu’r gwasanaeth iechyd gwladol fel gwasanaeth mewn eiddo cyhoeddus, ac ein hymateb gofalus yn y Senedd i covid.
Senedd ddatganoledig Cymru oedd y gyntaf yn y byd i basio argyfwng hinsawdd. Yn ddiweddar, mae’r Senedd wedi sefydlu Gweinidogaeth ar newid yr hinsawdd. Roedden ni’n gyntaf gyda Deddf Llesiant Cenedlaethau’r Dyfodol (Cymru) 2015, ac yn ysbryd y ddeddfwriaeth honno, pasiodd Llywodraeth Cymru Fesur yn caniatáu i bobl 16 ac 17 mlwydd oed bleidleisio yn etholiadau Cymru.
Mae Cymru hefyd yn helpu i arwain y ffordd o ran datblygu economi gynhwysol, sylfaenol, yn bennaf gan ddefnyddio dull partneriaeth gymdeithasol i hyrwyddo gwaith teg. Mae hyn wedi’i wneud yn erbyn cefndir o ddiffyg cyllid digonol. Mae dros 10 mlynedd o lymder creulon wedi tynnu £1.6 biliwn o gyllidebau cynghorau Cymru, ac mae fy awdurdod lleol, Rhondda Cynon Taf, wedi colli dros £90 miliwn. Nid yw fformiwla Barnett ar gyfer cyfrifo cyllid Cymru yn addas, nac yn ddigonol, i ddiwallu anghenion Cymru. Felly, rydyn ni’n dal i ddioddef y problemau tlodi, amddifadedd ac anghydraddoldeb y mae gweddill y Deyrnas Unedig yn eu hwynebu.
Bydd yr argyfwng costau byw yr ydym i gyd yn ei wynebu yn ergyd drom i bobl Cymru. Gwyddom oll eisoes am bobl yn ein hetholaeth sy’n gorfod dewis rhwng bwyta neu gynhesu. Bydd y sefyllfa yn galetach eleni wrth i realiti polisïau’r Torïaid, fel y toriadau lles, y costau tanwydd cynyddol, a’r cynnydd mewn yswiriant gwladol a ddaeth yn sgil y Llywodraeth Dorïaidd hon, ein taro. Nid yn unig nad yw’r Llywodraeth Dorïaidd hon yn poeni am neu’n deall anghenion pobl fel ein hetholwyr, maent yn rhoi’r gwaith da a wnaed hyd yma gan Lywodraeth Cymru i ddiogelu gwasanaethau a datblygu ein heconomi mewn perygl difrifol wrth iddynt symud i ganoli pŵer a thanseilio’r setliad datganoli. Amlygir hyn gan y Ddeddf Marchnad Fewnol y Deyrnas Unedig 2020, ac ar hyn o bryd, y gronfa codi’r gwastad, fel y’i gelwir. Ni fydd yn syndod bod y rhan fwyaf o’r cyllid lefelu wedi mynd i etholaethau a ddelir gan y Torïaid yng Nghymru. O’i gymharu â chyllid yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, roedd yn gyfraniad gwarthus.
(Translation) Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak, Mr Davies, and to do so in Welsh. We are here to discuss the question of the Union. Like all other unions, its strength comes from accepting and respecting differences, including in language, culture and politics. The Committee meeting is a timely event for us with the collaborative agreement announced between Plaid Cymru and Welsh Labour to bring radical policies into existence in Wales, putting the interests of the people of Wales before narrow party lines. We can do this in Wales, and in a meaningful manner, because our political leaders understand that they have been elected to serve the interests of the people they represent and not for any other reason.
Our history has made us as we are. Wales has a tradition of radical history, from raising the first red flag—on Hirwaun common, next to the village where I live now, Penderyn—during the time of the Chartists, to establishing the national health service. This tradition inspires the Welsh Government to develop policies with more ambitious standards than we see here in Westminster, including safeguarding the NHS as a public service; the Senedd’s careful response to covid.
The devolved Senedd in Wales was the first in the world to declare a climate emergency, and recently established a Ministry on climate change. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 was also a first. In the spirit of that legislation, the Welsh Government passed a Bill to permit 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in Welsh elections.
Wales is also helping to lead the way in developing an inclusive, foundational economy, predominantly using a social partnership approach to promote fair work. That has been done against the background of a lack of adequate funding. More than 10 years of cruel poverty has pulled £1.6 billion out of Welsh council budgets, and my local authority, Rhondda Cynon Taf, has lost over £90 million. The Barnett formula is not appropriate or adequate to meet the needs of Wales. We therefore continue to suffer the problems of poverty, deprivation and inequality that the rest of the United Kingdom faces.
The cost of living crisis that we all face will hit the people of Wales hard. We already know of people in our constituencies who have to choose between eating and heating, and the situation will be even harder this year as the reality of Tory policies, such as the welfare cuts, the increasing cost of fuel and the national insurance increase hit us. Not only do the Tory Government not care about and fail to understand our constituents’ needs, but they have put the good work of the Welsh Government to safeguard services and develop our economy in serious jeopardy as they move to centralise power and undermine the devolved settlement. That is manifest in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and also in the so-called levelling-up fund. It is no surprise that the majority of the levelling-up funding has gone to constituencies held by Tory Members in Wales. Compared with European funding, it is a shameful contribution.
Beth Winter
Sorry, but I will not give way.
Mae enghreifftiau eraill o’r Llywodraeth Dorïaidd yn diystyru hawliau pobl Cymru a’i Llywodraeth ddatganoledig yn cynnwys y Mesur Cenedligrwydd a Ffiniau, sy’n tanseilio dyhead Cymru i fod yn genedl—
(Translation) There are other examples of the Tory Government disregarding the rights of the people of Wales and their devolved Government, including the Nationality and Borders Bill, which undermines Wales’s desire to be a nation—
Simon Hart
Will the hon. Lady give way on a very important point? I hope she will at least acknowledge that Rhondda Cynon Taf—her own local authority— was one of the major recipients of funding in the latest round. She should withdraw or at least qualify the comments that she made about the financial arrangements favouring Conservative seats. She needs to look at the statistics and possibly come back to the Committee with a correction.
Beth Winter
I disagree, sorry. All the local elected representatives are clear about the reduction in funding and the terrible impact that that has had on our constituents. If the Government looked at the research, it will confirm what I say.
Felly nid yn unig y mae’r Llywodraeth hon yn benderfynol o anwybyddu a chael gwared ar Lywodraethau datganoledig, mae’n benderfynol o danseilio ein hawliau democrataidd yn llwyr. Rydyn ni ar bwynt peryglus, yn fy marn i, o ran democratiaeth a datganoli. Nid yw diwygio cyfansoddiadol a datganoli yn faterion anghysbell, ymylol. Mae arnom angen system lle mae’r pedair gwlad yn cael eu trin yn gyfartal, nid system o’r top i lawr fel yr hyn sydd yna ar hyn o bryd. Dylai pob rhan o’r Deyrnas Unedig gael ei hariannu’n briodol ac yn deg, heb fod angen bowlen gardota pryd bynnag y bydd anghenion ychwanegol yn codi.
Dylid gwneud penderfyniadau gwleidyddol a gwariant mor agos â phosibl at y bobl y maent yn effeithio arnynt. Ni allwn ganiatáu i’n pwerau gwario gael eu cymryd i reolaeth ganolog. Bydd yn atal Llywodraethau datganoledig a lleol rhag mynd ar lwybrau gwahanol economaidd sy’n bodloni amcanion polisi cyhoeddus rhanbarthau a chenhedloedd y Deyrnas Unedig. Mae angen i ni gydio yn y cyfle ac archwilio a thrafod opsiynau sydd o’n blaenau ac ystyried beth sydd orau i bobl Cymru.
Yn arbennig, mae angen i ni ymgysylltu â’r holl bobl a chymunedau lleol a’u cynnwys yn y drafodaeth a’r ddadl ar yr hyn y mae datganoli yn ei olygu iddynt hwy a’r hyn a welwn fel ein dyfodol. Bydd y comisiwn cyfansoddiadol a benodwyd yn ddiweddar yng Nghymru yn gyfle i godi proffil y ddadl hon a fydd yn cynnwys cymaint o bobl â phosibl.
(Translation) Not only are this Government intent on getting rid of devolved Governments, but they are determined to undermine our democratic rights. We are at a dangerous point for democracy and devolution. Constitutional changes and devolution are not distant matters. We need a system whereby all four countries are treated equally, not the top-down system that currently exists. All areas of the UK should be funded appropriately and fairly without having to beg when additional needs arise. Any political decisions on funding should be made as closely as possible to the people they affect. We cannot allow our spending powers to be taken under central control. That will prevent devolved and local governments from going down different economic paths to satisfy regional public policies and different nation policies.
We need to grab the opportunity to investigate and discuss the opportunities ahead and to consider what is best for the people of Wales. In particular, we need to interact with all our local communities and include them in the discussions and debates on what devolution means for them at the moment and what they see as our future. The constitutional commission that was recently appointed in Wales will be an opportunity to raise the profile of this debate and include as many people as possible.
David T. C. Davies
A yw’r Foneddiges anrhydeddus, fel aelod o’r blaid Lafur, yn gyfforddus gyda’r ffaith bod y comisiwn wedi dweud eu bod nhw’n mynd i edrych ar bob cwestiwn, gan gynnwys annibyniaeth? A yw hi’n hapus, fel cefnogwr yr Undeb, eu bod nhw’n mynd i ystyried hyn?
(Translation) Is the hon. Lady, as a member of the Labour party, comfortable that the commission has said that it is going to look at every question, including the question of independence? Is she happy that it will consider that?
Beth Winter
Diolch am y cwestiwn. Rwy’n hapus bod y comisiwn yn mynd i edrych ar bob posibilrwydd achos penderfyniad pobl Cymru yw e beth fydd y dyfodol i Gymru. Does dim problem gyda fi ynglŷn â hynny. Mae’r comisiwn ei hun yn cynnwys trawstoriad eang o gymdeithas Cymru gan gynnwys academyddion ac undebwyr llafur yn ogystal â gwleidyddion ac mae ganddynt feddwl agored, fel rydych chi wedi dweud, o ran beth y gallai’r argymhellion fod yn y dyfodol. Mae angen i ni drawsnewid y Deyrnas Unedig yn bartneriaeth wirfoddol o genhedloedd sy’n gyfartal ac yn ddemocrataidd lle mae pobl yn teimlo eu bod wir yn gallu cymryd rheolaeth yn ôl.
Os ydym yn wleidyddion er mwyn cynrychioli buddiannau mwyafrif y bobl, mae angen gweledigaeth o fath gwahanol o wlad: un sy’n seiliedig ar degwch, a rhoi pobl cyn elw, ac sy’n datganoli pŵer gan roi cyfoeth, cyfle a phŵer yn nwylo pobl a chymunedau lleol.
Mae’n hen bryd ein bod ni’n cael y drafodaeth hon am ddyfodol yr Undeb oherwydd mae’n ymwneud â democratiaeth, ynglŷn â sut yr ydym yn llunio ein dyfodol a chymryd rheolaeth yn ôl, rhoi llais i’r rhai yr ydym yno i’w cynrychioli a gweithio ochr yn ochr gydag eraill i greu dyfodol tecach, gwyrddach ledled y Deyrnas Unedig sy’n cydnabod ac yn parchu gwahaniaeth ac felly’n wirioneddol ddiwallu anghenion pobl Prydain.
(Translation): Thank you for the question. I am happy that the commission will look at every possibility, because it is the people of Wales who should decide the future of Wales, so I have no a problem with that.
The commission itself comprises a wide cross-section of Welsh society, including academics and labour unions as well as politicians, and they have an open mind as to what the recommendations could be in the future. We need to transform the UK into a voluntary partnership of nations that are equally democratic and where people feel that they can really take back control. If we are politicians to represent the interests of the majority of the people, there needs to be a different vision of a country, based on fairness, putting people before profit and devolving powers, thus giving wealth, opportunities and power into the hands of local communities.
It is high time we had this discussion about the future of the Union, because it is to do with democracy and how we form our future and take back control, to give voice to those we are here to represent and work hand in hand with others to create a fairer, greener future across the UK that recognises and respects differences and therefore satisfies the needs of the people of Britain.
Simon Baynes
Bore da—good morning. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Like my Welsh colleagues here today, I take great heart from the fact that under this Conservative Government, the Union, specifically as it relates to Wales but also across our United Kingdom, has grown stronger and continues to do so. It gives me particular pleasure to be seated next to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, with whom I share the county borough of Wrexham. It is a great pleasure to work hard with her on a wide range of issues that affect our two constituencies—in particular, recently, city status and city of culture status for Wrexham.
There has already been much mention in this morning’s debate of the way in which the UK Government have assisted the Welsh Government, and Wales overall, during the pandemic. There are two particular points that I would like to draw out and perhaps have not been mentioned so far. The first is that the vaccines are of course the way out of the pandemic, and the UK Government have secured and purchased vaccines on behalf of the whole United Kingdom; over 6.5 million doses have now been delivered across Wales. I think it is very important to stress that the speed and scale of that programme would never have been possible if we had stayed in the EU, which is very much the avowed policy of the First Minister and many members of the Welsh Labour party.
Secondly, the UK’s armed forces continue to play a crucial role in the fight against covid-19 in Wales and we are hugely grateful for their commitment and expertise. Four hundred and eleven military personnel are currently available to support the pandemic response in Wales. That includes 313 personnel supporting the Welsh ambulance service and 98 personnel deployed to assist the seven health boards across Wales. That is an absolutely key example of the benefits of the Union to Wales and across the rest of the UK.
There has been much talk about the financial benefits that have flowed from the UK Government’s policies, so I will not go back over those, but I know from my own experience in my constituency of Clwyd South how many businesses have said to me, when I have visited them, that they are extremely grateful for the prompt, well directed and generous support that has been provided by the UK Government to businesses across Wales. My constituency of Clwyd South has historically been starved of investment by the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff Bay, but under the UK Government over the last two years we have seen renewed vigour to correct that injustice, with unprecedented levels of funding coming into the region. A key example is the £13.3 million levelling-up fund bid, developed by Wrexham and Denbighshire councils and which I sponsored, which has been successful. It will be matched by £1.7 million of funding, giving a total package of £15 million.
There are three interconnected projects that make up this levelling-up fund bid, which will transform parts of my constituency. First, there is the Trevor Basin Technical Masterplan. Not only does it improve the famous site with the great aqueduct created by Thomas Telford, but it will be highly regenerative to parts of the constituency that are suffering under a post-industrial situation. It is a combination of regeneration and of valuing our heritage and assets, which are so important to us in the constituency of Clwyd South.
The second area that the fund will benefit is Denbighshire. The project supports cross-border visitor connectivity in the Dee Valley at the Horseshoe Falls, the Four Great Highways and Plas Newydd in Llangollen, and also the Llangollen active travel corridor, including the old railway line and Chirk. The third part, which is perhaps for me the most exciting part, is in the Corwen area. Corwen is a beautiful town, but it has been left behind because it has not received much investment—indeed, hardly any at all—from the Welsh Government over a long period. It will enable us to create a new and improved Western Gateway to the Dee Valley and the world heritage site, and it will improve connectivity and infrastructure.
The funding will improve the town centre assets in Corwen and the area between the railway and the car park, including a new platform canopy. This links together the famous Llangollen steam railway, and it will take visitors up along the railway to Llangollen and then links into the canal. It is doing what we desperately need in Clwyd South: bringing hope, vigour and investment to a key heritage asset and to important parts of the constituency. It will not only provide jobs and a much-needed economic boost, but will improve the wellbeing of our residents by widening access to recreation, outdoor and other amenity activities. It will also celebrate the amazing history, language and culture of our part of Wales and bring them to a wider audience.
Another example of UK Government investment has been the step-free access at Ruabon railway station. I was pleased to welcome the Secretary of State for Transport on a visit to the station last year, and he has said that the station can now progress to the next stage of the Access for All programme to help secure step-free access for station visitors. That comes after many years of campaigning by representatives, organisations and residents in Ruabon, and I believe it also highlights the commitment of the UK Government to our communities in Clwyd South and the rest of north Wales, which for so long have been taken for granted by a complacent Labour party in Cardiff Bay.
Finally, in contrast to the investment from the UK Government, we can see a corresponding lack of interest and funding from Welsh Labour. For example, I had the opportunity recently to visit the landslip on Newbridge Road in my constituency, where I was able to see first hand the damage that had been caused on the road, which has severed the vital link between Newbridge, Cefn and the wider communities of Chirk, Plas Madoc and Ruabon.
I used the visit to call on the Welsh Government to urgently conduct essential repairs, which have been badly needed since the storms hit a year ago. Since the visit, funding of £175,000 from the Welsh Government has been confirmed to make technical studies regarding the repair, which is a small step in the right direction on fixing the damage to Newbridge Road, but clearly a great deal more needs to be done. It is astonishing that the Welsh Labour Government have taken so long to react, and there can be no further delays on their part in ensuring that these repairs are done as quickly as possible. To quote a frustrated local,
“If this road had been in South Wales, we would be talking about the opening date by now.”
That is the opinion of my constituents about the care of the Welsh Government when it comes to major infrastructure projects in Clwyd South.
In conclusion, it was my pledge in the 2019 election to work constructively to deliver the change and investment that Clwyd South needs. I am proud to have worked closely with the Secretary of State, the team at the Wales Office and many Ministers across the UK Government. But it is high time that Mark Drakeford and the Welsh Labour Government step up and deliver, particularly for our communities in north Wales, if we are to make a difference and improve the lives of the people of Wales.
Simon Baynes
The polls come and go, but the essence of what I am saying is that we are delivering a constructive and particular project. I have tried to focus on my own constituency, so that my remarks are not generalised but particular. In a part of Wales that has been left behind and has significant deprivation, the UK Government are stepping in where the Welsh Labour Government should have been for decades.
I would like to finish on the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). He referred to the way in which the Welsh Government are playing a dangerous game consorting with the nationalist cause. As someone who grew up in Wales and has lived there most of my life, I think the value of the Union is of huge importance. It is extremely dangerous that the Welsh Labour party is not providing the support, vigour and representation for that cause.
Hywel Williams
First, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on winning Clwyd South? He, myself and the Prime Minister have stood there, but the hon. Gentleman is the only won who has ever won. I invite him to say, or perhaps not say, that co-operation between us and the Labour party to bring forward a large number of positive policies—46 points in the agreement—is not necessarily damaging to the Union.
Simon Baynes
I am pleased that I am the one of the trio who made it across the line in Clwyd South. I have every respect for the hon. Gentleman as a Member of Parliament and a vigorous representative of his constituents. With regard to his point about the programme put forward jointly by the two parties, it is important that there is clear accountability for Plaid Cymru in that arrangement. It strikes me that they are trying to have their cake and eat it by supporting the Government but not being quite part of them, and not being willing to be held to account for what they are doing. There needs to be clarity in how they operate and what they are trying to do.
To go back to my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, the Labour party in Wales needs to be clear whether it is really supporting the Union, or whether political expediency is allowing it to blur the line. There are two particular quotations that its members have come up with recently: they have called the UK nothing more than “an insurance policy” and said that support for the existence of the UK “is not unconditional”. Welsh Labour needs to be clear about where it stands on the Union, to the benefit of everybody across Wales.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that saving lives is above everything? The Welsh Government have put saving lives above everything. If that runs contrary to what the UK Government are doing in England, they are doing more to cause the break-up of the Union than anyone else.
Simon Baynes
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I have listened to many of her contributions in the Chamber and I have a great deal of respect for the vigour and integrity of what she says, but in this case, actually, the death rate is higher in Wales than in England. This is not a statistic that I particularly wanted to dwell on, because we are all in this together, but to be specific, the death rate is 260 per 100,000 in England and 289.5 per 100,000 in Wales.
With reference to the intervention by the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the Welsh Government cannot have it both ways. We have seen some of that already this morning: they try to blur the line on whether they are responsible for the death rate and the way the covid crisis has been dealt with, but on the other hand, day to day, they are always saying how good they have been in treating the pandemic. All I am saying is: let us have a bit of honesty and accountability on these matters. I think that would benefit everyone.
In conclusion, the last two years have shown the huge support that the Conservative Government are delivering for Clwyd South and the rest of Wales. Only the Welsh Conservatives can be trusted to defend Wales’s place in our strong United Kingdom.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am grateful to you for calling me to speak this morning, as this afternoon I will be in the Chamber dealing with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill. Anyone who is here will be welcome to join us in the Chamber this afternoon.
Our country is at a crossroads; our Government are partying and the Union is in peril. Far from being strengthened, our United Kingdom is being let down by a Prime Minister who is out of his depth and a Government who are out of step with the needs, wants and aspirations of people across Newport West and the whole of Wales. We have heard from colleagues already that so much of life as we know it has worsened as we approach the 12th anniversary of the election of a Conservative Prime Minister. As the Leader of the Opposition has noted, we have the worst possible Prime Minister at the worst possible time.
The current sleaze in this place goes right to the top. Time after time, this Conservative Government have treated the people of Newport West and Wales with utter contempt. They make laws for us and then break them when they want to, as though the rules just do not apply to them.
The facts are simple. No. 10 denied that any party or gathering took place—according to them, it just did not happen—and then a picture came out showing the exact opposite: the Prime Minister and others enjoying wine and cheese in the Downing Street gardens. I raised this in the Chamber last week with the Paymaster General, who was sent to cover for the Prime Minister. I asked him why anyone should believe a word the Prime Minister says ever again. The answer was dither, delay and deflection. I was given no reason to trust the Prime Minister, and following Prime Minister’s questions the following day, like many across Newport West, I trust him even less.
While the people of our community were unable to see loved ones and family, Mr Johnson was partying. While the people of Newport West were anxious about breaking the rules and endangering others, he was chatting and having a glass of wine at a party. While he would hold his 5 pm press conference every day, telling people to obey the rules, he was quite happy to break them himself for a good time.
There are only two possibilities: either Mr Johnson did not understand what his covid regulations meant and never has, or he knew what they were and broke them anyway. Either way, his time is up. He has been found wanting and we all now know that he is incapable of remaining Prime Minister. He is out of excuses and, as the Labour leader said last week, he should resign immediately.
The leader of the Scottish Tories has called for the Prime Minister to resign. We can only hope that the Welsh Conservatives, here and in the Senedd, find a backbone and call for his resignation too. We do not need to wait for an investigation to find out whether the Prime Minister broke the rules because he has admitted it on the Floor of the House. The facts speak for themselves, and the anger, frustration and outrage of my constituents speaks even louder. I have had so many emails from angry constituents who cannot believe the disgrace that is going on here.
On our welfare system, on peace and justice, on law and order and on global Britain, every step of the way we have seen dithering, delay and disdain for those most in need. This Government are letting down Newport West, letting down Wales and letting down the United Kingdom.
People in Pill, Rogerstone and Stow Hill in Newport West are tired of finding it hard to make ends meet, tired of watching the Government engage in dismantling and destroying the BBC rather than protecting it, and tired of trying to heat their homes and feed their families without breaking the bank. That is why the work of the First Minister of Wales and his Government is so important. We have seen that expertly demonstrated over the last two years.
I am grateful to Mr Drakeford for his leadership as our First Minister, and I want to highlight some of the Welsh Labour Government’s successes, such as the inoculation of more than 1.5 million people with their first dose of covid vaccine just over three months after the launch of the programme. They provided free PPE for everyone working in the NHS and social care, including care homes. They set up the most successful covid contact tracing system in the UK—a public service run by local people. That did not happen in England.
The Welsh Government protected more than 165,000 jobs by providing the most generous business support scheme in the UK. They supported our social care providers through the £150 million covid fighting fund and investing more than £24 million to protect charities and promote volunteering. They helped 3,200 into temporary accommodation across Wales, and helped many more from becoming homeless. They also guarantee free school meals—during the holidays, too—for all eligible pupils up to and including Easter 2022. That is how the people of Wales got through the crisis to where we are today, setting an example to all parts of the United Kingdom.
On Brexit, this Government have been wanting every step of the way. Our departure should have been a chance to see a new way forward in an Union of equals. Instead, the Prime Minister has tickled the fancies of his right-wing Back Benchers, while selling out the good people of Northern Ireland. We were promised money from the EU would be matched by the UK Government, and in Wales we are still waiting.
On the environment, we have yet to see tangible outcomes from the COP26 summit in Glasgow. I would like to use this opportunity to urge the Government to adopt Labour’s pledge to deliver a standalone clean air Act. On trade, this Government have sold out Welsh farmers to make the Australians and Americans happy. Forget down under—with this Government, Welsh farming will go under. On steel, following years of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip insulting President Obama, Secretary Clinton and the Democrats, the British are now at the back of the queue into the Oval Office. Is the Prime Minister more focused on making excuses for his string of Downing Street parties than taking steps to lift the damaging steel tariffs?
Our Union is stronger together, our generations of shared values and experiences endure, and our vision of a better world stands resolute. To meet the expectations of a better, more inclusive world, with Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales thriving and succeeding, we need a Labour Government, respectful of the devolved settlement and focused on developing better relations between the Welsh Labour Government and a Labour Government in Westminster. I look forward to that happening very soon.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I congratulate the Secretary of State on securing this session of the Welsh Grand Committee. The Committee has an important function. It is a great shame that, because of the pandemic, it has not been able to meet in this Parliament, but I hope that this will be the first of many sessions.
The Union is a matter of central importance to almost all right hon. and hon. Members here today. Most of us are members of Unionist parties. I must take issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, because clearly the Welsh Labour party is a Unionist party; after all, the shadow Secretary of State is sporting a fetching face covering emblazoned with the initials “UK”—I mention that for the benefit of Hansard. I believe that the Union is precious and nothing should be done to weaken it; indeed, everything possible should be done to strengthen it.
Devolution has been a feature of the political landscape of this country for many years—in the case of Wales, over 22 years. It is an established part of the British constitutional system, to the extent that the Wales Act 2017 carries the ringing declaration that devolution is a permanent part of our constitutional arrangements.
The Welsh Assembly, founded in 1999, has now evolved into a Senedd with a range of primary law-making powers and, with the Welsh Government, it is a firm part of the UK’s constitution. Devolution should not mean, however, that Wales is any less an integral part of the United Kingdom, the constitutional face of which has changed radically over the last 25 years. Wales has two Governments: one in Cardiff and one here at Westminster. That state of affairs is well understood, and most Welsh residents are entirely comfortable with it. Those two Administrations should be working in a co-operative and complementary fashion. Each has its own place, and each should co-operate with the other in delivering the best for Wales and her people.
I have no doubt at all that Wales, as a small constituent nation of the United Kingdom, benefits hugely from its place in the Union, most obviously in financial terms. In 2020-21, public expenditure in Wales was £14.5 billion more than the revenue raised there. That equates to £4,500 per head of the Welsh population. Those financial benefits became all the clearer during the coronavirus pandemic. An extra £3.8 billion has been provided to the Welsh Government this year, in addition to the £5.2 billion extra that Wales received in covid funding in the last financial year, coupled with interventions in Wales by Her Majesty’s Government, including furlough, the self-employment income support scheme, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, the bounce back loan scheme, and goodness knows how many other interventions. It is clear that a huge number of Welsh residents have benefited from Wales’s place as a constituent part of a major world economy with the financial clout to look after all its citizens.
This is not just about money, however. Wales benefits hugely, in practical terms, from its place in the Union. Residents in north Wales, for example, usually value the medical services that they obtain from specialist centres in north-west England, whether orthopaedic services delivered in Gobowen, cardiac treatment at Broadgreen hospital, paediatric services at Alder Hey children’s hospital, or neurosurgery at the Walton Centre in Liverpool. Patients in north Wales know that they can access the services they need that are not regularly obtainable within the boundaries of north Wales.
Frankly, the only barrier or cause of delay in obtaining those services is usually the fact that the Welsh health boards do not pay at the same rates as English commissioners. Treatments obtainable in England are frequently slower for patients resident in Wales. That is a matter that the Welsh Government should address. It is nothing new; politicians across Wales have been complaining it for some considerable time.
Similarly, medication obtainable in England is sometimes not available in Wales, and one has to ask why. The drug Inclisiran, for example, is potentially life-saving for cardiac-arrest and stroke patients—one of my constituents is trying to access it. It is available in England since NHS England did a deal with Novartis, the drug’s developer, to obtain it at a discounted rate, but it is not available in Wales. Why did the Welsh Government not join with NHS England in seeking to obtain the drug at a similar rate? The national health service is, after all, supposed to be a national UK health service. It should provide an equivalent service for everyone in the UK, and the niceties of devolution should not frustrate that essential principle. If Wales cannot do that itself—in which there is no shame—it should join England in seeking to obtain the drugs at the same rate.
Of course, some differences are an inevitable consequence of devolution. Those differences will sometimes be for the benefit of the citizens, but not always. It sometimes makes more sense to do things the same way as in other parts of the country. After all, devolution should not result in poorer services. People in Wales pay their taxes at exactly the same rate as people in England, so they are entitled, broadly speaking, to equivalent services. That is not always the case, however.
Educational attainment in Wales is significantly worse than in other parts of the UK. Wales is continuously slipping further and further behind in the PISA rankings for science, reading and maths, and that is before the impact of the pandemic is taken into account. Quite clearly, that state of affairs needs to be addressed. One wonders to what extent the Welsh Government are consulting with other constituent Governments of the United Kingdom in an effort to improve performance. Devolution does not mean that individual Governments operate in a silo; it should mean sharing best practice and trying to benefit from the experience of others.
The Chair
Order. Sorry to cut you off mid-stream, Mr Jones, but I will call you again when the meeting resumes at 2 pm.
Ministerial Correction
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Rutley
I remind the House that the exercise to correct past ESA payments and pay arrears, following conversion from the previous incapacity benefits, was completed last year, and the then Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), made a statement to the House in July 2021. All cases have been considered and reviews completed, where the information has been provided, and arrears due were paid. As of 1 June 2021, we have reviewed approximately 600,000 cases and made 118,000 arrears payments to those who are eligible, totalling £613 million. The Department published an update on the exercise last Thursday on gov.uk, which sets out further detail on the progress that it has made on processing the cases.
[Official Report, 13 January 2022, Vol. 706, c. 647.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth).
The correct response should have been:
David Rutley
As of 1 June 2021, we have reviewed approximately 600,000 cases and made 118,000 arrears payments to those who are eligible, totalling £613 million. The Department published an update on the exercise last July on gov.uk, which sets out further detail on the progress that it has made on processing the cases.
Professional Qualifications Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 18th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Professional Qualifications Act 2022 View all Professional Qualifications Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 January 2022 - (18 Jan 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few reminders for colleagues. Will Members please switch off or turn their electronic devices to silent? No food or drinks are permitted during sittings except for the water provided. Members are expected to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind colleagues that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test before coming on to the parliamentary estate. Please also give each other and members of staff some distance when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. I hope that we can take those matters formally without debate.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 18 January) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 January;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 20 January;
2. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 20 January.—(Paul Scully.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Paul Scully.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email. We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list 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 a similar issue, as colleagues will know. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated, but in the order 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. 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 to it that they wish to do so.
Clause 1
Power to provide for individuals to be treated as having UK qualifications
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, Mr Pritchard. The Bill will replace the interim system for the recognition of professional qualifications that was put in place when the UK left the EU. That interim system can give preferential treatment to professionals within the European economic area and with Swiss qualifications. It has not been reciprocated by the EU, and will be superseded by our recent trade agreement with the EEA and European Free Trade Association states. It must therefore be revoked.
Clause 1 sets out the substance of a new recognition approach. It means that regulations can be made that require regulators to consider applications from individuals with professional qualifications and experience gained around the world. Regulators will determine whether an individual with overseas qualifications or experience has substantially the same knowledge and skills to substantially the same standard as demonstrated by the relevant UK qualification or experience. Equally, other relevant regulatory criteria must also be met—for example, regarding language proficiency or criminal record checks. The regulations would not alter the standards required to practise professions in the UK. No regulator would be pressured into accepting qualifications that did not reach UK standards. My officials have worked with all regulators affected by the Bill, and I am happy to report that the regulators support clause 1.
Where clause 1 is not exercised, regulators will be free to continue recognising qualifications from overseas in line with their existing powers and any reciprocal agreements in place. As a result of the condition in clause 2, there are only certain conditions under which a Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor or a devolved Administration would be able to make regulations under clause 1. Action can be taken only where there is a clear public interest to do so—in this case, unmet demand for services. I hope that my explanation has provided further clarity on why the Government believe that that approach is necessary and proportionate. I assure the Committee that the regulators support the clause.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. Having a skilled workforce is essential for the economic success of our country, and the Bill will promote mutual recognition of professional qualifications, which will in turn increase the opportunities for many professionals from abroad to work here in Britain. We also need our high-class professional services professionals to have the opportunity to work abroad. The Bill matters both in addressing access here and in creating a potential for mutual recognition agreements for professionals to work abroad.
Whether it is for the billions that qualified professionals contribute to our economy—such as the £60 billion of gross added value that legal services are worth and the £5 billion in the export of legal services—or the societal contribution that nurses, doctors, veterinarians and others make to the fabric of our country, it matters greatly that we get the legislation right. Although the Bill has faced much scrutiny from colleagues in the Lords, there are areas where it could be amended to ensure that we in this House, as well as our colleagues in the devolved Administrations and the regulated professions, deliver the certainty that the Bill should provide to millions of professional workers.
We therefore encourage the Government to properly consult with the relevant regulators and professional bodies before making regulations, so that they can avoid the same shambolic approach that the Government took, for example, in the establishment of the Trade Remedies Authority, where the Secretary of State had to step in at the eleventh hour last year to prevent the disastrous removal of vital protections for our steel industry. Similarly, we encourage the Government to properly consult with the devolved Administrations, and provide appropriate reassurances to them that they will be appropriately consulted when regulations affect them, and that the Bill will not strip more powers from them when it comes into force. The relevance of the Trade Remedies Authority is that the Government opposed our amendment in Committee to then Trade Bill to include, among others, the devolved Administrations. Our amendments to today’s Bill would reassure the devolved Administrations that this legislation will not be another attempt by Westminster to seize responsibilities that were previously devolved.
We have also tabled new clauses to strengthen certain aspects of the Bill. Having qualified professionals here in the UK contributing to our economy and social fabric is vital. It is therefore galling to see yet more shortages of skills across the country—shortages that, we hear today, are in the tens of thousands for nurses and carers. We know about the shortage of vets. All of those are covered by the Bill, as are driving instructors, who of course link to lorry drivers, where we have a significant and sustained set of problems. That is why we seek an obligation for the Government to provide a report to the House about what they are doing to tackle the skills shortages facing the country. We also seek additional certainty for workers who already have their professional qualifications recognised in the UK.
Finally, we seek certainty that a number of regulators and regulated professionals are covered by the Bill. When the Bill was in the Lords, it was clear how little effort and thought went into it from Ministers. It was truly shambolic. In fact, it was so shambolic that the Government’s own Minister, Lord Grimstone, said that the deep errors had made him feel “uncomfortable” and that he had listened to the criticism
“with a certain lack of enjoyment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2021; Vol. 813, c. 160.]
Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said that
“it has all the hallmarks of being a Bill conceived and executed by officials with little or no ministerial policy direction or oversight.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2021; Vol. 813, c. 149.]
I hope that today’s Minister is giving a little more political direction and oversight than his colleagues have previously. How does he feel about the Bill? Is he, as his colleagues were, uncomfortable with it? Is he certain that the wrinkles have been ironed out?
This is an important piece of legislation, which will affect people’s lives and livelihoods, and every effort must be made to deliver the system that those in scope need. Lord Grimstone had the decency to accept the shortcomings of the Bill and of the Government, and in collaboration with Labour made the necessary amendments to put the Bill into better shape. I hope that today’s Minister will address the remaining concerns with us as we debate the amendments before us.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Power conferred by section 1 exercisable only if necessary to meet demand
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) In determining whether the condition in subsection (2) is met, the appropriate national authority must have regard to the availability of professional services in the regulated profession by reference to such factors as appear to the authority to be relevant including, but not limited to—
(a) the extent of delays in accessing professional services,
(b) the level of charges for services,
(c) available workforce data, skills needs or workforce modelling forecasts,
(d) vacancy levels or recruitment difficulties,
(e) whether the profession is on the occupation shortage list, and
(f) the views of the relevant regulator and of professional representative bodies.”
This amendment requires additional information to be taken into account by the appropriate national authority when deciding what regulations are to be made in accordance with the powers conferred under clause 1.
The reluctance to consult on matters of great importance to people’s lives and livelihoods is a flaw and a hallmark of how the Government operate. The Bill does not provide any obligation to consult the relevant regulators and other professional representative bodies when determining to make recommendations that will no doubt affect them and their members. How can that be right?
The second report of the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated clearly that it was
“surprised and disappointed that neither the Memorandum nor the Explanatory Notes…explain why Ministers will have no duty to consult before making regulations.”
The Minister should explain why not. As Conservative Baroness Noakes said to other peers, that
“goes to the heart of this Bill. BEIS did not consult on this Bill or any policy proposals. All it did was issue a rather strange call for evidence, some of the replies to which were really rather thin, and it then worked out its own policy and put out a statement of policy at the same time that it published the Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2021; Vol. 813, c. 167.]
Failure to consult the relevant experts will only lead to mistakes and time wasted in trying to rectify those mistakes.
Furthermore, while the Bill was in the Lords, the Minister in that place said:
“I fully agree that it is important for the relevant national authority to engage with a range of stakeholders before making regulations. Because of the complexity of these matters, it would be the height of foolishness not to do that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 June 2021; Vol. 812, c. 1500.]
Does the Minister agree with his colleague that it would be “the height of foolishness” not to consult with the appropriate stakeholders? If he does, does he accept the need for the amendment?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Member for his amendment, which would alter the unmet demand condition in subsection (2). The amendment would require the appropriate national authority to consider a specific set of factors to determine whether that unmet demand condition had been met.
I agree that the appropriate national authority should be transparent when determining whether the unmet demand condition is satisfied. I also recognise that considering a combination of the factors set out by the hon. Member in the amendment would make a sensible determination of unmet demand. That is why the Government committed to publish specific guidance to support appropriate national authorities in their determination of unmet demand. Factors in the amendment would of course be part of that guidance anyway.
The other place agreed that that was appropriate, because setting matters out in guidance, rather than on the face of the Bill, will give the appropriate national authority the freedom to tailor its unmet demand assessment to the needs and circumstances of each profession. I expect that appropriate national authorities will be clear in showing how they have reached their determination. Their approach must withstand scrutiny.
For example, a devolved Administration is best placed to determine the factors relevant to assess whether there is unmet demand for a profession in an area of devolved legislative competence. It is important that they are able to decide how best to make such determinations, and are not forced to work through a list of prescribed factors in the Bill. I therefore hope that the Committee will agree that setting the factors out in guidance is more appropriate.
The amendment also refers to the gathering of views of interested parties. I agree that that is clearly of the utmost importance. Therefore, clause 15 sets out a duty to consult with regulators when appropriate national authorities are using the powers under clause 1. That will provide an opportunity for regulators to express their view on unmet demand and on the content of any resultant negotiations. Given that the Bill already legislates for that, I do not see the need to repeat such an obligation in clause 2.
The proposed amendment also extends the consultation to give regard to the views of professional bodies. I am sure that appropriate national authorities, as a matter of good practice, will look to liaise with such bodies where appropriate. I hope the Committee is reassured that measures are in place to guide the application of the clause and provide transparency of how decisions will be made, as the hon. Member rightly suggests is required, as well as appropriate engagement with key parties. There is no need, therefore, to set that out further in the Bill. As such, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I come back to the point that the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made—that this part of the Bill does not contain the duty to consult. I take his point about it being later in the Bill, but the point is, if the Government are happy to put it in later on, why is it missing here? We have not really had an answer, so we will test the will of the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
Clause 2 restricts the use of power for an appropriate national authority to make regulations under clause 1. It does so by limiting the use of power to a specific set of circumstances and introducing the condition that the appropriate national authority can make regulations only where to do so would address an unmet demand for the services provided by that profession, such as by preventing unreasonable delays and charges.
The clause provides reassurance that both the UK Government and the devolved Administrations can exercise the power in clause 1 only when there is clear public interest and when it is in their competence to do so. That means that action can be taken where necessary to meet the demand for services, ensuring recognition for appropriately qualified professionals in demand areas. It prevents regulations from being made under clause 1 where regulators already have sufficient existing recognition routes in place. In those circumstances, the condition in clause 2 would not be met. Clause 2 does not prevent regulators from using existing powers to create routes to recognition; it simply ensures that where there is pressing need, the regulations can be made.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Implementation of international recognition agreements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The UK is the second-largest exporter of services in the world. The clause is therefore needed to ensure that the UK can meet its international obligations, allowing appropriate national authorities to implement parts of international agreements relating to professional qualifications. Nothing implemented under the clause can force regulators to recognise applicants who are unfit to practise, or materially adversely affect the knowledge, skills and experience of the individuals practising a profession.
As many professions in the UK are already subject to existing legislative frameworks, including primary legislation, amendment may be required to reflect the terms of international agreements on professional qualifications and to be consistent with our international obligations. Existing powers may not provide for the full implementation of international agreements, which is why clause 3 is so important.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Authorisation to enter into regulator recognition agreements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Bill Esterson
Encouraged by the closeness of the vote, we will have another go with new clause 1. The amendment provides additional reassurances to the devolved Administrations that the Bill does not affect the establishment or operation of common framework agreements, which are devolved matters. This amendment would—[Interruption.] Sorry, I am speaking to the wrong provisions. I am amazed that nobody noticed. [Laughter.]
Bill Esterson
Given your vast experience, Mr Pritchard, and given my experience of debating with you over a number of years, I know that you were about to intervene to stop me. We will speak to new clause 1, but we will not test the will of the Committee on the matter; we will come back to it on amendment 3.
The new clause would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to provide guidance to regulators concerning mutual recognition under the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. The Bill provides a framework to allow mutual recognition of professional qualifications between regulators and professional bodies in the UK and the equivalent organisations overseas. The provisions in clauses 3 and 4 will allow for the implementation of regulator-to-regulator mutual recognition agreements, and of the recognition arrangements in new international trade agreements.
Importantly, the Law Society advises that the Bill will enable the mutual recognition agreement provisions in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement to be implemented, but it raises concerns about the arrangements. The Law Society says that the provisions for mutual recognition agreements in the TCA are largely based on the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement. No mutual recognition agreements have been signed between the EU and Canada in the three years since CETA came into force. The concern is that the lack of mutual recognition agreements using similar provisions may indicate that the arrangements in the TCA are not sufficient for setting up such new agreements as are needed to encourage professionals to make up the shortages of nurses, vets or other professionals.
The Law Society and the Labour party want assurances that additional support, co-ordination and guidance will be available if needed by regulators and professional bodies on how to make the most of the provisions in the trade and co-operation agreement, not least in case they are to form the benchmark for future free trade agreements. More than assurances, the new clause would oblige the Secretary of State to provide guidance to regulators on how to make the most of the provisions in the trade and co-operation agreement.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I will not detain the Committee for long, but I will speak briefly in support of the new clause in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, who made some excellent comments.
I declare a slight interest as having a professional qualification myself—that of a chartered engineer. That qualification is not part of the list of qualifications that will be subject to the legislation, but professional qualifications are an important part of many sectors, such as engineering, in our economy and our public realm. They are a significant factor in the protection of service users. Think of the many professions that have such an impact on service users, from the legal profession to chartered engineering, medical professions and nursing. It is important that those professions are well regulated, and the Bill is important to all our constituents. Newcastle, for example, has many professionals who benefit from the recognition of their qualifications.
We want the UK to be the best place in the world to live and work. That means being able to attract those with professional qualifications. We must recognise the importance of the autonomy of the regulators, provided for by Labour amendments during the passage of the Bill, and the importance of appropriate guidance, for which the new clause seeks to provide, for professional qualification regulators, particularly when it comes to the impact of trade deals. Many of us in this House—I bow to my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central with his extensive experience, however—might find the intricacies of the many trade agreements somewhat difficult to master, so it is critical that the regulators of professional qualifications have the support and guidance that the new clause seeks.
I note, for example, that in the EU-UK trade agreement we have not achieved any reciprocity of professional qualification recognition, so we are in a worse position than we were before leaving the European Union. For many with professional qualifications in this country—lawyers, engineers—being able to work abroad is an important part of their training. I myself worked in France, the US and Nigeria for some time, bringing skills back to this country. Not having reciprocal agreements in many areas leaves us worse off with regard to, say, the European Union, where there is a system of automatic recognition of professional qualifications for seven sector professionals—nurses, midwives, doctors, dentists, pharmacists, architects and vets—and a general system that enables workers to have their professional qualifications recognised.
Given the challenges of negotiating a mutual recognition agreement, surely the Minister understands that many of the professional qualification regulators could benefit from the advice and guidance of his Department and, more broadly, of the Government, with all their experience. Therefore, in providing for an obligation on the Secretary of State to provide guidance to regulators concerning mutual recognition—specifically under the European Union-UK trade and co-operation agreement—and in supporting regulators, the new clause would protect all our constituents by ensuring the quality and professionalism of the services that they very much enjoy now and hope to continue to do so.
Paul Scully
I thank hon. Members for the new clause, which seeks to place the obligation on the Secretary of State to provide additional support, co-ordination and guidance to regulators on mutual recognition agreements under the trade and co-operation agreement. Noting the importance of regulatory recognition agreements in supporting professionals who are qualified in one jurisdiction to work in another, I will also explain the benefits of the clause standing part of the Bill.
On the new clause, the hon. Member for Sefton Central was right to acknowledge that, since the end of the transition period, the process by which UK-qualified professionals seek recognition in the EU has changed. Professionals are now subject to the relevant rules in EU member states.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central talked about the negotiations and about mutual recognition and reciprocal arrangements. The UK proposed ambitious arrangements on professional qualification recognition during the negotiation of the TCA, but regrettably the EU did not engage with them at that point. Instead, we agreed provisions based on existing EU precedent. The TCA provides a mechanism for the UK and EU to discuss the potential for mutual recognition of professional qualifications, where that is in both parties’ interests to do so.
Regulator recognition agreements can make it easier for professionals to navigate that landscape, as we heard, and agreements can be reached independently between regulators or under the TCA. Article 158 of the TCA provides a framework for the UK and the EU to agree arrangements to facilitate recognition of professional qualifications. Using that process, regulators and professional bodies may develop joint recommendations for professional recognition arrangements to be adopted. Annex 24 to the TCA contains guidelines to help them to do so. My officials are holding discussions with their counterparts in the European Commission to clarify the detailed process for making the best use of this framework.
I turn to the support available for regulators. Last year, BEIS established a dedicated recognition arrangements team to provide the support, guidance and co-ordination to regulators of professional bodies that the hon. Members have asked for. There is considerable experience there. That team supports them to pursue recognition arrangements through the framework of the TCA and other trade deals, and on an independent, regulator-to-regulator basis.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the Minister for describing the dedicated support team that the Department has set up. Will he give us some examples of the advice it has been able to give already? How many inquiries has it had from regulators or professional bodies?
Paul Scully
I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman with that detail. I have not been directly involved in that advice. None the less, we are here to talk about the amendment. The debate for today is whether we put that experience and advice on the face the Bill or have the existing structure, whereby that team is already offering that advice, is available and is stepping up with its experience to do so. That team regularly engages with regulators of professional bodies. It has published technical guidance on gov.uk. It is obviously going to be hard to quantify how many people have read and used that information, but information on how to seek recognition arrangements inside and outside the TCA is there.
The Department has also provided limited, targeted financial support to regulators seeking to agree recognition arrangements for a pilot recognition arrangements grant programme. I hope the hon. Member is therefore assured that the Government share the priority highlighted by his amendment and have already instituted support for regulated and professional bodies to make the most of the provisions in the TCA.
Clause 4 is part of our support for regulators as they pursue recognition agreements, ensuring that all regulators can take full advantage of international opportunities and enter recognition agreements at their discretion. Some regulators believe that they can already do so with their overseas counterparts and seize those opportunities. For example, the Financial Reporting Council has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority. If they can already enter recognition agreements, no further action is needed, but many regulators are currently considering recognition arrangements for the first time, and not all regulators have clear powers to enter them. Clause 4 can help. The Government are committed to supporting regulator recognition to fit legal agreements with the EU and beyond, and have taken action with that aim.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the Minister for his answers, which I will come back to. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for what she said about the importance of different professions, including her own, as part of the UK’s economic success, exporting around the world, gaining experience and returning it to this country. It is clearly in all our interests that we have good trade in services and facilitate that by supporting our professional services to trade internationally. She gave some excellent examples from across the professions of exactly why that matters and why it is a concern that we are relying on a clause that has not seen after three years any mutual recognition agreements signed up to in the corresponding EU-Canada agreement. That is the reason for the amendment and why we are raising this concern.
I am given a degree of assurance by the Minister that the dedicated support team is in place. I just gently say to him that, as the Minister, he really should have anticipated my question and probably pre-empted it by giving us some examples. I hope he is not going to blame his officials, because he should have asked for that information before, so that he could give us examples of the team in operation and told us how many inquiries there had been.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for his kind comments earlier. Is he concerned, as I am, that the Minister considers the lack of any negotiated reciprocal agreement under the Canada deal as some sign of success, and that that is why he is so complacent when it comes to providing proactive advice to our professional regulatory authorities for the EU trade deal?
Bill Esterson
A large degree of complacency and a lack of preparation characterise the whole way that the legislation has been brought forward, as Lord Grimstone and a number of Conservative peers acknowledged in the Lords. I think my hon. Friend is certainly on to something. The key thing is how we can ensure that mutual recognition agreements can be entered into by professional bodies and regulators in this country in a timely fashion that supports the kind of activity that she mentioned and maximises the benefit to our professional services that want to work abroad, as well as to employers who need access to staff in this country.
I will take the Minister at his word that a dedicated support team is up and running. In that spirit, we will not press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that, as I set out in the preamble, the Question that is about to be put relates to clause 4, not to new clause 1. The debate on both has just taken place, but the decision on new clause 1, on which the shadow Minister has indicated his thinking, will come later.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Revocation of general EU system of recognition of overseas qualifications
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
To clarify for the record, the team has taken steps forward, because there is already advice and guidance on gov.uk and a pilot grant programme is working. As I said, I will write to the hon. Member for Sefton Central with the specifics that he asked for.
Clause 5 revokes the European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015, which implemented the EU’s general system to facilitate the recognition of professional qualifications from the EEA and Switzerland, as set out in the EU directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. The regulations were retained temporarily to provide certainty to businesses and public services at the end of the transition period, but the time has come to change our approach now that the UK is an independent trading nation, free of the obligations of the EU single market.
Several such modifications will be made to various pieces of legislation, and the most practical means to make those changes is by taking the power to do so through regulations, rather than by attempting to amend various regulations through the Bill.
Chi Onwurah
The Minister spoke about revoking the European Union provisions. With regard to mutual recognition for qualifications, does he think that British professionals are in a better position now than they were before?
Paul Scully
Many regulators will continue to be able to make their own determination in those areas, but the Bill will create a wider framework. The Architects Registration Board and the General Dental Council, for example, will be able to take wider views as a result of the Bill.
The Government remain committed to international agreements, including the EU withdrawal agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement, and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement, all of which the Bill upholds. We gave effect to those agreements in regulations in 2019 and 2020, and there are protections in place for existing recognition decisions, which the Bill upholds.
Clause 5 does not affect those agreements or professionals who have already had their qualifications recognised in the UK, who will continue to be able to practise, provided that they continue to meet any ongoing practice requirements. The clause simply ends the legacy of EU qualification recognition in UK law.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Revocation of other retained EU recognition law
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 6 complements clause 5 by providing a power for modifications to be made to other retained EU recognition law in order to cause it to cease having any effect. It enables the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to bring an end to the legislation for specific sectors that continue to implement EU qualification recognition law.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Assistance centre
Paul Scully
Clause 7 provides a statutory basis for the continued delivery of an assistance centre. It is an inquiry service that provides support to overseas professionals seeking to practise in the UK, as well as to UK professionals seeking to practise overseas.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Duty of regulator to publish information on requirements to practise
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 8 is about increasing transparency by requiring regulators of professions in all parts of the UK to publish information on entry and practise requirements. Our evidence gathering found that the complex regulatory landscape is sometimes difficult for professionals to navigate, including in relation to transparency of information regarding entry into professions and application fees, so the clause requires regulators to make available the information about what qualifications or experience are needed, application processes, registration processes, how to continue to practise, ongoing training units and fees.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Duty of regulator to provide information to regulator in another part of UK
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 9, page 8, line 12, at end insert—
“(6) Nothing in this section affects the establishment or operation of a common framework agreement relating to professional qualifications.
(7) A “common framework agreement” is any agreement between a Minister of the Crown and one or more devolved authorities as to how devolved or transferred matters previously governed by EU law are to be regulated.”
This amendment provides additional reassurances to devolved administrations that the Act does not affect the establishment or operation of common framework agreements which are devolved matters.
The amendment provides additional reassurances to devolved Administrations that the Bill will not affect the establishment or operation of common framework agreements, which are devolved matters—that is to say any agreement between a Minister and a devolved authority as to how devolved matters previously governed by EU law are to be regulated—relating to professional qualifications. It is important that when divesting powers to a devolved authority, we allow those powers to remain and do not seek to revoke them on a whim, buried in a Bill such as the one we are debating.
The position of the Labour Government in Wales is that assurances by Ministers in Westminster that they will not use powers granted to them without consultation with devolved Administrations is not good enough. If Ministers say they will do something, they should be prepared to put their commitments on the face of the Bill. Indeed, as the Welsh Government say, although the UK Government have stated that they do not intend to use the concurrent powers in the areas of devolved competence without the agreement of the relevant DAs, the provisions in the Bill do not reflect that, and the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor would be able to exercise these powers in devolved areas without requiring any consent from Welsh Ministers. As representatives of the devolved Administrations are telling the Government, matters that were previously the preserve of the devolved Administrations, such as common framework agreements, should remain so.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Member for the amendment, which seeks to ensure that clause 9 does not affect the establishment or operation of a common framework. A framework for the regulation of professional qualifications is under development between the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Executive, to ensure a common approach on powers that have returned following our exit from the European Union and that intersect with devolved legislative competences. Those discussions are well advanced, and they are a testament to the collaborative and collegiate working between Administrations.
Although the amendment relates specifically to clause 9, let me reassure the Committee that we are committed to ensuring that the provisions in the Bill work alongside the common framework programme, and we will consider this as we develop the framework further. However, the common framework is a separate entity. The Bill does not constrain it in any way, and a reference to that effect on the face of the Bill is entirely unnecessary. I hope that reassures the hon. Member and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Bill Esterson
Well, that is not the view of the Welsh Government. [Interruption.] We could go into the support that the Welsh Government have given the UK Government recently on tests, but you might tell me to move on rather quickly, Mr Pritchard.
The point that the Welsh Government are making is that it is very important that confidence is retained and that there is no indication of the UK Government going into areas of devolved competence without agreement. The Bill is going through Parliament now. There is no indication of a final date on the wider negotiations and discussions that the Minister referred to. It would therefore be prudent to ensure that in areas such as the common framework, which the Government have committed to, they intend to follow such an approach. If so, they should have no concerns about the provision being in the Bill. On that basis, I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
Clause 9 ensures that regulators in one part of the UK share information with a regulator in another part of the UK. It places a duty on UK regulators, when requested, to provide information that they hold to another regulator. The information must relate to individuals who are entitled to practise the relevant profession in part of the UK.
In many cases, information sharing between regulators is already done on a voluntary basis. The clause will ensure that good practice continues across professions in the UK. It means that when an individual applies to practise a profession or moves between jurisdictions within the UK, the regulators have the necessary information to assess that individual’s entitlement to practise. It is limited to information held by the UK regulator about the individual and would not require a regulator to obtain information that it does not already hold. It makes sure that information sharing takes place if the practice does not already exist, and where it does exist, the clause ensures that it continues in the unlikely event that voluntary co-operation breaks down.
That approach supports co-operation between regulators across the UK to help protect consumers and public health. Information sharing can inform regulatory action, for example if there is evidence of malpractice, because regulators are best placed to determine whether they require further information about an individual to inform their decisions on entitlement to practise. The clause therefore provides flexibility to regulators on whether they want to ask a counterpart regulator in another part of the UK for that information.
I will also take this opportunity to reassure the hon. Members whose amendment has failed to gain approval in this place that commitments were made at the Dispatch Box in the other place that we would work with our counterparts in the DAs to complete the common framework. We will continue to work towards that. We have offered to revisit whether the Bill’s provisions should be referenced in the framework itself. With common frameworks, including regulated vocational qualifications, there has always been a shared sentiment between the UK nations that there should not be legislative underpinning; that they are more successful when entered into voluntarily, with the focus on collaboration, information sharing and good practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Duty of regulator to provide information to overseas regulator
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 10 places a duty on UK regulators, when requested, to provide information to overseas regulators relating to individuals who are or have been entitled to practise the relevant profession in the UK, assisting professionals practising in the UK who are seeking to practise their profession abroad by ensuring that overseas regulators have the information to assess an individual’s entitlement to practise.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Amendments to the Architects Act 1997
Paul Scully
This clause relates to the recognition of internationally qualified architects in the UK and the administration of the system by the profession’s regulator, the Architects Registration Board. It is designed to facilitate a new system that will replace the interim recognitions system, which gives EU qualification holders an expedited route on to the UK register.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Crown application
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
This clause ensures that regulators that are part of the Crown or act on its behalf are bound by the provisions in the Bill, and regulations made under it, in the same way as other regulators. That includes executive agencies of Government Departments, such as the Health and Safety Executive.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
General provision about regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The clause details the extent and limits of the powers to make regulation provided to appropriate national authorities in the Bill. It is a framework Bill. The clauses are essential to ensure that the Bill works in practice and can carry out its intended functions. It details new powers that can be used to make supplementary, incidental or saving provisions. It also sets out where the Bill does not allow powers to make regulations to modify legislation. That ensures that the use of the Bill stays within its remit.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Protection of regulator autonomy
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 14, page 11, line 13, at end insert—
“(6) Subsections (7) to (9) apply where the Secretary of State makes regulations as the appropriate national authority under this Act which extend to the whole of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
(7) Before making such regulations, the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
(b) following that consultation, seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and a Northern Ireland department.
(8) If consent to regulations is not given by a relevant authority set out in subsection (7)(b) within the period of one month beginning with the day on which consent is sought from that authority, the Secretary of State may make the regulations without that consent.
(9) If regulations are made in reliance on subsection (8), the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining why the Secretary of State decided to make the regulations without the consent of the relevant authority.”
This amendment obliges the Secretary of State to consult the devolved administrations where regulations affect a regulator that covers the whole of the United Kingdom.
The amendment obliges the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Administrations where regulations affect a regulator that covers the whole of the United Kingdom, and we will be pushing it to a vote. The amendment is important because there are some regulators that operate on a devolved basis—the Law Society, for example, because of the different legal systems across the nations of the United Kingdom. Another example is the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, which is separate from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. Those are two regulators covering different areas of the country.
In those cases the relevant devolved Administration must be consulted before regulations that affect that nation are made. There are also regulators that govern the whole of the United Kingdom, such as the Civil Aviation Authority or the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Just as the Government should consult the devolved Administrations when making regulations that affect the individual nation, so too should they consult the devolved Administrations when a regulation is made that affects the whole of the United Kingdom.
The amendment does not give the devolved Administrations the power to overrule the Secretary of State. Withholding consent does not mean new regulations will not be introduced. Instead, it allows those devolved Administrations to make their representations, and it gives them a statutory right to argue their case to the Secretary of State and try to change his or her mind. If the Secretary of State still believes their course of action is the correct one, despite representations from the appropriate devolved Administration, in their authority as Secretary of State they will, of course, still be empowered to make regulations.
The amendment adopts the formula that was adopted in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, so we are asking for the Government to follow their own lead.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I perhaps do not share the hon. Member’s view that the UK Government should have the ability to override the devolved Administrations in respect of the concerns they have. He has mentioned that the content of the amendment is based on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Will he be cognisant of the fact that the devolved Administrations were against the 2020 Act? Does the amendment go far enough?
Bill Esterson
The hon. Member is right, of course. We may not agree entirely, but we are trying to hold the Minister and the Government to consistency with their own measures through our amendment. That is the spirit in which it is intended, with the one-month period in the amendment in which consultation should take place. It is an attempt to improve on a wholly inadequate and unacceptable situation, putting in some degree of consultation. I accept the difference of opinion between us on the ideal, but that is what we are trying to do with the amendment. His colleagues could have tabled an amendment to go further, but they have not done so in this case. Our amendment is what we can vote on.
It might seem odd for the Government to be inconsistent—now I come to think of it, perhaps it is not odd at all—and, in a rational world, we might expect them to take the same approach that they obligated just over a year ago, applying that consistently across post-Brexit legislation. That seems like a good idea to me. I wonder what the Minister thinks.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Member for the amendment, which seeks to require the Government to consult with appropriate persons and to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations when making regulations that extend to the whole of the UK, even when legislating in a reserved area. As the Government have set out repeatedly, it is absolutely not the Government’s intention to make regulations in relation to matters on which the devolved Governments could legislate without seeking their view.
Lord Grimstone has put that assurance on the record many times in the other place, including in correspondence with ministerial counterparts in the devolved nations. We are therefore not convinced that the amendment is preferable to the Government’s own, more flexible proposals, which Ministers of all four nations are now discussing.
Working with the devolved Administrations is the way to make the Bill operate best for all our UK nations. That is why I and Lord Grimstone wrote to our ministerial counterparts in the devolved Administration ahead of Second Reading, offering to put a duty to consult with devolved Administrations in the Bill. Thus far, Ministers in the devolved Administrations have rejected our offer, but our discussions are ongoing.
I hope that we will be able to reach an outcome that maintains the policy integrity of the Bill while giving all four nations of the UK the assurances that they need about the operation of the powers.
Bill Esterson
I wonder whether the Minister will clear something up for me. If he gets an indication from the devolved Administrations, is it his intention to come back on Report with a Government amendment to put that duty to consult into the Bill?
Paul Scully
That is exactly why we continue to discuss ahead of further stages of the Bill. As I say, we offered an amendment to provide for the duty to consult and to publish the outcome of the consultation. That was rejected by the Scottish and Welsh Governments. A rationale for the inclusion of the current powers and the reasons why a consent mechanism would not be possible on the face of this Bill were shared with the Welsh Government on 22 September. However, we will continue to work with the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive on that basis, to try to do everything we can to secure an agreement.
Stephen Flynn
I take cognisance of what the Minister says, but the reality of the situation is that we have seen Bill after Bill introduced by the UK Government delving into devolved areas of competence. If the UK Government really had a respect agenda, they would try to solve those problems before such Bills came before the House—although the Bill has a number of other issues as well. How confident is he that he will be able to get agreement with the devolved nations in this regard?
Paul Scully
In terms of confidence, all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I will continue to try. I am keen that we do everything we can as a UK Government to stretch our arms out and to say, “We want to work with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive to get the skills list.”
Stephen Flynn
I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous. Just for clarity, is he saying that he will try incredibly hard, but if the devolved Administrations are not happy, he will ultimately override them and force through his views?
Paul Scully
I think we have made it clear with the devolved Administrations that we want to get as many agreements as we can, but we need to press on with this legislation. However, that is not the same as closing down the conversation. It is important that we do everything we can to work with them.
This amendment has some similarities to the Government’s own position, in that it advocates consultation. However, as with some of the other proposals that we have discussed, the amendment is somewhat less flexible and therefore less satisfactory than the Government’s own approach.
For example, the amendment is limited to regulations that extend across all four nations. What if the Lord Chancellor wished to make regulations under the Bill, or the regulations extended to only two or three nations of the UK? The amendment would oblige the Government to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations even when legislating in the reserved area that I have talked about.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill now includes a duty to consult regulators, which extends to regulators in the devolved nations. In addition to the consultation that we would normally undertake with devolved Administrations, wherever appropriate we will engage directly with those closest to the issues before making regulations.
I will continue to engage, as I have said, with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations to persuade them of the merits of the Government’s approach. I do not believe that the amendment is preferable to the Government’s approach, so I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Bill Esterson
We have had an interesting series of exchanges. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South made the point well that we see this approach in Bill after Bill; indeed, we see it in clause after clause in Bill after Bill. We have already seen it in more than one clause today.
We have hit the nail on the head with the amendment, because we are calling for consistency. In the absence of a formally agreed commitment to wider consultation, if it was good enough 13 months ago to provide for a one-month period of consultation, with the Secretary of State having the final say after listening to representations or if representations were not forthcoming, why is it not good enough today? On that basis, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
Clause 14 protects regulators’ autonomy with regard to their ability to prevent individuals who are unfit to practise from doing so. The autonomy of regulators in determining those who can practise professions and maintain standards is paramount. The regulators are the experts and they are best placed to determine who should practise in their professions.
The Government added this clause during proceedings on the Bill in the House of Lords, recognising that enshrining this commitment provided important legislative reassurance and support to regulators to deliver their core function. Peers and regulators welcomed the addition of the clause and were content that it protects the regulator’s autonomy. It places two conditions on regulations made under clauses 1, 3 and 4, which are the clauses most relevant to regulator autonomy.
The first condition is that the regulations cannot remove the regulator’s ability to prevent unfit individuals from practising a profession, and the second is that the regulations cannot have a material adverse effect on the knowledge, skills or experience of individuals practising a regulated profession. The effect is that the regulations cannot lower the required standards for an individual to practise a profession in the UK or part of the UK.
Taken together, these two conditions make sure that regulators will retain the final say over who practises in their profession and that the standards of individuals practising professions are maintained.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Consultation with regulators
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 15 places a duty on appropriate national authorities to consult regulators who are likely to be affected by, or are otherwise considered appropriate to consult on, regulations made under clauses 1, 3 and 4 of the Bill. They must do so before such regulations are made. The Government added the clause during proceedings on the Bill in the House of Lords, recognising that enshrining this commitment provided important legislative reassurance and support to regulators to deliver their core function. Peers and regulators welcomed the addition of this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Authority by whom regulations may be made
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 16 sets out who is an appropriate national authority for the purpose of this Bill. Appropriate national authorities may make regulations where specified for the purposes set out under this clause. In addition to the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor is also considered an appropriate national authority and may make regulations under the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Parliamentary procedure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 17 sets out the parliamentary procedure for how regulations under the Bill should be made, including the situations in which legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure or may be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The clause also sets out how this works for all nations of the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Interpretation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 18 provides interpretation of the terms used in the Bill. It includes clear definition so that there is no ambiguity over the meaning of the Bill’s provisions and how they apply.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 19 details the territorial extent of the Bill. The regulation of some professions is devolved. The Bill respects the devolution settlement and the fact that professions have different regulators in different parts of the UK. It covers regulated professions and regulators across the United Kingdom and extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Commencement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 20 sets out procedural detail for the commencement of the provisions of the Bill. It stipulates the timings at which, and conditions under which, the various sections and sub-sections will come into force.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Short title
Amendment proposed: 1, in clause 21, page 15, line 11, leave out subsection (2)—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Bill Esterson
This poses the question of why the Government are proposing this amendment. Perhaps the Minister will explain why they are removing the provision which says that nothing in the Act will impose any charges on the public or on public funds. Does he expect that the Act will, indeed, incur costs to the public purse, perhaps to the regulators or those professionals working in the regulated sector? Will he provide assurances around what costs they now expect?
Paul Scully
The House of Lords maintains the approach that when a Bill is introduced in the Lords, it does not involve taxation or public spending, deal with non-domestic rates or council tax, or otherwise infringe financial privileges. The House of Lords does that via the privilege amendment. There is no equivalent for Bills that start in the Commons. We believe that it is appropriate—this is a technical move—to remove that privilege.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 21 gives the short title of the Bill for references to it in future papers or bodies of work. The short title is the Professional Qualifications Act 2021.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Skills shortages reporting
“In relation to any regulated profession falling under the provisions of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report detailing any workforce shortages, including what measures are being taken to resolve the shortages.”—(Bill Esterson.)
This new clause obliges the Secretary of State to produce an annual report setting out which sectors are facing skills shortages and what measures are being taken to resolve the shortages.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Bill Esterson
We have serious shortages of skilled workers, so the new clause obliges the Secretary of State to produce an annual report setting out which sectors are facing skills shortages and what measures are being taken to resolve those shortages.
As the Royal College of Nursing notes, we went into this pandemic with 50,000 nursing vacancies in the UK, and we are likely to have lost far more nurses throughout. The British Medical Association has estimated a shortage of around 49,000 doctors and doctors in training across primary and secondary care. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has identified a shortfall of nearly 1,000 vets. Meanwhile, professional services firms in the UK have warned of a growing shortage of white-collar workers as companies fight for top talent amid a global economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis.
There are shortages across the economy. HGV drivers have been given an enormous amount of attention because of their impact on supply chains—including, at times, with fuel suppliers, but more commonly with food. We have all noticed that our favourite food has sometimes not been available on supermarket shelves. I talked to the manager of a store in my constituency on Friday. He said that that is week to week, and it is down to shortages, including of drivers.
The role of driving examiners is covered in this Bill; there is an interdependency between what is in the Bill and what is not. It is essential that the Bill gets that right so that our country has the skills it needs, today and in the future. By requiring the Secretary of State to produce an annual report setting out the areas in which we face skills shortages, we will be able to see some of the more obvious shortages in advance, giving the Government some chance of mitigating the problems before they become a crisis.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Member for his new clause, which introduces a reporting requirement to set out the professions facing workforce shortages and the measures that are being taken to resolve those shortages. I would like to make it clear from the outset—much as Lord Grimstone, my colleague in the other place, has done—that the Bill is not solely about addressing UK workforce shortages, but about ensuing that professional qualification recognition works for the UK.
Clause 1 allows appropriate national authorities to act where there is unmet demand, ensuring that regulations have the processes in place to assess overseas professionals who might help to alleviate that. That is not a replacement for the Government’s skills strategy. In this instance, the Bill is one part of a means to meet unmet demand or shortages. The Bill does not undercut, nor will it replace, the work that the Government are undertaking to support home-grown skills.
The Government already publish information on workforce shortages. For example, the shortage occupation list is a publicly available document comprising professions and occupations that experts at the Migration Advisory Committee deem to be in shortage. Given that workforce shortages are already documented in such a way, with expert input, and with the next shortage occupation list review taking place this year, there is no need for the Secretary of State to also publish a report on professions in shortage.
I turn to the request to report on the measures that are being taken to address workforce shortages. The Government have set out an ambitious reform programme in the “Skills for jobs” White Paper, focusing on giving people the skills that they need in a way that suits them. For example, the lifetime skills guarantee is already being delivered through a wide range of activities, from short, flexible, employer-led bootcamps to the skills accelerator, and by enabling providers to have more control over budgets and funding levels. As Members can see, the Government are already undertaking a great deal of work on both identifying workforce and skills shortages and developing approaches to tackling them. A requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to publish a report on workforce shortages would be unnecessary, and it would result in the duplication of work that was being undertaken elsewhere in the Government. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Bill Esterson
The Minister referred to skills development. When I meet businesses around the country, as he does, that is often the first item on the agenda. There is great concern about the shortage of technical skills, some of which are covered by the Bill and some not. Parity of esteem within that wider skills agenda is at the heart of what businesses are calling for. Any measure that can be taken to improve understanding, address shortages and find a long-term approach to developing skills—by training people in this country in technical and vocational areas, and by valuing technical learning and the development of skills as much as we do academia—is key.
Where we have shortages, it makes sense to have a systematic approach to addressing them. I read out the figures earlier for what things were like before the pandemic. They have become worse as a result of the pandemic, and they have been exacerbated by the gaping holes that the Government have left in the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU. The Government have belatedly acknowledged some of that, including by adding care workers to the shortage occupation list, which I asked about in a written question a few months ago. There is clear recognition of the need to address these skills shortages. The amendment would put in place a system for the professions covered by the Bill to put that the Government in the strongest possible place to identify and address the shortages. It seems to me that that would be a valuable tool, rather than the Government’s more fragmented approach—the Minister explained it very well—which is one reason why we have shortages. We will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
For workers whose professional qualifications are already recognised in the United Kingdom, this new clause provides additional certainty that the legislation will not affect them negatively. There is a clear need to give those whose qualifications are already recognised here that certainty and confidence. In many cases, those professionals already live in our communities and have decided to call the UK their home. They are people on whom we all so often rely, particularly in our vital public services.
The explanatory notes to the Bill state that
“nothing in the Bill prevents, qualifies or otherwise impacts the ability of those with existing recognised qualifications from continuing their areas of practice in the UK”.
If it is in the explanatory notes, why is it not in the Bill? That is a fundamental gap in the Government’s approach, because without this simple amendment, how can the Minister provide the reassurance that these workers, their employers, their families and their communities so desperately need? Enshrining the Government’s own promise from their explanatory notes in the Bill would achieve what those people, and those who rely on them, are looking for.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the amendment. It has been previously considered in the House of Lords, both in Committee and on Report; we turn to it once again. I can confirm that professionals who have already had their qualifications recognised in the UK will be able to continue to rely on those recognition decisions. The revocation of the EU-derived system for recognising qualifications will not impact on the ability of professionals with existing recognition decisions to continue practising in the UK. Nothing in the Bill, nor the regulations anticipated under it, will interfere with or reverse such decisions. Professionals with recognition decisions will need to meet any ongoing practice requirements, but that is for the relevant regulator to determine, so the Bill does not make commitments in those areas.
Regulations commenced in clause 5 will include saving and transitional periods, to ensure that professionals’ existing recognition decisions continue to be valid, and applications made before revocation comes into effect through the commencement regulations will continue to be assessed under the relevant EU-derived recognition laws. It is possible to make similar provisions in regulations under clause 6, so we believe that this matter is best dealt with through the saving provisions in the secondary legislation. That is consistent with the approach that the UK Government and devolved Administrations took when amending EU legislation on recognition of professional qualifications in order to prepare for leaving the EU in the first place. As I have assured the Committee, the Bill also respects the protections in place for existing recognition decisions that are born from the UK’s international agreements. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Bill Esterson
There was an interesting admission from the Minister that he thought that secondary legislation could achieve what we are aiming for with the amendment. My concern is that a significant part of our professional workforce have a recognition of their qualifications in the UK. Hearing his words, I doubt that they would feel particularly confident or certain of their future, because although he may have no intention to use the lack of confirmation in the Bill, one of his successors may take a rather different view. That is why professional workers and their employers want confidence. We all know the importance of confidence and certainty for our economy, let alone for the individuals who are subject to the amendment and on whom everybody relies, which is why we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish and maintain an up-to-date list of regulators on the Government’s website. The Financial Times reported the way in which the Government introduced this Bill as the
“chaotic handling of a post-Brexit regime for recognising the qualifications of foreign professionals”.
Remarkably, the Government admitted introducing the Bill to Parliament without knowing which professions were in scope of the legislation. Labour argued in the Lords that we had to know who and what was in the scope of the Bill. It stands to reason that the relevant regulators and professions need to be aware of these changes. Having initially listed 160 professions and 50 regulators affected by the legislation, the Government twice published a revised list, ultimately increasing the numbers to 205 professions and 80 regulators.
Chi Onwurah
As I said earlier, I am a chartered engineer with the Institution of Engineering and Technology. In order to find out whether my profession was affected by the Bill, I had to write to the Institution of Engineering and Technology. Does my hon. Friend think that is acceptable? Does it not make sense that professionals, wherever they are in the world at the time, should be able to easily find out whether their body is affected by this legislation?
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has explained very neatly with that example why the new clause is important. Due to the increased number of regulators in scope of the legislation, the Government also had to publish an updated impact assessment, with the total cost to regulators increasing by nearly £2 million. That is hardly the way to inspire confidence that the legislation will help businesses or skilled workers.
The Government were criticised from all sides in the Lords, including by those on their own Back Benches. Baroness Noakes said that
“it has all the hallmarks of being a Bill conceived and executed by officials with little or no ministerial policy direction or oversight...we learn that the Bill was drafted with a far-from-perfect understanding of the territory that it purports to cover. This is no way to legislate.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2021; Vol. 813, c. 149.]
My Labour colleague Baroness Hayter said of the list:
“I understand that it has taken BEIS a little time to get it right. I think we have had two updates of the list, with some regulators added and some gone. I see that the pig farmers have gone from the latest list and the aircraft engineers have also disappeared, as have analytical chemists. However, we have in their place chicken farmers, schoolteachers and waste managers—so it seems that the Government can turn flying pigs into chickens.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2021; Vol. 815, c. 1696.]
I thought that was a good line then, and I still think it is a good line today—and so do the Government!
How can regulators and regulated professionals know whether they have equivalence when the Ministers who are responsible for the Bill do not even know themselves? At Committee stage in the Lords, my Labour colleagues Baroness Hayter and Baroness Blake tabled amendments to encourage Ministers to remove any suggestion of doubt as to which professions were covered by the Bill by placing a list of such professions and their regulators in the Bill and giving Ministers the authority to amend that list as necessary. The Opposition realise that Ministers have subsequently published a full list on the gov.uk website. However, there is no duty on the Minister to regularly maintain and update that site. The new clause places an obligation on the Secretary of State and his Department to maintain the website and, as necessary, update it, giving professions and professionals the certainty they need.
Paul Scully
As I rise for the final time, I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for the new clause. The Government recognise the need for clarity on who meets the definitions in the Bill. It is for that reason that officials carried out a comprehensive exercise last year across Government, as well as with the devolved Administrations and with the regulators, to determine who the Bill applies to. That extensive engagement culminated in the list of regulators and professions affected by the Bill being published on gov.uk on 14 October 2021—officials are now maintaining that list. We spent a lot of time over that period saying that we were going to publish the list. We have had a series of webinars to which all regulators were invited, and we continue discussions.
The amendment seeks to commit the Government to maintain and publish a list of regulators. Although I understand the desire for transparency, I have reservations about enshrining a list in the Bill. A list of regulators alone does not provide clarity on which regulated professions are affected by the Bill. It might be that organisations that meet the definition of regulator for one or more regulated professions also have responsibilities and functions for professions that do not meet the definition. Listing the regulators would leave it open to interpretation whether it is all or just some of those professions that are affected. If it was some, it would be unclear which were affected.
For example, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales regulates statutory audits and is a profession to which the Bill applies. It also regulates chartered accountants, a profession to which the Bill does not apply. The proposed amendment would not provide clarity in regard to which of the professions is a regulated profession in the Bill. As a result, publishing the list of regulators in such a way risks confusion. That is why the Government have committed instead to maintaining a list of regulated professions and regulators to which they consider the Bill applies, and to keep that list readily accessible and in the public domain. I hope hon. Members are assured that the Government are already delivering that action. It is on the record that the list of regulators and regulated professions will be maintained, so there is no need to further state it in the Bill. I hope the new clause can be withdrawn.
Finally, as well as thanking you, Mr Pritchard, I thank the officials, the Clerks, the Doorkeepers and the Whips, and indeed Opposition Members for the way that they have engaged in the process.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the Minister; I shall accept his assurances. And I thank you, Mr Pritchard. It is a shame that we will not get to see the other Chair in action; we have denied Ms Bardell her moment in the Chair.
I thank the officials, the Doorkeepers, and the Government Members who sat there quietly and dutifully maintaining their Trappist vows—with the exception of the hon. Member for Calder Valley, who had to be woken up earlier in the proceedings. I thank the Minister and Opposition Members for attending. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
The Chair
The final Question I must put is that I do report the Bill, as amended, to the House. I thank all colleagues for turning up so early in the morning. I thank our extraordinary Clerks, Hansard, the Doorkeepers, and our hidden broadcasting team who make it all work for us and the public, who I am sure are tuning in to this rather than to GB News.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Levelling Up: East of England
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate. This is 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 before coming on to the parliamentary estate. Please give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of levelling up in the East of England.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I am also grateful to the secretariat and supporters of the all-party parliamentary group for the east of England, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for the research that they carried out ahead of the debate, including their October 2021 publication, “Achieving Sustainable and Inclusive Growth: The East of England Offer”.
The east of England, traditionally known as East Anglia, comprises the easternmost counties of the United Kingdom: Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, and also Essex, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. The western and southern boundaries of the region are somewhat porous, and some of those living in, say, south Essex, parts of Hertfordshire and parts of Bedfordshire may not view themselves as being part of the east of England. That said, it is great that those three counties are so well represented in this Chamber this morning. Although at times understated, East Anglians are welcoming people. There is no hard border to the region, as the Devil’s Dyke was never completed and ceased to function well over 1,100 years ago.
Levelling up is in many respects the Government’s signature tune. The Prime Minister first spoke of the need to level up across Britain in his first speech as Prime Minister on 24 July 2019. The policy was the cornerstone of the Conservative manifesto at the 2019 general election, and we now eagerly await publication of the levelling-up White Paper, which will set out the strategy as to how levelling up will be delivered.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Peter Aldous
I will, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Jim Shannon
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues on their attendance. He mentioned the Prime Minister. The week before last, the Prime Minister stated, during Prime Minister’s questions, that the UK must
“get on with our job of levelling up across the whole of the UK, making sure that every part of this United Kingdom shares in our ambition to be a science superpower”.—[Official Report, 5 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 19.]
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that consideration must also be given to the rest of the UK? In the north of England there will be £38 per head of population, and in Northern Ireland the money is even less. The aim must be to ensure that we all benefit—I think that the Prime Minister wants us all to benefit and that the hon. Gentleman wants that as well. Does he agree?
Peter Aldous
I wholeheartedly agree. Northern Ireland and the east of England have many things in common: Northern Ireland is the most western part of the United Kingdom, and I represent the most easterly constituency in the United Kingdom. Levelling up must go round the whole United Kingdom—north and south, but also, as we are hearing today, east and west.
The White Paper is long overdue, but I recognise that the once-in-a-generation challenge of covid-19 has diverted attention and I acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are still relatively new in office. Although we have yet to see the detail of the Government’s levelling-up policy, there are some early signs that the east of England might be overlooked. From my perspective, the purpose of this debate is to highlight that concern and to obtain from the Minister an assurance that that will not be the case—that our region will not be ignored and the needs of local people and local businesses will be fully and properly taken into account.
It is first necessary to set the scene as to what is happening in the east of England.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
May I intervene before my hon. Friend moves on to broaden out his argument? He was talking about the east of England being overlooked in levelling up. Is there not an additional concern that, in the levelling-up agenda, the east of England will be seen as an area where more houses can be built and taxes can be raised to be spent elsewhere? Those two considerations are important parallel aspects of levelling up that affect the east of England, particularly constituencies in Bedfordshire.
Peter Aldous
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right: if more housing is to be provided, the infrastructure to go with it needs to be provided. I will comment on that. I will also address the fact that the east of England is at the moment a net contributor to the Treasury, and if we do not invest in the east, there is a risk that we will destroy the goose that lays that golden egg.
At first glance, the east of England appears relatively prosperous, even though wages in many areas lag behind the national average. In 2019, the east of England accounted for 9% of the UK’s GDP, although it had a GDP per head below that of the UK as a whole. There are significant pockets of hidden deprivation, particularly in coastal communities, such as the Waveney constituency that I represent, and in rural areas. Those are often concealed, as they lie close to more affluent places.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, and I fully accept that coastal communities and some rural areas suffer from deprivation. However, new towns also have some of the most deprived wards in the east of England, particularly in and around Basildon. Levelling up is about levelling up opportunity, but it is also about levelling up those people’s own environments and communities, so that they stay there rather than feel that they have to escape their local communities.
Peter Aldous
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, he is right: one of the challenges we face is that, if we do not invest in those communities, there will be a brain drain from the region. It is for that reason that we need to invest in those regions. In that way, we will level up, and get rid of that migration from the region.
As I have said, the east of England is one of three net contributing regions to UK plc, and it should be emphasised that investment and support in our region will not only deliver levelling up but add to national prosperity. Much of the hidden deprivation is focused in coastal areas such as Lowestoft, where traditional industries such as fishing and manufacturing have declined over the past 40 years, although there is hope that fishing can play an important role in economic recovery through the Renaissance of the East Anglian Fisheries initiative. Kirkley, in Lowestoft, is the 26th most deprived ward in the country, and 10 of Lowestoft’s neighbourhoods fall within the 10% most deprived wards nationally. A 2019 study found that more than 12,000 people in Lowestoft and the rural area immediately to its north are affected by income deprivation. Some 20% of households in Lowestoft live on absolutely or relatively low incomes, and 21% of adults in the town have health issues that affect their activity, diminishing their participation in society, limiting their job opportunities and contributing to wellbeing issues. Finally, although 68% of adults in the town are economically active, 15.7% are in receipt of universal credit. That reflects the low-skilled and temporary nature of employment opportunities currently available.
It is also important to highlight one particular opportunity and one particular challenge in the east of England. The opportunity is presented by the UK’s net zero target, with East Anglia right at the forefront of the Government’s plans. Half of the UK’s offshore wind fleet will be anchored off our coast. There is the proposed Sizewell C nuclear power station, and there is the potential to retrofit the gas infrastructure, both in the southern North sea and on land via the Bacton gas terminal. Some 30% of the UK’s low-carbon electricity will in due course come through Suffolk alone. There is potential to completely transform the economy of the whole of coastal East Anglia, where many deep pockets of deprivation are found. To make the most of the opportunity from which the whole of the UK will benefit, the Government need to provide the necessary seedcorn funding. If that is done, we are not just talking about levelling up; we can provide a global exemplar as to how decarbonisation can be delivered to benefit local people and local communities.
A particular challenge that the region’s councils face is adult social care, because the east of England has a relatively elderly population. Following the comprehensive spending review and the provisional local government funding settlement, there is a real worry that one year of funding certainty is not enough. Councils need at least three years of certainty so that they can plan effectively and deliver services efficiently. There is a need for increased long-term funding for councils to close the funding gap that, by the end of 2022-23 for the east of England councils, will be in the order of £240 million. There is concern that the adult social care funding that has been provided is not enough and might not even cover the planned capital on care costs and changes to means testing. Councils face significant financial pressures owing to the rising costs of care, workforce pressures and national insurance uplifts.
I have highlighted the challenges that Lowestoft faces, but I should point out that the Government have responded positively and are currently making a significant investment in the town. Construction of the Gull Wing bridge and the Lowestoft flood defence scheme are well under way, and Lowestoft has secured a towns deal. Work on the projects is due to start later this year.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that although we have infrastructure projects such as the bridge and so forth, when we talk about the anti-car debate in some of the towns, we must remember that some of our leafier suburbs do not benefit and we need transport infrastructure to keep our economy alive?
Peter Aldous
My hon. Friend is right that transport infrastructure is vital, and I will come on to that shortly.
Further afield from Lowestoft, the region will benefit from two freeports at Felixstowe and Harwich, as well as the Thames freeport. However, while we await the detail of the Government’s levelling-up proposals, there are some early warning signs that the needs of local communities in East Anglia might be overlooked, and there is a worry that we will not be able to realise the full potential of those projects for the benefit of local people and local businesses.
With regard to funding allocated in the comprehensive spending review, the east of England received the second lowest per capita spend of any region at £92 per head. Only London received less. The UK average is £184 per person, and in Yorkshire and the Humber the provision is £359 per head. In the first round of the levelling-up fund, the east of England secured £87 million. That is £13.88 per capita compared with a national average of £23.91 and £41.72 per capita in the east midlands.
There is also concern about the prioritisation of both the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund. As I have mentioned, Lowestoft has deep pockets of deprivation, yet it is neither a priority 1 area for the levelling-up fund, nor a priority place in the community renewal fund. It is essential that that inequity is put right ahead of the next round of the levelling-up fund and the introduction of the UK shared prosperity fund.
There is also a worry that, notwithstanding opportunities in the east of England in such sectors as low carbon, agri-tech and life sciences, the Government are actively seeking to discourage Government spending on research and development in the east of England. In the Budget Red Book, the east of England is coupled with London and the south-east, which are very different from much of the region, as an area from which Government spending on R&D will be diverted and where it will be discouraged.
No debate on the east of England would be complete without highlighting the region’s infrastructure deficiencies in traditional modes of transport—road, rail and bus—and digital connectivity. In many ways, we are a victim of our own geography, which in other respects is one of the region’s unique selling points—a relatively dispersed population with relatively small urban centres, and a network of market towns and villages interspersed with attractive countryside—which serves not only as the breadbasket of the UK but as the home to many flourishing rural businesses. If that infrastructure, both old and new, is not upgraded, I fear that the region will not realise its full economic potential and it may be difficult for it to continue to be a net contributor to the Treasury’s coffers.
I will highlight five compelling reasons why we need to upgrade the region’s connectivity. First, the east of England, with 13 ports, including two freeports and four airports—Stansted, Luton, Southend and Norwich—is the UK’s international gateway. If we do not have good road and rail networks from these access points, through and out of the region, it is not just East Anglia that suffers—there will be a negative knock-on impact for the whole UK. Half of the UK’s containerised goods are moved through the region; 70% go to the north of England and support businesses and communities right across the UK. Air freight is critical to maintaining and growing the UK’s ability to trade globally. Stansted is the only London airport with the capacity and infrastructure to support increased demand for cargo aviation over the next 10 to 15 years.
East Anglia’s road and rail network is crucial to the smooth movement of these essential supplies coming into the UK, whether by sea or by air. Poor connections lead to slow, unreliable journeys adding delay and cost, which ultimately the consumer ends up paying for. For this reason, roads such as the A12, A14, A120 and A47 urgently need to be upgraded.
Secondly, linked to this, our railways need to be improved, to accelerate the shift of freight off the roads and improve services to London, to which many of the region’s residents commute. The upgrades at Haughley junction and Ely junction are long overdue. Thirdly, improved transport infrastructure is needed to tackle those pockets of coastal deprivation to which I have referred. Many of these communities have poor transport links without dual carriageway connectivity and with low-frequency train services.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and making such an excellent contribution to this debate. I notice that on transport infrastructure, he seems to be looking at a very 20th-century model, as if the climate crisis was not happening. Will he talk a little more about the kind of rapid transit systems that he envisages would take individuals off the roads in their cars and move them on to buses and trains, freeing up more of that road network system and helping the environment and ecological systems that are in place?
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—he is right. As far as road investment is concerned, we have to make up for work that should have been done a long time ago. Rail network improvements are vital to the future, as he has mentioned. I have mentioned two junctions at Haughley and Ely; I could be greedy, we need Trowse in his constituency and Bow to improve the access to London as well. Those need to be addressed.
I will now briefly address the digital connectivity which is so vital to the future.
Stephen Metcalfe
Before my hon. Friend moves on to the very important issue of digital connectivity, may I highlight the fact that in the south of Essex there are some proposals to consider a tram network? There is one very important road that he missed out of his list—the A127. It is not part of the national infrastructure, but it provides a vital route out of London down to Southend, through some of the busiest areas and areas that have the greatest opportunity to deliver the levelling-up agenda. I will just put those points on his radar.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing so, and I apologise if my speech is somewhat focused on the east of East Anglia. He is quite right to highlight the challenges and opportunities in the south of the region.
Finally, I will say that full-fibre connectivity for all households and businesses is vital if East Anglia is to reach its full economic potential. There are projects to deliver that connectivity in many towns across the region, including Cityfibre’s £15 million investment in the network across Lowestoft. However, there is a concern that digital deserts may emerge in some rural areas, so it is vital that the Government’s Project Gigabit programme is ramped up and is fully comprehensive.
For East Anglia to realise its full economic potential and provide local people with the opportunity to work in the exciting new emerging industries, a skills revolution is needed. The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill provides the framework to deliver that revolution, but there is a concern that the region may again be bypassed.
Sizewell C is an enormous project, which can bring great benefits to Suffolk, Waveney and further afield. It is estimated that during the 12-year construction period, £2 billion will be put into the Suffolk economy. During that period there will be three apprenticeship cycles and 1,500 apprenticeships. There is an opportunity to leave an enduring legacy of knowledge and skills, which in the long term—once Sizewell C is completely constructed and becomes operational—can make Suffolk and Waveney a compelling location in which to set up and grow a business.
Sizewell C is exactly the sort of project that requires a gear change in training, which an institute of technology would help to deliver. However, the proposal from the University of Suffolk, East Coast College, the College of West Anglia and Norwich University of the Arts has not been successful in the institute of technology competition, in which the second wave of successful bids has just been announced. In the first two waves, 21 institutes of technology have been created, which provide comprehensive coverage across the country; and yes, there is one at South Essex College at Chelmsford, but there is a vacuum in the east. I will follow this matter up with the Minister for Higher and Further Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), to find out why the bid for our area was rejected, but there is alarm that the necessary investment is not being made locally to ensure that the region fully benefits from the exciting opportunities that are emerging.
I have spoken for far too long; I must allow others their say. Generally, I am excited about the future economic prospects for East Anglia, as they provide the opportunity to reverse 40 years of economic decline in coastal communities such as Waveney. However, I have concerns that these issues are not fully taken into account in the emerging levelling-up strategy. In the east of England, it is crucial that the Government recognise the challenges faced in many coastal, rural and urban communities, and that they upgrade connectivity and invest in skills. If we do not do these things, we will not eliminate those deep pockets of deprivation, there will be a negative spin-off across the UK and the region’s ability to continue to be a net contributor to UK plc will be in peril. I hope that the Minister can allay these concerns in his summing-up.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
We want to get to the Front-Bench spokespeople by just before 10.45 am—that is five minutes for the Opposition spokesman and 10 minutes for the Minister. We are well supported today, with lots of people wanting to speak, so there will be a limit of four minutes per speech.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the debate. His introduction has been very thorough, and I will not go over the same points. He and I work closely on the East of England all-party parliamentary group, which I thank for its work. I also thank those who have supported us and other all-party parliamentary groups, such as the APPG for the innovation corridor. We have been trying to keep the idea of the east alive.
Some of us have been involved in regional policy for many years, and I sadly recount that I attended my 35th annual regional Labour party conference at the end of last year. I am not sure whether that is cause for celebration or concern, but we have been thinking about this issue for a long time and have discussed it in Westminster Hall before. I looked back at the previous debate on the east of England, which was in April 2016 —during the referendum period, as I recall. The discussion at that time was about establishing a three-county system with an elected Mayor. It was introduced with enthusiasm by the then Minister but it died a death a few weeks later, as the Government fell. I gently suggest that slogans come and go and things come and go, but the regional issues stay with us for a very long time.
It is sometimes said that there is no such thing as the east, although the hon. Member for Waveney bravely defined it in the correct way. It is a question of regional identity. We know it is an odd construct sometimes, but I also think that what bring the east together most of all are our television regions—I do not say that just because Andrew Sinclair is sitting in the Public Gallery. It is the excellent work that is done by journalists such as Emma Hutchinson at ITV Anglia, Andrew at “Look East” and Deborah McGurran, and particularly by people such as Stewart White. I say that again in the context of the current debate: those people bring the region together in a way that very few others have managed to do.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman add his congratulations to Mark Murphy of BBC Radio Suffolk, who was awarded an MBE for services to broadcasting in the new year’s honours list?
Daniel Zeichner
I am happy to do so.
On the question of the funding issues, the difficulties and the relative lack of understanding of the challenges that face our region, I agree with the statistics that the hon. Member for Waveney presented. I would also point out that if we take the London effect out of the east, we very quickly see that our region is, by UK and European standards, not nearly as prosperous as some of the initial statistics suggest. I read the House of Commons Library briefing, and one would think it is all fine. Actually, it is not all fine; it is a much more complicated picture than that, but it is not necessarily an easy question to solve. I would also look back historically and reflect that at the end of the last Labour Government we had a Minister for the East of England—I make no secret of my ambition to be the next Barbara Follett.
I have four questions to put to the Minister. As he is not a regional Minister, he may well not be in a good position to answer them, but these are important issues. East West Rail and the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford arc are absolutely crucial. Without talking too much about my constituency of Cambridge, AstraZeneca’s Discovery Centre—a life sciences cluster that generates over £7 billion turnover and employs over 20,000 people—opened in November and is absolutely key. Can the Minister confirm that the project is on track, and that there is no question of any further delays?
Secondly, Ely junction, as the hon. Member for Waveney mentioned, is absolutely critical to unlocking the freight issues. My third point is that the West Anglia main line is absolutely key to improving links to our regional airport and gateway to the world, which is Stansted.
My final point is on bus funding. There is a critical point coming in the next few weeks, when the covid funding runs out. Bus operators are having to make decisions this week as to which routes will be cut. In my city of Cambridge, that is already happening. What is going on?
In conclusion, slogans may come and go but we need a proper regional policy. Scotland and Wales have the freedoms, but England is getting a rough deal.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing such a fantastic debate and for setting out so many of the themes that many of us will champion in our remarks.
I will start by sharing a true story. Someone made a slip of the tongue in a conversation with me last week, when they referred to the Government’s flagship programme as “levelling up the north”. That is not that funny to an MP speaking in this debate and representing a constituency such as mine—North Norfolk—in the east of England. I had to stop them and explain that it is not about levelling up just the north. Levelling up is about the entire country, but it is so often perceived as not that. It is about equality throughout the UK, which is why I am delighted that in the east we are proposing to launch our own group to represent our region for the powerhouse that it is. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, the east of England is already one of the most economically successful areas in the country. It is a net contributor to the Treasury—one of only three, as he said. So you might think, why are we standing here with this plea? Because we can do so much more for a small marginal investment. The gains in the east will be felt throughout the country.
I could say plenty on many of the subjects that have been mentioned, such as transport connectivity and the like, but in the time available I shall limit my thoughts to two sectors that would need only marginal investment to unleash their power across the area and help tackle the skill and labour shortages, already mentioned, that go hand in hand in so many of our constituencies, which are often rural and coastal.
North Norfolk has the highest age demographic in the country, as I have often said during my time in the House. As such, the opportunities to invest in people, specifically in medical and social care, are second to none. We are crying out for more carers, more nurses and more dentists—the son of a dentist is allowed to get away with saying that; I share that passion with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney.
We also need more mental health practitioners. Could there be a better region, in a country that often shares those traits, for people to train and gain those valuable skills and apply them throughout the east? We should be investing in dental training facilities, alongside the University of East Anglia’s flagship medical training facilities. Is it right that anyone who wants to progress as a nurse has to travel, on what we know are not very good connectivity routes, all the way to Ipswich to further their career? The demand is enormous in our region and we need the investment to fill those plentiful jobs.
The same goes for green jobs. We have a third of the UK gas supply coming in at Bacton, a very rural area in my constituency. That is ripe for improvement with R&D research. Why should those jobs be going to Teesside? We have the skills, entrepreneurs, talent and young people who have their lives ahead of them. Those jobs must also come to the east—not to mention that we have the highest proliferation of wind turbines off my coast as well.
We need the Government to recognise that we have the demand, the people and the skills. Invest in the east and we will give a bigger bang for our buck than any other part of the country.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this vital debate. I speak very much for the west of the eastern region.
Forgive the idiom, but there are more holes in the Government’s levelling-up strategy than in a block of Swiss cheese. Rather than improving living standards and changing lives, the reality is an extension of the underfunding that existed during the decade-long Tory austerity agenda. As has already been mentioned, it has been used to pit regions and nations against each other as they vie for a cut of limited funding.
The funding available in the levelling-up fund and the towns fund restricts communities’ ability to decide for themselves how to spend money, bring in investment and jobs and revive their towns. Instead, it empowers Ministers to decide from Whitehall which projects might receive funding. The Government’s spending review also failed to resemble a genuine plan to support areas neglected during austerity. We have already heard that the eastern region received the second-lowest per capita spend of any region. The east received £92 per person, compared with the UK average of £184. How can that be considered to be levelling up our region?
It is not hyperbole to say that continued underfunding, especially in deprived areas of Luton South that have suffered huge cuts to vital local services under the coalition and Conservative Governments, will only exacerbate inequalities in our communities. The Government’s various regeneration schemes do not come close to making up for the £15 billion of Conservative cuts to local government since 2010. Local councils have seen 60p in every £1 cut, resulting in almost all discretionary and preventive services being cut.
Against that backdrop, I was very happy to support Luton Council’s bid to the levelling-up fund and was pleased that it was successful, but let us be frank: £20 million in one-off capital project funding will be limited in making up for the more than £100 million stripped from Luton Council’s overall budget since 2010. In that context, the Bute Street car park redevelopment project that secured the levelling-up funding is fewer than 100 metres from our decrepit Luton town train station. How can the Government claim that they are levelling up communities when our Luton station is not fit for purpose? Its lack of accessibility marginalises many disabled and elderly people and young families from rail travel. While the station has been allocated long-awaited access for all funding, this hardly represents levelling up; it simply makes the decrepit station usable for many by putting in lifts. The gateway to our town should reflect the 21st-century town that we are. The station needs full redevelopment. A modern, accessible train station would play a critical role in truly regenerating our town, encouraging prosperity in our community through potential new investment and job creation.
Levelling up can only be considered a success if deprived areas receive investment and targeted policy initiatives that directly improve the living standards of all communities. It must be about people, not just projects. By that measure, levelling up cannot be considered as anything more than a hollow Tory strapline. My town, Luton, and our region, the east, still suffer shameful underfunding and inequality, with no sign of the Government proposing change on the scale needed.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on bringing this much-needed debate. Sometimes gratitude is in slightly short supply where the Government are concerned, so I start with a thanks before I come on to my shopping list, because the town of Houghton Regis in my constituency received £19.9 million for a new community wellbeing centre hub, which I am very pleased about. It is much needed. We have a new one in Dunstable, and the local authority just committed to a new one in Leighton Buzzard, so this completes the piece. I am extremely grateful.
An enormous number of new homes are being built in my area. Around 14,000 are going up—about 8,000 north of Houghton Regis and around 6,000 to the east of Leighton Buzzard. My particular concern, which I have raised repeatedly and will go on raising until we get a solution, is the need for infrastructure to come in at the same time as the new houses are built. I see a few nods—in fact, quite a lot—around the Chamber, because I think we all agree that that should be the case. I believe other European nations sometimes manage to do this a little bit better than we do. I think we all agree that that should happen, and I think every Government have been committed to its happening, but it has not happened under previous Governments and is not quite yet happening in the way it needs to.
I will just put a few figures from August 2021 on the record relating to the number of GPs per 10,000 registered patients in my area. In the three primary care networks in south Bedfordshire it is only 4.5. In the east of England it is 5.3, and in England as a whole it is 5.9. We are starting at a disadvantage and we have these 14,000 new houses coming on top. There is a serious amount of levelling up and catching up to do to make sure that all those residents can get to a doctor when they need to. The same is true for direct patient care roles. The full-time equivalent per 10,000 registered patients in the three primary care networks in my area, south Bedfordshire, is 1.6. For the east of England it is 2.9, and for England as a whole it is 2.3. South Bedfordshire is already at the bottom of the league in terms of the number of GPs and direct patient care roles per 10,000 patients, and all these new houses are coming. We really must do better.
If there is one thing that I want my hon. Friend the Minister to take back to his Department, it is that when the levelling-up White Paper comes out, if we do not have a solution to ensure that general practice capacity is installed at the same time as the new homes come up, I, for one, will not be happy. I will keep on raising this issue until we get a solution. We can do better as a country; we are a bright, capable country, it is within our power to do it and we need to do it.
In my last 40 seconds I will raise police funding, where we also need levelling up. Sometimes, I think that the Home Office views Bedfordshire as a sort of corn-chewing county out in the sticks somewhere. However, I am afraid that we are quite busy, in policing terms. We are the fourth-highest, nationally, for county lines. When Operation Venetic came out—the deciphering of the EncroChat criminal communications system—there were 26 packages for Bedfordshire, only 11 for Hertfordshire and none for Cambridgeshire. We are a busy police county, and we are surviving, I am afraid, on one-off grants. It all goes back to damping in 2004. We must amend the national funding formula to treat Bedfordshire police fairly.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate.
The East of England Local Government Association has found that the region has been disadvantaged from the outset of the Government’s levelling-up programme, and it is not receiving its fair share. Just three of the region’s seven priority 1 geographical areas will receive funding, creating a risk that deprived areas in the region will be left out and left behind. I am deeply disappointed that my constituency is one of them.
The Government are yet to explain to my constituents in Kempston why its levelling-up funding bid, which had a strong economic and social case and would have contributed towards a much-needed new health hub, was rejected, while neighbouring Central Bedfordshire received £26.7 million, despite being among the least-deprived fifth of local authorities in the country.
Actions speak louder than words. This decision makes a mockery of the Government’s hollow levelling-up agenda, and it is yet another example of the Government ignoring the real needs of our towns. As a member of the newly named Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, I know just how important it is that we revitalise our high streets and towns, particularly after the pandemic.
The failure of the funding formula for towns that really need funding demonstrates the problem of having a system of bidding for funds, rather than an ongoing, fairly divided allocation of money for our towns, which would allow us to plan a steady programme of improvements. The whole bids system appears arbitrary and opaque, and I am not alone in thinking that.
In July, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee published its report, “Post-pandemic economic growth: Levelling-up”, describing the levelling-up policy initiatives and funding announced to date as “disjointed” and
“lacking any overall coherent strategic purpose”.
If the Government had ever been serious about their levelling-up agenda, they would have presented clear priorities, a road map and timeline for delivery, and robust metrics for measuring success, with routine reporting on progress. However, I have seen no evidence that it is any more than a slogan.
It is telling that, as the Prime Minister puts the whole machinery of government into saving his own bacon, the delayed White Paper to finally tell us what levelling up might mean in practical terms is part of his Operation Red Meat policy platform. It is desperate and undignified behaviour. If the White Paper emerges in the coming weeks, I hope that it will not have been thrown together in the way that yesterday’s announcements on the licence fee and migrant crossings obviously were. However, I suspect that, by then, the Prime Minister’s levelling-up agenda will be too little, too late.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I rise to strongly support the levelling-up agenda, in particular in the east of England. I strongly support the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) put the case. He speaks for the east of England, for East Anglia and, indeed, for the east of East Anglia. Devil’s Dyke, which he mentioned, runs right through my constituency, and is best seen in between the two racecourses in Newmarket. In that sense, my West Suffolk constituency is absolutely at the heart of the east of England.
The east of England is a net contributor to the Treasury, but its GDP per head is below average. To pick up on a point that was very well made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), if one takes out London from the east of England, the figures look very different; indeed, if one takes out both Cambridge and London, the figures look more different still. The hon. Gentleman was modest—he represents undoubtedly the greatest economic powerhouse in the east of England.
We have heard from other Opposition Members a critique of the concept of levelling up, but all we have had are accusations; we have not had a constructive set of proposals. The point of levelling up is that the attitude that prevailed under the last Labour Government—that we enhance opportunity by helping people to move out of their areas—is being replaced by the principle of levelling up. Levelling up is about enhancing opportunity in an area and in a community. It turns on its head the principles that underpinned the last Labour Government.
Rachel Hopkins
The right hon. Gentleman made a point about people wanting to stay in their towns and the places where they live. However, under the last 10 years of this Government, the levelling-up agenda has meant that many people have been forced away because they cannot afford housing, particularly in towns such as Luton. We have to be careful here. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?
Matt Hancock
I strongly agree with the need for more housing that people can afford, hence the increase in the level of house building from the record lows that we saw in the last couple of decades.
What does levelling up mean in practice? First, it means infrastructure, on which, again, I strongly support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said. The improvement to the A14 shows that, in the east of England, we can do it—on time and under budget. That is a magnificent improvement scheme. The A11 needs continued improvement, as do the Fiveways junction and the A1307. The Ely junction scheme has been mentioned. We need to continue the railway from Cambridge to the coast and make sure that, on the Norwich to Cambridge and Ipswich to Cambridge lines, some trains continue directly all the way through to London.
Matt Hancock
I am not an expert on the A12, but I am sure that it is a wonderful road, and I am sure that my hon. Friend thinks it needs improving.
We also need support for enterprise, such as the very successful EpiCentre, in Haverhill, which benefits from being close to Cambridge but is much cheaper than Cambridge. A brilliant company called CodiKoat, for instance, is revolutionising antimicrobial and antiviral coatings. This expansion is necessary.
Finally, in addition to all those points, will the Minister address the need for devolution? Through devolution, we can help to level up. In Suffolk, there is support from the county council, the district councils and all the MPs. That devolution should include the devolution of health, because there is no greater levelling up than in health. By combining health and social care in a devolution deal, we can improve people’s lives as well as their economic prospects. That is what levelling up is all about.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend—I mean the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). [Laughter.] I have often thought that the hon. Member is on the wrong side of the House; as a centrist, he would be far better over here on the Labour Benches, where I could berate him for his lack of ideological purity. None the less, he has brought this fantastic and important debate forward. Sorry—I will get him into trouble.
I want to make a few key points and observations, some of which I can pick up from the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock). One of my appeals is that, when we talk about the regeneration of the east and investing in the east, we must not base that simply on 20th century infrastructure. We must recognise that we have an opportunity in the eastern region, which has been underfunded and under-resourced.
One of the reasons we are net contributors to the Treasury is probably that it spends so little on us in real terms. One of my appeals to the Minister is that we should take that weakness and use it as an opportunity so that we can jump over the failures of the 20th century—the pollution, the carbon, the ecological destruction—and move to a 21st century, sustainable, wellbeing-based economy with mass-transit systems. There may be a need at times to invest in roads, because road infrastructure is required, but let us ensure that we are not simply doing so because that is what we have always done. There is an opportunity to think about rail and public transport, and I think that is critical for the future.
I also want to talk about how devolution is done. I will quickly read an extract from an IPPR report on levelling up, which stated:
“Crucially, the competitive nature of existing devolution deals pitches areas against one another – making them race for increasingly small and centrally controlled pots of money. This has exposed disparities in terms of institutional capacity across local authorities: not all places have a history of cooperation, or indeed the resources, especially after over a decade of austerity, to enter good bids.”
Another area we need to look at is how levelling up is done. The key rule should be subsidiarity, meaning that powers to make decisions on key local political, economic and social issues should be closest to the people affected. Some Members have discussed this already. In my city of Norwich, which is obviously the cultural capital of the east, as most people will acknowledge, we have some cases where infrastructure is being done to us. The Wensum link is deeply unpopular across much of my city because of the ecological damage it will do to vast swathes of our ecosystem.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
It may be unpopular in the hon. Member’s part of the city, but does he recognise that it is very popular in the county of Norfolk?
Clive Lewis
Yes, I do. The opposition to the Wensum link is more a cry for a decent public transport system instead of building yet more roads. The evidence shows that the more roads we build, the more cars and congestion we have. This has been happening for 50 years and I see no reason why that should change. We have an opportunity to make a real difference.
My city has the second worst social mobility in the country, and our city council has been the worst hit by central Government. The key thing when we are talking about devolution and levelling up is—I take this analogy from my time in the military—mission command. Basically, that means centralised intent with decentralised execution; the Government set the “what” and the local people do the “how”. If we can apply those principles and give people a real say in how they get to those objectives, we can make devolution work. In Norwich, we know what our priorities are. They often interlink with the Government’s priorities, but let us get there in our way. Give us the resources to do that. If we are given the opportunity, we will add to this country’s economic and wellbeing output, as will the rest of our region. I hope that the Minister listens to that.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for calling this debate. We have limited time, so, inevitably, all the high-falutin’ arguments that I was going to express have been ditched in favour of the shopping list. I apologise in advance for that.
So what are we talking about? I think levelling up is about investment. If I were to put my finger on it, I would say that it is about increasing productivity for the future so that we get the growth in the east of England that then pays for all the good stuff that everyone in the Chamber wants for our residents.
If we want to increase productivity in the east, the key element will be connectivity in all its forms. Levelling up is not really about north versus south, as it is often portrayed; really, it is about urban versus rural. In rural areas, we are under-served by the connectivity, both physical and digital, that is increasingly important in the developing economy.
That starts with mobile phone coverage. According to a relatively recent survey, 82% of calls by mobile phone in Norfolk are connected. That means that 18% failed. That is incredibly annoying and makes it much harder to undertake business as well as everyday life. I very much welcome the shared rural network project, but the 95% coverage that was promised by, I think, about 2030 is only for coverage outside buildings. That is fine if people are in the garden, but in rural areas where we have quite substantial buildings, typically of stone or brick construction, connectivity inside buildings is much worse. I invite the Government to look at that.
Superfast broadband is a huge opportunity, particularly for rural growth. Some 80% of rural businesses tell us that the single biggest thing that the Government can provide to improve their economic prospects is superfast broadband, so let us focus on that. As I said, the first priority is mobile phone coverage, and the second is superfast broadband. I welcome Project Gigabit and I celebrate the recent milestone of 50% coverage in the UK, but we need to go further, particularly in the east.
Not all connectivity is digital; we also need physical access to markets. I disagree with the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) about the western link road. We have created, essentially, an orbital route around Norwich, but rather like the situation with the M25 and the Thames, we have decided not to build the bridge. It is very damaging to connectivity, particularly for the north-east of the county getting access to the physical markets in the rest of the country—
Clive Lewis
The hon. Gentleman talks about a bridge over the Thames, but this is a massive road bulldozed through an ecologically sensitive area. There were options to go over the most ecologically sensitive parts, but they were a bit more expensive and were rejected. I think that point needs to be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It is also a bridge over the River Wensum, as he knows. A consultation was undertaken and, taking that into account, the best route was reached. It deals with a huge amount of rat-running and links north Norfolk to the rest of the country.
In relation to the A47, I welcome the imminent work for the Tuddenham to Easton dualling, but what about the Acle Straight? What about linking Great Yarmouth to the rest of the country? That is overdue and much needed.
On rail, regularity of services is an issue. Norwich to London takes about two hours; London to Birmingham, which is a shorter distance, takes about 80 minutes. That has a huge impact on the economic potential of our part of the country. It is the same for the Ely junction and the Haughley narrows.
We need access to markets, and that means access to staff. We lose 50% of our graduates from Norfolk. We need to change that, and one thing that we have to look at is the quality of life in our community. That includes health and dental services. We have a real paucity of dental services in the county. It would assist the situation if we had a teaching facility at UEA. I have run out of time, so I will have to conclude at this point.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I would like to thank the hon. Member behind me—pantomime season is over—my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for securing this incredibly important debate. Yes, the A12 is incredibly important. It is the road that comes to our area—it goes all the way up through Essex—and it is probably one of the worst roads in Britain. I therefore make the plea to whoever is listening that we need that road upgraded, and soon.
We think of the east of England as having wonderful rolling countryside and an incredibly powerful economy, and it does have a powerful economy, as we have heard today. We had this report, “Achieving Sustainable and Inclusive Growth: The East of England Offer”, which was our offer to Government and made the case that some of the most deprived areas in the country are in the east of England. That is despite the fact that Essex, my county, is an economic powerhouse.
Understandably, the Treasury thinks that the east can take care of itself. It can, to a great extent, but we all have issues in our own areas. As we have heard, the east of England received the lowest per capita spend of any region—£92 per person. It is clear that the east of England is not being levelled up as many other areas of the country are. Within the east, we have coastal areas that have intense issues, so if the east is not being levelled up fairly, the coastal areas within the east are suffering even more. The “east” is a deceptive catch-all term for that rich and leafy region.
The east not homogenous. We have far from common levels of wealth. In my constituency of Clacton, Jaywick is consistently and regularly, on many indices, the most deprived ward in the country. That not something I am proud of, and it is not something any of us can be proud of. My local council, Tendring District Council, is working hard and making great strides by purchasing land and building flood-proof houses. However, this problem has been stuck in the mud for so long, and we keep missing out on funding.
I realise that we are short of time, so my plea is: treat coastal areas as the data tells us—they are, in fact, in need of funding, as are many northern towns—and do not just lump us in with the richer parts of the east. When we talk about levelling up, it is vital that we talk about levelling up sideways, as well as up and down.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for bringing forward this vital debate. We are very lucky in the east of England to have the oldest town in the country, which of course is Ipswich, but we also have the second oldest town, which is Colchester, so I think we are quite lucky.
We have significant pockets of deprivation in the region, which has been referred to and that includes in Ipswich, but it is that mix of deprivation and potential that means East Anglia should be right at the forefront of a levelling-up agenda. I must say it is in among the most deprived parts of the town that I have the honour of representing that I have met the best people, and some of the most honest people with the best values and the strongest communities, but they do need investment in education, tackling crime and everything else.
Stephen Metcalfe
My hon. Friend talks about pockets of deprivation. While individual projects can help levelling up, it is actually about lifting the whole area—the whole pocket—up by improving housing and education, which will keep people there and enable the whole area to improve.
Tom Hunt
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, which is why I think we need to balance the educational provision of technical skills and apprenticeships as well as academic education.
As for some good things that are happening on levelling-up in the east of England, particularly in relation to Ipswich, we have benefited from a £25 million town deal and 11 exciting projects, many of which relate to skills, which we know is at the heart of levelling up. Also, the freeport in Felixstowe, if done in the right way, could bring forward about 10,000 new jobs, so my constituents stand to benefit almost more than anybody else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has already mentioned the fact that we were unsuccessful in the institute of technology bid, which is very disappointing. It is also worth mentioning that we were not successful in becoming a pilot for the local skills improvement plan. That was slightly disappointing because we know there is probably nothing more important than skills for levelling up.
What do we need to tackle the levelling-up issue? First, we need to look at how we fund our core public services. Of course, things like the levelling-up fund and the town deal are important, but it is simply not right that when it comes to education, particularly special educational needs provision, and police funding, Suffolk gets an incredibly raw deal, and that has been the case for decades. The east of England does badly from a lot of those funding formulas, but I argue that Suffolk does particularly badly. I was pleased to support a recent letter to the Secretary of State for Education on special educational needs provision.
The Government need to go further and extend the good things they have already done in terms of the towns deal and freeports. I think they need to get fully behind the Felixstowe and Harwich freeport, which the Government are doing and should continue to do, but they need to look at how we fund our core public services. That means bringing forward things, such as the review of the police funding formula as soon as possible, and in terms of the levelling-up fund, being imaginative about the way in which it can be spent. I would be excited about the prospect of a grassroots sports club fund, because we know that clubs and grassroots sports are incredibly important for levelling up.
In terms of infrastructure, I echo the comments made by other hon. Members about Ely North junction. It has been promised for a very long time, but it keeps being delayed, and it is amazing how many things are linked to it. There is also Haughley junction, and the “Ipswich in 60” service is vital. Small things, such as the hourly Peterborough to Ipswich train, would also make a big difference to many of my constituents in getting about the region.
I simply say this: I have never thought the Government see levelling up as purely about the north and the midlands. That has never been my view, and there is a lot of evidence that that is not the case, but that is not to say that I do not think the Government could go further. If I was going to say one thing, it would be about the way in which we fund our core public services, because for too long Suffolk has got a raw deal.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate. He represents the most easterly constituency in the east of England, and I probably represent the region’s most westerly constituency, so there is a nice balance.
Levelling up is about being inclusive and making sure that people really are able to achieve the best of their opportunity. It is not always about money—my apologies if that is controversial. As a Conservative, I believe it is about empowering communities to help themselves as much as it is about giving them a ladder to raise themselves up. It is not just about business, but about education, health, transport, broadband—especially in rural areas such as mine—and high streets.
My constituency of South West Hertfordshire has great transport links, north to south, to London. As someone who commutes every day, the worry that I have is about the east-to-west transport links. If I were to go to the neighbouring constituency of Hemel Hempstead or Watford, it is a bit of a nightmare from where I live, whereas getting to London or Birmingham is relatively easy.
It is a real shame that one of my more affluent villages, Belsize, has a really poor mobile telephone signal as well as really poor broadband. During the global pandemic, when people were reliant on home deliveries and on communications that they were not normally used to, that became quite profound. One of my personal tasks and ambitions is to resolve these things over my parliamentary career. Levelling up is not always about spending money; it is actually about making communities viable for private sector businesses to get more involved.
As a former furniture retailer, I remain quite concerned about the level of usage of our high streets. I would argue that we have seen businesses with a real customer focus survive and prosper during the global pandemic, but I say to residents and communities up and down the country that if they value their high streets, they need to use them. It is all well and good using high streets during the global pandemic, but if people want to retain their local butcher or grocer, they need to use them in better times as well.
Healthcare remains a really big issue in my constituency. I have Watford General Hospital down in the south, and St Albans City Hospital to the east. Although I may not have an acute hospital in my constituency, healthcare remains a big issue because of my ageing population, and I look forward to hopefully having further conversations with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on how we ensure that we are able to offer first-class health provision, which is not necessarily always aligned with the big white elephant that a primary acute hospital may be regarded as.
Although my constituency of South West Hertfordshire is regarded as an affluent area, there is quite a large commuter population. About 10,000 people use public transport to get to work—that is quite a dated figure, and obviously from before the pandemic—which is a significantly higher number than the average in the east of England and nationally. Making sure that local transport provision is having an impact—while not necessarily being the most expensive—will ensure that people can stay in the community and do not have to resort to moving to more urbanised areas. I would argue that that is a better outcome for the community.
Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about development. I represent a community that is 80% green belt, which remains a big issue, and I look forward to further discussions on what levelling up means for housing numbers and population growth post pandemic.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I thank everybody for keeping to time, because we managed to get in everybody who wanted to speak. We will now move to the Front-Bench spokespeople.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
I will confess that I love fielding debates for the Opposition in this place. No other parliamentary moment offers the chance to hear the hon. Member for Waveney talk in such depth and with such thoughtfulness to make his case. I was glad to be here and learn plenty from it, as I am sure the Minister did, although I have my own reflections. It set the tone for what has been a brilliant debate. He said at the beginning that his purpose was to highlight the possibility of the east of England being ignored by the levelling-up White Paper and to seek to avoid that. I suspect he managed that with aplomb, with the support of colleagues across party. His case was very well made.
As the hon. Member said, it has been two and half years since the Prime Minister spoke of the need to level up Britain. Two and half years later we are still waiting to find out what that means. It appears we may not have to wait too much longer. I hope the Minister will give us a little sneak preview among friends, including a sense of the timing, though I suspect he might wish to keep his powder dry, as might I to an extent. I might disappoint the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) who wants a detailed response and an alternative, but the Government will have to show their hand first. After all, we have waited two and half years. The case made around regional and local authority disparities is important. As the conversations on levelling up evolve, that will become even more important.
I will reflect on contributions from colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the East of England, made an important point about the London effect. We need to have that understanding at a regional, sub-regional and local authority level about how data can be skewed. So that, in trying to ensure that communities are not left behind—not a great phrase but we know what it means—we do not create a new collection of left-behind areas.
I share a lot of the frustrations of my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) and for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) around how things have been done previously. It is sad, avoidable and reductive, and does not serve an agenda of trying to move the country forward together, that we seem to be constantly pitted against each other in bidding rounds, where some must be winners and others must be losers. The funding is one off, so maybe someone wins today and loses tomorrow, or vice versa. In reality, no community that has been funded through levelling-up programmes so far that is not worse off when losses to the local authority are taken into account. That test must be passed, and it must be a comprehensive settlement that everybody has a stake in.
I will reiterate a point made by colleagues of all persuasions. The Opposition do not accept the framing of levelling up as north versus south. That was a point made by the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew). I represent one of the poorest communities in the country, based in the east midlands, and I hate the assumptions that come with that. That cuts both ways and I should not make assumptions about communities that might be better off according to their top lines. I should not assume that that is a place with streets paved with gold, with no social problems, challenges or pockets of deprivation. That is not what the evidence shows.
This is an all-regions approach, and the east of England is a study in that. Taken as a whole, looking at those top lines, the region is a net contributor, with an above average GDP growth rate over the past decade, which is forecast to continue, above average employment, below average unemployment and above average house prices. That would suggest that the east of England is fine and that levelling up should happen elsewhere. As we have heard, the reality is different. There is a different experience for those in the south of the region, which makes up the London commuter belt, while much of East Anglia would not. Even within those communities, there are pockets of deprivation.
We have heard that there are many areas that suffer high levels of deprivation. Those could be coastal communities, such as Lowestoft, referred to by the hon. Member for Waveney, Great Yarmouth just up the coast, and Clacton-on-Sea, as the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) mentioned, or they could be rural areas with associated challenges, such as Thetford, March and Wisbech, or parts of cities such as Peterborough and Norwich.
When the levelling-up White Paper is finally published, that nuanced understanding of regional variation will be one of the tests by which colleagues will judge it. However, the key point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South made in a couple of different contexts, is not just adopting the same approaches, because they will get the same outcomes. He made an important point about sustainability, saying that levelling up is not just about helping different communities to catch up on the same development model, because we know the impact that will have. That is profoundly true globally, and the question of how we support global development so that we do not just repeat the old models is a thorny question that we must address. However, it is true at home, too.
The East of England Local Government Association’s analysis of the autumn Budget was interesting, showing once again that 40% less—considerably less—was being made available for the east of England than for other areas. Of course, that was repeated in round one of the levelling-up fund bid, with just three of the seven of the region’s priority 1 projects having success. The EELGA is worried and says there is a clear risk that other deprived areas in the east of England will be left out and left behind, presumably on account of the wider region’s overall performance. Again, that creates a profound challenge, which applies across the region.
Transport is another key theme. I dare say that the Minister and I will participate in a lot of debates about different regions and different communities, which I very much look forward to, and transport will be a constant theme. It sometimes felt necessary to have an A to Z to follow things in this debate, but the sheer volume of A roads referred to was illustrative, telling us an awful lot about the natural geography and the infrastructure of the east of England, and about the challenges that come with that sort of road. The focus over the last year has been more on city region settlements, particularly around rail, but that focus alone clearly will not pass the overall test, because otherwise this becomes a long-running, self-perpetuating cycle.
The publication of the White Paper really ought to be the moment that that cycle is broken, because many rural and coastal communities—across the country, but particularly in the east of England—have faced significant challenges for a long time. As the hon. Member for Waveney said, over the past 40 years good jobs have left the region and not always been replaced, forcing young people to leave the area and seek opportunities elsewhere, taking their spending power away with them, which causes high streets to struggle, local institutions to decay and transport networks to close down. And so it goes, and so it goes. More of that decline just begets even more and more, until we break the cycle.
I will conclude there, because I know that colleagues will be keen that the long list of issues that have been put to the Minister are all comprehensively addressed, with a commitment today to addressing them. However, I will just say finally that in preparing for this debate, I thought that we were perhaps a couple of weeks—three or four weeks—too early, and timing is everything in politics, because we do not yet know what the Government will say on levelling up, I suspect that they may not quite know themselves yet what they will say. Actually, though, the timing for this debate was perfect, because the east of England offers an illustrative case of what has happened in the past, which we do not want to see repeated, and it is better for the Minister to hear that before the Government make their statement than it would be afterwards. I look forward to hearing his response to the debate.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I call the Minister to respond, and also mention that Peter Aldous needs a couple of minutes at the end to wind up the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O’Brien)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate. He is a tireless—indeed, relentless—advocate, not just for his own constituency, but for the whole of the east of England.
I will address a huge bugbear of mine, which is the idea in the media that levelling up is about north and south. Recently, I was in Norwich—with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis)—to visit an amazing new digital facility, which was part-funded by the towns fund. The first thing I said then was that the east of England is absolutely central to our vision for levelling up this country; indeed, the levelling-up agenda is for the whole of the UK. There was an intervention earlier by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is obviously part of the “greater” east of England, showing the cultural reach of the area. [Laughter.] The levelling-up agenda is an agenda for the whole UK, and the east of England is absolutely central to it, as I say.
Let me take on, right at the start of my speech, a question that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney asked: the east of England will absolutely not be overlooked by the levelling-up agenda. Let me also take on, right at the start of my contribution, some of the other questions that were put. My hon. Friends the Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) both talked about the challenges of growth in their areas, particularly in housing. We are absolutely conscious of those challenges in the fast-growing parts of the east of England and the need for infrastructure always to match that new housing development. That is a passion of mine and of my hon. Friends.
I will also take on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) by saying that we absolutely do not regard the situation in the east of England as “job done”; there is a lot more to do. I say that because although the east of England has an economy with many strengths, it also has massive untapped potential that we must unleash, because the Government’s belief is that a more balanced economy is not just a fairer one but one that is stronger overall. If parts of the economy are overheating with sky-high house prices and people being unable to get on a train, and at the same time we have parts of the country crying out for investment, we can see the potential for a win-win that can benefit the country as a whole and make the economy stronger overall.
On the point that a lot of Members made about total public spending, it is completely fair for Opposition Members to talk about the difficult decisions we had to make in the coalition years. No one denies that they were difficult decisions, but it is also fair to flag that things have changed since then, particularly since 2019. From 2016-17 to 2020-21, total public spending in the east of England rose from £49.7 billion to £78.25 billion—a 57% increase. There is public funding, but we also need a different plan.
Levelling up is about four different things: growing the private sector and boosting living standards, particularly where they are lower; spreading opportunity and improving public services, particularly where they are lacking; restoring local pride—that je ne sais quoi—in important local institutions that mean so much to us all; and empowering local leaders and communities. There are no good examples around the world of places that have turned themselves round and taken it to the next level without strong local leadership, which is something that we are bringing to the east of England.
Levelling up is an idea that cannot be distilled into just one thing—there is no single magic bullet—but it fundamentally addresses the problem that, for too many people, geography has turned out to be destiny; where they are born and happen to live determines, and perhaps limits, their life chances.
At the moment the east of England finds itself on the wrong side of two averages, with qualification levels below the national average, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) pointed out, and the proportion of people aged 16 to 24 not in employment, education or training above the average. We have to address that. As everyone has said, addressing things at a regional level does not give us a sense of the huge differences within a region. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) pointed out, Jaywick in Essex is the most deprived place in the entire country. Other places, such as Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, have great strengths, but at the same time there are significant challenges that we have to address. We absolutely must take that granular view.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney pointed out, the east of England is one of only three regions in the whole country that makes a net contribution to the Exchequer, and that is a testament to the host of amazing companies and institutions that have built the east of England’s reputation as a powerhouse in fields such as life sciences, clean energy, agrifood and so on.
Over the last 18 months of incredible turbulence, we have done everything that we can to preserve the great strengths that we have already in the east of England, with financial support of £1.18 billion to help 100,000 businesses and more than 1 million individuals to preserve their livelihoods in the east of England. As we come out of the pandemic and have more good news about omicron, we can look forward to not just building back, but building back better and strengthening the underpinnings of the economy in the east of England.
One difference that a few colleagues have pointed out is the new Freeport East, centred on the port of Felixstowe, Harwich International port and Gateway 14. The freeport status will help the area to realise its potential of becoming a real energy capital for the UK, which my hon. Friend talked about. Meanwhile, the Thames freeport also opened its doors for business on 15 December, paving the way for a lot of new investment and growth in and around Thurrock.
We have talked about the different funding streams backing local opportunities. As a few people mentioned, the levelling-up fund is putting £87 million into a range of different local priorities, with transport upgrades in Bedfordshire, new science facilities in Peterborough, upgrades to the coastal attractions in Southend, and £20 million to help Great Yarmouth to recapitalise on its cultural heritage and the unique strength that it has in green energy. New money from the levelling-up fund could help to transform the fortunes of a town such as Luton, with new housing in the centre of town or the new community and business space. Those are important things to help turn around the fortunes of that town.
All these injections of cash are being complemented by our investments through the town deals and the lasting partnerships for enhanced growth. Some £280 million is going into the east of England through 12 town deals, including Norwich, Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn, Ipswich, Harlow, Stevenage and Grays. At the same time we are putting £23 million into the east of England through the future high streets fund to help regenerate the high streets that have been battered by online shopping in places such as March, St Neots and Great Yarmouth. Through the community renewal fund, we aim to support at a local level the people in communities that are most in need by investing in their skills, their communities and their places. There are lots of different funding streams to try to build on those local strengths, while addressing the big infrastructure challenges that have been central to so many Members’ brilliant contributions.
In recent years, we have seen some really big road investments, such as the completion of the £1.5 billion upgrade to the A14, the dualling of the A11 and the new trains on the Greater Anglia franchise. Meanwhile, the lower Thames crossing, which forms part of the biggest investment in roads for a generation, will connect Essex to Kent via a road tunnel, supporting thousands of new jobs across both counties. We cannot stop there, which is why the Department for Transport is investing £73 million in the Gull Wing bridge, which has been mentioned, to link the northern and southern halves of Lowestoft, and to save commuters and families thousands of hours in an average year. In the western part of the region—there are, of course, huge difference across the east—£162 million is being provided for the A5 to M1 link road in Bedfordshire.
While we are upgrading the physical connectivity, which is hugely important for an area where often it feels surprisingly difficult to get to places that are not that far away, we are also focusing on digital connectivity. The east of England was provided with £233 million from the £5 billion Project Gigabit. We now have 60% of premises able to get gigabit-capable broadband, up from just 4% in 2019.
Matt Hancock
The incredible improvement in digital connectivity has been noticeable in the east, including almost all parts of my constituency, but we must complete the job. Will the Minister say a word about devolution? In his four elements of levelling up, the fourth was local leadership. In Suffolk, we have excellent local leadership under Matthew Hicks, the head of the county council. There is very strong support for a devolution deal, which will help to unleash the potential of Suffolk.
Neil O’Brien
My right hon. Friend is totally right. I will just finish addressing the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew): 4G is essential. Dropping calls are incredibly frustrating in rural areas, and the shared rural network will enhance connectivity across the east of England.
Let me turn to devolution and local leadership. While no single place got everything right in the pandemic, we saw the incredible importance and strength of local government. Around the country we have seen trailblazers such as Ben Houchen and Andy Street—amazing local leaders who, when properly empowered, can really change the fortunes of the area. We have already seen how deals such as the Cambridge and Peterborough devolution deal can be a way to tackle important local issues such as affordable housing in Cambridge.
Local leadership simultaneously gives places a champion—to be their strong voice and provide leadership—and a single point of accountability. County deals will be a core part of that, and they will look different in different places. A few years back we tried to bring devolution to a wider part of the east of England, but we can return to that. We have seen some impressive, joined-up bids from leaders in the east of England who are seeking county deals. Nothing, including the health issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), is off the table. That could be a big win for the devolution agenda. Those deals will bring together all the local partners to really strengthen them, with the powers and funding they need to turn things around in their areas.
There is a lot still to do to realise the full potential of the east of England. A lot of exciting change is already happening. By working together on a cross-party basis with all local leaders and MPs in the region, we can realise some of the incredible potential in the east of England.
Peter Aldous
We have had a comprehensive debate. I apologise if I took too long setting the scene. I would like to highlight some of the issues that have arisen. There has been great emphasis on bidding for capital projects, but improvement to our core funding—education, health and police—is vital. Likewise, on new housing, the infrastructure must come at the same time.
We heard from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), my APPG co-chair, who mentioned the importance of noting that if we take out the London effect and the Cambridge effect, suddenly the east of England really does have challenges. I focused on coastal and rural deprivation, but there are deep pockets of deprivation in our urban centres that need to be addressed. On connectivity, there is no debate on East Anglia that does not highlight our poor infrastructure—both the deficiencies in the past, and looking to the future with that digital connectivity. On devolution, I liked what the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) said about the importance of centralised intent—
Covid-19: Small Businesses in Streatham
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for small businesses in Streatham during the covid-19 outbreak.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms McVey. I am glad to be introducing this debate on a vital issue in my constituency—an area that includes Brixton Hill, Clapham Common and Tulse Hill.
As we all know, small businesses are the backbone of our local economy, culture and community, and I recognise the enormous contribution that small and medium-sized enterprises make in Streatham and all over the UK. Whether it be corner shops and cafes that have had to work throughout the pandemic, or independent retailers and the self-employed who have been short-changed by the Government, they deserve support and recognition for the diverse range of services and support that they continue to provide to our communities. However, it is devastating that small businesses are likely to have seen their turnover plummet by more than half, and that freelance workers and the self-employed have been completely ignored by the Government and left with minimal financial support during the coronavirus pandemic. Almost 50 shops a day vanished from our UK high streets over the first six months of 2021, and Labour projections from October suggest that 263 businesses in Streatham alone are at risk of closure over the next three months. The situation is completely dire.
Members may know that Streatham was home to the UK’s first supermarket, and that Streatham High Road is the longest high street in Europe and home to a hub of creative and diverse small businesses, which is reflected through our thriving arts and culture scene. I always tell people that should an apocalypse come, my constituency is probably where they would want to be. We have the windmill at Brixton Hill, which was the last operational windmill in London; two operational beehives; and numerous community gardens, such as Railside gardens, Urban Growth and St Matthew’s gardens, which always produce the best in fruit and veg.
If vegan January has not quite hit, we also have London Smoke & Cure, which offers the very best in smoked and cured fish and meats. If the practicalities are not enough to convince people, we are also home to the Inkspot brewery, not to mention some of the finest craftspeople in the country. In Streatham, we grow, produce and sell locally. We also regularly host the Streatham Festival, the Streatham Food Festival and the Streatham Literature Festival, run by Jane Wroe-Wright and her tenacious team, and there has been an enthusiastic local campaign to reopen the historically listed Streatham Hill Theatre as a community arts hub.
Over the past two years, I have visited dozens of small businesses in Streatham to talk to owners and staff about the impact of the pandemic. Since the earliest phases of the pandemic, they have thrown themselves into the coronavirus response, fighting to keep their businesses open while demonstrating their sense of duty to the wider community. In Streatham, we saw independent coffee shops giving away free coffee to NHS workers, computer repair specialists offering to repair laptops at no cost, and local firms stepping up to laser-cut personal protective equipment to meet shortages in our care homes.
We have also seen some amazing and original initiatives get off the ground. Whether it is local people donating their used devices to disadvantaged school pupils, food banks managing to meet a 134% increase in demand or mutual aid groups springing up to help the community, we have seen people pull together and innovate. Time after time during this acute period of hardship, our small businesses have stepped up. However, the pandemic has meant that SMEs in my constituency and across the country have had to close their premises permanently due to the impact of declining footfall.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I asked a question on this issue in the Chamber some time ago. All too often, we have heard of businesses across the United Kingdom having to close for isolation periods as there are not enough staff to keep them open, as she said. Does she agree that consideration should be given to a scheme whereby businesses with fewer than five members of staff, which we are referring to, are eligible for some sort of financial assistance should they have to close due to staff isolation, such as if staff have been a close contact of a covid case?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
The hon. Member is absolutely right. I will make that point later. We have to do everything we can to support our small businesses.
Examples of business closures in Streatham include acclaimed live music and hospitality venue the Hideaway, where I and others across the city have spent many a good night out. This has been a major loss for the area—an independent venue at the heart of the community that for many years has been growing local and international music and comedy. Due to the number of lockdowns, the slow response for those in the night-time economy, and social distancing requirements, its business model was untenable. We also saw the closure of Fal Patel’s local convenience shop in Clapham Park and E & A Wates furniture shop on Mitcham Lane, which once undertook restoration work for the parliamentary estate during its 120-year history.
Many start-ups that would have grown to become high street businesses were unable to access any grants due to not having a high street premises, which has impacted the long-term economic growth of the area as our cafés, co-working spaces and performance spaces, and the buoyancy of our local business hubs, rely on the small enterprises of the daytime economy.
These are only some of the publicised closures within the constituency. It is fair to say that the demise of small businesses is so vast that we all personally know of someone in our local community who has lost out on their business during the pandemic; maybe it was a local restaurant, an appliance shop, a corner shop, a pub, a bar, a butcher, a baker, a greengrocer, a hairdresser—the list goes on.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. My hon. Friend is making a really good speech, outlining the many issues faced by businesses in Streatham. In my neighbouring constituency in Lambeth, we face a number of similar issues. She outlined that many businesses missed out. A number of those businesses also missed out on loans offered by the Government. To see the Government want to wipe away £4.3 billion of loans given to fraudsters is another kick in the teeth to those businesses that folded because they were not eligible for any support. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government should rethink that proposal?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right. The Government need to rethink that proposal because it is leading to the closure of high street businesses and small businesses. Let us not forget that, when these 50 businesses a day shut up shop across the country, that is 50 people a day, along with their families, who depend on their business as a primary source of income, now out of work. It is not only the economic value that is disappearing from our high streets; the wider cultural contributions that these businesses make to the community disappear too, all because Government support was inadequate.
Supporting business in my constituency and my hon. Friend’s constituency are Brixton business improvement district, This is Clapham BID and the mighty InStreatham BID headed by Louise Abbotts. Our BIDs have worked tirelessly over the past few years against a tide of transport issues and the growth of online sales to keep people going out and shopping locally. We cannot forget the impact this has had on their budgets and capability to continue sustaining our local businesses in the long term. Even before the pandemic began, small businesses found themselves on an uneven playing field, and the original form of Government relief saddled small businesses with further debt, offering them loans at high interest rates through commercial and retail lenders or effectively deferring their rent payments. At the start of the pandemic, these no-strings-attached loans were offered to companies registered in tax havens, yet uptake on small business loans remained low. The 2017 business rates revaluation meant that the average small shop would see a £3,663 hike over the next five years while supermarket chains would see 6% reductions. It cannot be fair that some independent businesses, such as small cafés, contribute to the taxman at a higher effective rate than big corporations and high street names. Business rates are a 20th-century system of taxation, yet we are already over a fifth of the way into this century. Four out of five retailers say they may have to close some locations without an urgent easing of the burden of business rates. Retail pays over the odds at the moment; it accounts for a quarter of the business rates bill while representing a mere 10% of economic output. The current system does not work for our local public services, as the funding of local councils is linked to rates revenue in an area, rather than local needs. We need a system that is fit for the 21st century.
There is an emerging economic consensus that the state has a role to play in helping the economy to function properly, although it is a role that the party of government seem reluctant to accept. In the early days of the pandemic I called on the Treasury to impose financial conditions on loans for big companies asking for state support. It is galling that it ignored this call, and instead gave no-strings support to companies that were registered in tax havens, paid out huge dividends to shareholders and paid CEOs and senior executives ridiculous compensation packages, in some cases while laying off their rank and file workforce—all while small businesses have languished.
While businesses were grateful for the little support they received during the covid-19 pandemic, it simply was not enough. More substantial support is desperately needed to fight the onslaught of rising costs in food, inflation, energy and the major recruitment crisis that Brexit and covid have created for business communities. The Government’s own figures suggest that we will see our household economy shrink by £1,250 per year because of their trade deal with the EU. It will not be the Amazons of the world or big Government contractors that feel this loss—it will be ordinary people and small independent businesses.
Figures that we have seen show that smaller businesses lack the infrastructure to respond to the challenges that Brexit has presented compared with larger companies. A recent survey by the British Chambers of Commerce found that half of small businesses are finding it harder to export to the EU. Due to the new complexities of the trading relationship, the Government set up a small and medium-enterprise fund offering grants to help our businesses overcome those challenges. However, this fund has rightfully been criticised for being too complex. At the end of last year, we saw a report from City A.M. on information from the cloud accounting provider FreeAgent that found over half of businesses experienced shrinking customer bases, while 43% were impacted by supply chain issues. Meanwhile, two in five SMEs said that their costs had increased since Brexit, particularly to import goods, while 16% suffered a shortage of talent as they are finding it harder to recruit staff. Nearly one in five SMEs have considered closing their business during Brexit and one in five did not think their business would survive Brexit.
The Government have been found wanting yet again; instead of looking forward and trying to alleviate these situations we are instead told to keep calm and carry on, as if Brexit has not impacted us. We can clearly see that it has. The Chancellor’s £1-billion hospitality support package has come too late. It is woefully short of what is needed to ensure the survival of our small businesses and was woefully slow to start, coming in on 22 December when plan B restrictions had already been in place for 19 days. It is estimated that during this period of no support, £4 billion in revenue was lost from the hospitality and leisure sector. When cases rose and the demand on our high streets slumped, small businesses were not getting the support they needed, and workers were being sent home without pay and their shifts cancelled.
During the festive period, local authorities stated that the detailed guidance for the grants was only issued on 30 December and updated on 12 January, when businesses were desperate for support to meet various costs at the end of last year. Both the Federation of Small Businesses and UK Hospitality criticised the Chancellor’s support package for being far too slow to help the most vulnerable hospitality businesses during the omicron surge. It is ridiculous for the Government to put March as the timeframe for the grants to be paid when businesses needed this support months ago.
My local business non-profit organisation, InStreatham BID, has stated:
“The grants are valued but won’t cover the cost of wage bills and food waste for that period of November and December which is usually what covers the costs for hospitality in the new year when things are naturally quieter.”
We should not have to drag the Government into supporting workers and businesses because Ministers are too preoccupied with who gets the top job to focus on the crisis at hand. Proper support packages should be announced alongside public health measures as and when they are needed. Streatham BID said:
“A £6,000 grant in no way compensates for the dramatic loss in trading hospitality businesses in particular are facing, and more important they can’t wait weeks for financial aid.”
This incoherence is exactly why small businesses are increasingly frustrated and want clearer and quicker decision making from this Government. Because the new omicron variant has hindered growth in retail, hospitality and leisure, a reduction in VAT or retaining the 5% VAT rate for hospitality is seriously needed. A business rates holiday applied until December 2022 and a reform of business taxation to level the playing field would be most helpful to businesses over the next 12 months.
We could also put in place flexible and targeted furlough throughout the ongoing pandemic—not just until the end of September—to help businesses to retain their staff. It would also be incredibly helpful during this period when many businesses have just recruited full staffing levels to sustain a busy Christmas period, only to be hit with cancellations in the region of 40% to 50% because restrictions were reintroduced. The TUC has stated that furlough needs to cover at least 80% of workers’ wages and that the Government must guarantee that no one who is furloughed is paid less than the minimum wage. That is exactly the type of furlough we need.
We also need decent sick pay that is paid at the real living wage and is available to everyone so that workers can afford to self-isolate when they need to. It has been insisted on by many hon. Members across the House over the past couple of years, but it is still being played around with by the Government as a short-term concession during a crisis, not a long-term employment right available in law.
The Government need to do more to step up and deliver the necessary support measures to the businesses of Streatham and those across the country and ensure the democratic, cultural and economic benefits of our small businesses. If the Government claim to be the party of business, why they are presiding over the decimation of our small businesses, which make up 99% of the total UK business population? It seems the unfortunate truth about coronavirus business measures is that the smaller the business, the smaller the Government’s concern for its survival.
The economic case for stronger Government intervention could not be clearer and the stakes could not be higher. The cost of bankrupt businesses, unemployed workers and lost tax revenue far outweighs the cost of acting now. Allowing small businesses to go bust is not only bad policy—risking a deeper recession and job losses—but deeply damaging to our local communities, which makes it all the more important for the Government to learn from mistakes so far and prioritise the survival of our small businesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about this important issue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on securing the debate and thank her neighbour, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for her intervention.
The hon. Member for Streatham is right to raise the issues that she and her constituents see on a daily basis in Streatham and Lambeth as a whole; they are issues that we have seen across the country over the course of the coronavirus pandemic. There is no denying that the last two years have been difficult and variable. It has been necessary for businesses, people and communities alike to make quick changes to deal with the biggest public health emergency of our generation—one that we certainly hope never to see again—and that has caused issues, problems and difficulties.
I mourn every single business that is no longer in place, whether that is in Streatham, Vauxhall or North East Derbyshire, in my constituency or any other represented by the hon. Members present. I regret that anybody has lost their job and I wholeheartedly regret that businesses have not been able to focus on the things they are good at: building businesses and growth; ensuring that they can take on employees; innovating and finding new ways to do things that people and markets want. That is the problem that we have had over the last two years, but it is not a problem that we can wish away. The ultimate reality is that none of us had a choice about coronavirus; none of us have had a choice about omicron.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his response and for what he is going to say. I asked about those small businesses, perhaps with five staff members, in which, when one staff member has a positive test, they have to isolate and the business closes. Will the Minister and Government consider some scheme to help those small businesses, which I think the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and I are both keen to see assisted?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I completely appreciate the challenge that he gives to Government and the points that he makes. I know that the Government are looking at all times at what is the most appropriate kind of support for businesses and for communities as a whole. Although we hope—we pray—that we are moving into a new phase of living with the virus that allows businesses to get on with what they are doing, I know that the Government will review what is possible on a regular basis.
Although I congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham on the outline that she has given of her constituency, it will not surprise her that we disagree on a number of the points that she has made, and I will spend a few minutes on those. We disagree about the support that has been given. It is not reasonable to suggest that what the Government have done over the past two years does not demonstrate a level of commitment to our communities and to our businesses—small, medium and large—to try to get people through the most extraordinary time of our lives. We cannot simply suggest that £400 billion—nearly half of the United Kingdom’s annual spend in the years since I have been a Member of Parliament—is not a substantial amount of money and not unprecedented in our political lifetime, and beyond, as a response to a public health emergency. I do not think that under any circumstances that can be suggested to be minimal financial support.
Because the hon. Lady has quite rightly dealt specifically with Lambeth and Streatham, it is important to read into the record the amount of support that has been given to the area. I do so not because the support is perfect, not because there have not been challenges and not because lots of rules do not mean, inevitably, that unfortunately there are some businesses that can benefit but some businesses that cannot—one of the reasons I am in politics is in principle to try to reduce the number of rules, where that is possible—but because we need to recognise the amount of money and support that the Government have provided. We have provided 2,000 local restrictions support grants; 147 LRSG open grants; 399 restart grants; 4,000 retail, hospitality and leisure grant fund grants; 1,163 LRSG open allocations up to 28 March, and 10,000 LRSG closed allocations; restarts of nearly 1,700 grants, which is nearly £15 million in terms of spend; and nearly £10 million of additional restrictions grants.
I have information about literally dozens of additional grants for the Streatham constituency and for the Lambeth Council area. That demonstrates central Government’s level of commitment to ensuring that businesses can, where possible, get through an extraordinarily difficult time and are able to face the future with confidence.
Florence Eshalomi
I appreciate that the Minister has outlined some of the figures for Streatham and for Lambeth, which includes my Vauxhall constituency. However, does he appreciate that the nature of inner London boroughs such as Lambeth, which includes my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), means a number of businesses do not qualify for any support because of their high rateable values? A number of our constituents who work in self-employed businesses—the very same people who should be supporting these small businesses—have formed part of ExcludedUK. They did not receive any help whatsoever. Can the Minister address those points?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I completely appreciate that there are businesses and individuals who, over the past 18 months, have not been able to secure the support that they wanted and felt they needed. In an ideal world, when making public policy we would perhaps spend literally years trying to design policies to ensure that the right level of rules were around them, but we simply did not have that time in the period in which we had to move. We had to move quickly and ensure that we got as much out there to as many people as possible. The Chancellor and others have explained the reasons why the rules were drawn in that way, and I think that most people accept that, although there were difficulties, a huge amount of work was done, notwithstanding some of the challenges that have been outlined.
The second area that I will touch on is a disagreement on the situation that faces us. I accept that there are challenges, but some of the surveys and economic data coming out of London demonstrate the resilience of London businesses, and the ability of small businesses and others, not just in Streatham but across the Greater London area as a whole, to move forward, build, achieve what they can, and look to the future with confidence. Although the situation is difficult, and we have been through extraordinarily difficult times, I gently take issue with the suggestion that it is dire. Ultimately, businesses are helping us to get through it. They are doing the work that they need to do to build the economy that we need in order to pay for the extraordinary amounts of spending that have happened, and the even larger amounts of spending that the hon. Member for Streatham wants, given some of her statements.
Lee Rowley
I will speak for two more minutes, and then leave time for the hon. Lady to sum up. I hope that she can come to the point that she wishes to make.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I hope that the Minister agrees that unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures. Although I appreciate what he says, and all the grants that he outlined, businesses in my community simply cannot access them for a variety of reasons. Will he commit to coming down to Streatham, talking to those businesses, seeing what the problem is and perhaps designing a solution that is better for all? We may even treat him to a complimentary beer if he is willing to come down.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful for the kind offer. I point out that the statistics that I used are actual grants that have been issued, actual money that has been paid, and actual businesses in and around Streatham and Lambeth that have received support. I will decline her very kind invitation for one reason. Although I am extremely proud to call north-east Derbyshire my home, and to represent my home area in this place, when I am in London I live in Lambeth, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vauxhall; we occasionally see each other on the tube. I spend quite a bit of time down Streatham High Road, so I have some experience of running around Clapham Common, and an understanding of all the fantastic businesses in the hon. Ladies’ constituencies. I recognise that there have been difficulties, but I have also seen great opportunity in those areas.
As a resident at times of Lambeth, there is something that I would encourage those in local politics to do. When I walked out of my house in Brixton this morning, I walked past glass on the road that has been there for three months because it has not been swept up by Lambeth Council. I walked past a tree stump that has not been replaced in the three years I have worked there. I walked through a low traffic neighbourhood that the Labour party has put in, which is not really wanted by residents in my part of Brixton. I walked through an alleyway that is graffitied to an incredible extent, and which nobody has cleaned up in the past few months. I walked down to Brixton tube station to come here today, and it looks shabby. It has not been cleaned up and it has graffiti up and down the walls. If Lambeth Council wants to do something to helps its constituents and businesses, I hope that it will consider concentrating on its core services, which people who spend a lot of time in Lambeth, as I do, would appreciate.
None the less, I am genuinely grateful to both hon. Ladies, and particularly to the hon. Member for Streatham for the points that she raised and for highlighting the challenges. I do not deny that there are challenges, but I hope that she and her constituents will accept that during a period of unprecedented health crises, when we have had to do things that we neither expected nor wanted to do, the Government have provided an unprecedented level of support not just for small businesses but for businesses across Streatham, Lambeth, the Greater London area and the country as a whole, including my constituency. We will see what we can do in the weeks, months and years ahead, recognising that it looks as if, as we all hope, we are moving into a new phase of the pandemic in which we learn to live with it, and ensure that we allow businesses to get on with doing what they do well, which is to create wealth, jobs and the tax revenue that can provide the good public services that we all want. I wish the hon. Ladies’ constituents and businesses in Lambeth all the luck in the world in taking the great opportunities in front of them. I look forward to hopefully taking part in some of them as a resident of London.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Gas and Electricity Costs
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cost of gas and electricity.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Obviously, the debate is very dear to my heart, because I represent the part of the United Kingdom that every year seems to have the lowest temperature recorded in any community: the village of Altnaharra in Sutherland.
Much of what I am about say is blindingly obvious, but I want to roll out a few statistics. It is a fact that household electricity and gas bills are predicted to rise in April by around 45%. That would see the price cap reach £2,000 a year, or £165 a month. I would suggest that without Government intervention, this rise could take the total number of households in fuel poverty to no less than 6 million. The high level of global gas prices affects the whole economy; it does not impact only on energy retailers, suppliers and household customers. It could mean between a 1% and 2% inflationary increase across the whole UK economy, which would result in more than £10 billion a year in additional Government costs from indexing debt to pensions, salaries and other payments.
Some 33% of households in rural Scotland are in extreme poverty, with a further 9% in ordinary fuel poverty. That makes a total of 42%. The figure is even more acute in the far north and my constituency, where, as I have already said, temperatures are regularly the coldest in the United Kingdom.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is absolutely right about Altnaharra, and the fuel poverty that is shared by his constituency and mine. The UK Government talk about levelling up, but one of the best things that could be done in that regard would be to tackle the differences and inequities between distribution costs of the electricity network, as well as the transmission costs to generate. I note that our part of the world is a net generator and contributor of electricity, particularly to the grid.
Jamie Stone
My highland colleague makes a sage and wise point. [Interruption.]—with all due reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael).
The figure that I have outlined compares with 24% of households living in poverty in the rest of Scotland, which is still a high figure. I believe that fuel poverty is a clear priority issue for remote rural constituencies but, overall, I would suggest that is an unacceptable blight across society.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My hon. Friend has talked eloquently about the hardship of fuel poverty experienced in rural Scotland, and particularly in the highlands. I want to talk about disabled people, who are also disproportionately suffering as a result of the energy crisis. They have higher energy costs because of the equipment that they often need for assisted living. Just living from day to day is simply more expensive for them, so does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be putting in place additional support—similar to the warm home discount—for families of disabled children and for disabled people of working age?
Jamie Stone
My hon. Friend must be clairvoyant, because she has anticipated a point that I shall make in due course. I thank her for her intervention.
There are two major contributory factors to fuel poverty in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross: the absence of mains gas supply to many properties, and the comparative price of electricity, which costs four to five times more than mains gas and domestic oil per unit. Both of these power sources are often used to heat things that we rely on—for instance, water. Rural and remote households are more exposed to rising household costs due to paying an extra premium.
I suggest that energy policy in the UK is fundamentally broken. Consider this: the highlands and islands, to which the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) referred, produce more than 300% of their electricity demand from renewable sources—we produce three times more than we use. We export the rest to other parts of the UK, but as the hon. Member pointed out, a highland or island household pays more per unit of electricity due to the transmission charging regime, which pushes up energy bills even further. This is fundamentally wrong. Root and branch reform is required to design a UK energy policy that is fit for the 21st century, and that, most importantly, puts consumers at its heart.
Turning to business, energy price hikes are having a serious impact on the viability of businesses in the far north and, indeed, across the UK. I will quote two examples. Sitting at the back of the Public Gallery, I witness today Mr Andrew Mackay, my constituent. He and his brother own three hotels in Caithness known as the Caithness Collection—excellent hotels. They are facing an annual increase in electricity costs from almost £77,000 to—can Members believe?—nearly £130,000, which is a 70% rise.
Also in Caithness, we have a local engineering company, JGC Engineering, which is owned by the Campbell family and makes excellent pieces of stainless steel for the nuclear and other industries. The company’s annual electricity bill runs into six figures. The owners have been forced—they had no choice; it was the best deal they could get—to sign a deal that, believe it or not, means an 80% increase in costs starting in March 2022. To enable sustainable economic growth and—to borrow an expression from Her Majesty’s Government—to level up the United Kingdom, it is imperative that measures are put in place to protect consumers and businesses from crippling energy costs.
Looking ahead at the UK’s future energy mix, it is crucial that investment in renewables is kept up to pace. However, I believe that the Government can also look seriously at novel solutions to age-old problems. In terms of nuclear power, small modular reactors, such as those being designed by Rolls-Royce, could provide districts with heating and electricity in areas where it is costly to receive utilities on the national grid.
This kind of out-of-the-box thinking could reduce the cost of gas and electricity, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and ensure the economic future of areas that consider themselves left behind, such as Caithness.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Is there an estimated cost for these modular reactors? How much will it cost overall? Is there a policy for how nuclear waste will be dealt with?
Jamie Stone
A conversation with Rolls-Royce would be rewarding for the hon. Member. It is working up the proposals, but has some interesting thinking; I think we would be unwise not to take a good look at it.
Solutions do not stop there. Governments could soften the impact on consumers in the short term by providing loans up front to energy suppliers to cover the costs incurred from the significant rise in global wholesale prices for gas. I suggest constructively to the Minister that the Government could remove VAT from energy bills, or double and extend the warm home discount, taking £300 a year off the heating bills of around 7.5 million vulnerable households.
Her Majesty’s Government could introduce a new social tariff for those in fuel poverty—perhaps double the winter fuel allowance, giving up to £600 a year to 11.3 million elderly pensioners who currently face a £208 real-terms cut to their state pension next year, due to the Government’s decision to scrap the triple lock.
The Government could also implement a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas companies’ super-profits—the extra profits. This would not impact companies’ usual profits and thereby keep jobs secure, and would target the unprecedented extra profits that they have made in the last six months.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree there is also a role for the energy companies in all this? I suspect that he will have as many constituents as I do who, over the years, in order to compensate for the lack of access to mains gas, have taken other options, including storage heating and going on to tariffs such as “total heating total control”, which is now being used by SSE to keep their customers prisoner because it is impossible for them to switch. Does he join me in calling on companies such as SSE to treat their customers, who have been loyal for generations across the highlands and islands, rather better than that?
Jamie Stone
I have no hesitation in joining my right hon. Friend in making that plea. His points are well made.
I hope that in getting this debate under way today, we start a dialogue with energy companies, Her Majesty’s Government and all concerned parties—not least those people who stand to be faced with crippling debts. I think of a young mother I know, who lives in the village of Balintore in my constituency. She tells me that she has to budget absolutely to balance the books; it is just a few pounds between surviving and going into the red. She says to me that if the electricity bill or the cost of diesel for her car goes up, she is in trouble. To square the books, she would then have to cut down on her expenditure. In turn, that hits the local shops, the local chemist and so on, in the seaboard villages of my constituency. I hope there will be a dialogue.
There have been, in what I have said, a lot of “coulds”, “shoulds” and “woulds”. What we really need from the Government is real, urgent action. I would suggest that they have failed millions of hard-working families and thousands of pensioners, at a time when energy bills are going through the roof. At this stage, the nation is plummeting further into a fuel poverty crisis. As far as I can see, there seem to be no plans to tackle it, but I await the Minister’s comments with great interest and expectation. At the end of the day, old people, single parents and people on very limited incomes are wondering how the heck they will get through the next period, because we all dread getting into debt.
Members from across the House have put forward suggestions to the Government on how to stop this disaster in its tracks. I respectfully suggest to Her Majesty’s Government that we stop the dither and delay, get talking, and do something about it.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. It is a fact that all economies are facing an energy price rise, for international reasons. The hon. Member has not mentioned gas at all. No matter anyone’s views on gas, it will be part of our energy mix for a generation. I wonder if he might agree that we have been uniquely silly in diminishing our storage capacity, with the closure of the Rough field. Mother nature has given us a gift in this country: a lot of gas. No matter anyone’s view on the path to net zero, a super report by the House of Commons Library charts the reduction in our gas use over the years, and shows that we have reduced our gas capacity and production even faster, leading to imports. Does the hon. Member agree that it might be sensible to increase our domestic supply while gas is such an important part of our energy mix? That might give a longer-term solution to price volatility.
Jamie Stone
I will conclude in just a moment or two. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The bottom line is that if we care about the people I have mentioned, who are petrified of getting into fuel poverty, then we must look at all possible solutions. There will be a mix to the answer. I would not rule out anything that the hon. Member said. We will take a look at it.
Of course, if we get hydrogen production right, that also makes enormous sense, because it is absolutely neutral for the environment. Hydrogen is a gas, and we should be thinking about that as a possibility. I conclude my remarks there, Sir Edward. Thank you for your forbearance.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Ind)
The cost of gas and electricity has been a real challenge for my constituents. Although the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) makes a good point about the rural communities in Scotland, it is not just in Scotland that this is a challenge.
Down in the south-west, we have one of the lowest-wage economies, a very high cost of living, and a disproportionate number of over-65s with complex comorbidities. Our economy depends heavily on hospitality and tourism, and that has been decimated. The hope for recovery over the Christmas period went with plan B.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Lady is making a very good speech and she is absolutely right—it is not just the north of Scotland that is affected, although I, like the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), would argue that that is where things are most acute.
House of Commons Library figures for all the neighbouring countries in north-west Europe show that 11.7% of people in the UK are living in relative poverty by the OECD’s definition, and of the 13 countries that were looked at, the Gini coefficient of inequality is highest in the UK. That puts this problem firmly in the Government’s ballpark; they really have to get to grips with it.
Anne Marie Morris
The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point—this is a real problem. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross made the clear point that the answer and solution has to be found now.
I look at my constituents—indeed, I was on a telephone call just this morning—and I see that the food banks are doing great business. Increasingly, I am hearing that the people who are using them are not the usual attendees. We are in a state of crisis, which needs to be addressed right now. I have constituents—mostly pensioners—who are ringing my constituency office, and are very concerned. They are worried because of the cost of living and because of everything they hear about the energy costs that they will be facing.
For me, it is that uncertainty that is most challenging, because although the Government, to their credit, recognise the problem, the real issue is that to deal with that fear, we need an answer, a commitment and a solution. Looking at what we might or might not do in April is not soon enough. I am sure that even you, Sir Edward, will have looked at the barometer as you got up this morning. It is now that we are seeing minus temperatures. It is now that people need their heating at night. It is now that they need hot food.
Clearly, it is not the Government’s fault that there has been a global challenge in terms of energy prices. Indeed, they have risen to the challenge and recognised that security of domestic supply has to move further up the agenda. I welcome their investment—or promised investment—in more nuclear. But the real challenge is that despite all those good words and despite the concept of a price cap, which was effectively intended to protect consumers from very challenging prices, consumers are not being protected.
No scheme is perfect, but what happened here is that when it became clear that the prices meant that some of the smaller suppliers would go out of business, those customers were picked up by the bigger players but were inevitably put on the highest tariffs available. Those individuals, having done the right thing by seeking out good policies and good schemes, suddenly found themselves in the worst possible position. Then we hear—understandably, on one level—that the cap will not hold and that we expect that there will be an announcement on 7 February that it will increase substantially, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has already indicated—it will be an extra £700 per household, taking the average bill to £2,000. Suddenly energy costs will be going up 50% overnight.
When the Government set their energy retail market strategy for the 2020s, they set two objectives. The first was that there should be a sustainable retail market, whereby it was easy and rewarding to go green. However, that is not what is actually being delivered. Although they were well intended, many of the tariffs to try to encourage—to nudge, if you like—greener use have effectively pushed people further and further into fuel poverty.
The second objective was that all consumers would pay a fair price for their energy and would be protected from excess charges. Although I appreciate that those are charges for production rather than the other elements—the tax and the levies—it has all come together in a horrible, nightmarish mix, whereby, because of the global cost increase, the Government are now scrabbling to try to honour what I think was their intended commitment to make energy prices affordable by considering some of the things that they can move, which clearly will be taxes and levies, as opposed to some of the things that they cannot move, which include the global price of gas.
Therefore, for me, Government intervention is not optional. As has been said, the number of households in fuel poverty is increasing from 4 million to 6 million. That will affect a very large number of my constituents. The Government have a number of options. They can mix targeted initiatives and universal ones. The comment in the media is that the Government are uncomfortable about solutions that are more universal in nature.
This energy crisis—this energy cost—comes on top of a huge increase in the cost of living. We know from figures out today that people’s wages are not going up to meet those costs, and therefore it is not just the usual smaller percentage of the population that is suffering; it is actually a much larger percentage of the population. People at all levels make commitments, and they are struggling to meet them. They have to meet their mortgages; that is not negotiable. They have to pay their rent; that is not negotiable. Businesses have to pay business rates; that is not negotiable. To be reluctant to reduce, and to resist reducing, VAT from 5% to 0%—the most obvious, quickest and easiest universal solution—is perhaps a little disingenuous. It seems to me that at least 60% of the people who would benefit from that actually deserve it.
The other universal approach is what we do about universal levies. That is something that we will have to review, and we will have to look at how the burden can be moved to general taxation. We need to recognise that those levies are subject to a number of contracts, which means that they cannot be the first thing that the Government fix. None the less, they need to be in the bag of solutions.
The obvious targeted solution—I think that it is an “as well as” rather than an “instead of”—is expanding the warm home discount, changing the eligibility, taking it beyond winter and looking at how we might make it generally taxpayer funded rather than funded by those that contribute to it.
How are we going to pay for this? Of course, it is right that the Government consider that. A number of things have been looked at, including a windfall tax on the oil and energy industry. Only this morning, there have been suggestions that fraudulent covid payments claims, which the Government have committed to claw back and at the moment are estimated at £4.3 billion, would go a long way to covering the most urgent and easiest solution, which is to reduce VAT from 5% to 0%. The VAT bill that the Treasury would have to cover would be somewhere between £1.7 billion and £2 billion. Affordable is the wrong word, but it is the right thing to do, and it is entirely affordable given the likely income that the Government can expect as the economic forecast improves across the country—although, sadly, not in my constituency—and what they might get back from the covid claims.
Of course, the people who are most impacted are the ones who are most vulnerable: the over 65s on fixed incomes and those in poorly insulated houses, which is definitely the case in my constituency. Those people are the most important, but they are not the only ones. I ask the Government not just to look at this as a matter of money, but to ask what is the right thing to do. What is the timeframe in which they must act? It is now—it is cold now. I ask the Government not only to acknowledge that there is a problem but to put forward steps now, before the new cap is introduced—and certainly long before April.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Will Members now keep to about five minutes, so that everybody can speak?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I reassure you that I will be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this urgent debate. In Bath, in north-east Somerset, more than 10% of households are already living in fuel poverty and, as we have heard, that is likely to increase dramatically.
The council is working hard to provide a local household support fund, with grants of £250 to help the least well off with their energy costs this winter but, again as we have heard, energy costs are likely to rise by about £600. That grant is something, but it is clearly not what is needed. Many more of my constituents are worried about their next heating bill. What have the Government done to protect them? They have scrapped the programmes to insulate our homes, which would have reduced bills long ago. They have cut universal credit and increased the UK’s dependence on imported gas, rather than investing in renewables: green energy homemade in the UK—something the Minister knows I keep saying in these debates. That is what should have happened a long time ago.
I hear reports that the Treasury is scrapping the energy company obligation scheme, which has been a powerful driver in reducing household emissions. The Government must not touch that scheme. Instead, they should double and extend the warm home discount, as has been said. It cannot be right that gas companies are profiting from record prices, way up from where they were last year, when millions cannot afford to heat their homes. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a one-off windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas firms, to fund support for those who are struggling. Seventy-one per cent. of people support that move, as do 75% of the Government’s own voters. Why are the Government not severely and sincerely looking at the proposal of a windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies?
We need a long-term plan to prevent another energy crisis. Where is the urgent plan for a long-term home insulation programme that will cut bills permanently? This is a particular challenge for my constituents in Bath. Bath and North East Somerset Council proposes that the Government require landlords to bring housing up to an agreed energy certification standard, and I urge the Minister to look at that. The Government’s heat and buildings strategy was a missed opportunity for real ambition in this area. We have one of the oldest, least energy-efficient housing stocks in Europe. It is an emergency, and the Government should finally treat it as such.
Liberal Democrats are committed to reducing most emissions by 2030, which means a massive expansion of renewables and the replacement of the gas grid. In the context of this debate, we all know that there are some energy companies leading the way. Companies such as E.ON pride themselves on the fact that nearly all of their electricity is generated from renewables, but the shocking fact is that, while the price of renewables falls continuously, the customers of E.ON and other renewable electricity companies will find that their electricity bills go up by just as much as those of customers who buy electricity from burning gas. I have asked E.ON directly—
Craig Mackinlay
The hon. Lady has a high number of listed properties in her constituency of Bath, as I have in mine. Sandwich is the oldest medieval town in the country. Has she considered how old buildings, which are listed or in conservation areas and structurally virtually impossible to insulate, can be dealt with in a way that is affordable or achievable?
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have had a debate on listed buildings and how we can help owners. It is complicated, but I do believe it is important that owners of listed buildings get proper support, including help from the council to change the structure of their buildings to make them more energy efficient.
As I said, it is shocking that those trying to do the right thing by buying from companies getting their electricity only from renewables are facing the same cost rises as those buying their energy from companies making electricity from burning gas. It is a massive failure of Government, who have set the terms of the wholesale market to ensure that everybody pays when gas prices go up, even if they do not use gas. That is shocking and unforgivable. The Government must urgently look into how this issue can be fixed now.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing the debate.
People will die. Those are not my words; they are not the words of an Opposition politician. They are the words of Martin Lewis, who was voted the most trusted man in Britain. Heating bills are going up by more than £700 a year in April and they are likely to go up more in October. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 54% of single adults and 25% of single parents spend more than half their income on heating. That is simply not sustainable, especially when they are facing other increased costs. We are in one of the world’s richest economies, yet people are looking at the stark choice of eating or heating.
Wages are not keeping up with inflation, which in particular penalises low-income people, who spend much more of their income on essentials. The solution cannot be an increase in personal debt. Christians Against Poverty has reported a 41% increase in people requesting help from it in January, while searches for fuel help on the Citizens Advice website have gone up phenomenally. We have to find a way to deal with the debt crisis, but the first step is to deal with the fuel price increase. That is urgent. It has been caused by not only the higher wholesale prices, but the explosion and lack of regulation in new energy companies entering the market and offering low and unsustainable prices to switchers. That is supposed to increase competition, but it has always failed the most vulnerable and it penalises many who cannot or do not want to switch. We have to look at that.
What can we do? An immediate cut to VAT on fuel would be a quick fix to start. I agree that it is a blunt instrument, but it is easy, quick and would help a number of people. However, it cannot be the only measure. We need to increase the warm home discount and widen the eligibility for that scheme, and we need to fund it from a different source. It cannot be funded from a levy on all electricity bills, because that will penalise everybody again.
I agree that we have to look at greener and more sustainable means of producing electricity.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech. I want to pick up on an interesting point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). At the moment, the UK consumes about 41.8 GWe. People can check that on their telephone apps quite easily. Some 16.9% of that electricity is from wind, but that figure could be greater. Wind has been supported by the Government’s contracts for difference. Is there not a question as to why wind is being bundled into those energy prices? Why, as the hon. Member for Bath suggested, are companies profiting by bundling it into energy prices, when it is actually supported by the Government? We all know that the marginal cost of producing wind energy is zero. Our wind energy output could be greater, had things been built on the Scottish islands with a minor bit of Government planning over the years.
Yvonne Fovargue
We need to look at all the ways in which energy is produced and we need a mix of energy. We have to look at the green levy as well. At the moment it is a levy on all bills, so the poorest are paying the most.
We need to look at a social or below-cost tariff funded by the energy industry: each gas or electricity supplier should pay a sum into a central pot, based on the number of customers, which could then be redistributed to people in fuel poverty. We should not forget the people on prepayment meters; often, they are the poorest and have been in difficulty with their bills before. There is no way that people on prepayment meters should be paying the amounts they are paying for gas and electricity even now. There should be help and adequate protection for those people.
We have to accept that people should spend only a certain proportion of their income on energy. I am not saying where we should draw the line, but more than 10% is far too much—without even getting into the eye-watering figures we have heard from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
People on low incomes budget very carefully, but it is a bit like spinning plates—they pay one bill, they pay another bill, they look at the next bill. With the cost of electricity and gas forecast to increase so much, those plates will come crashing to the ground. That is why we need to act now to make sure that people are not, as one of my constituents said, out of their minds with worry. People need real help to keep the heating on, pay all their other bills and eat properly. If we are not careful, it will not only be free socks that energy companies offer; they will have to offer food parcels as well—ones that do not need heating up.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. You caught me off guard there; the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) just asked if I was next and I said, “No, I will be at the end.” However, I am pleased to participate at any stage.
I commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on setting the scene so well. It was a superb introduction, which I think we all endorse and support, because we understand the issues. I am pleased to be here to discuss this important matter. To say I have been contacted by a few constituents about gas and electricity prices would be an understatement. The emails to my office on this are legion, so it is great to be here to air the concerns that are important to the livelihoods of so many. I commend the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris). We all know her position and what happened to her in the last week. In the debate in the Chamber on VAT, the hon. Lady felt constrained and supported a cut. We should put that on the record.
Soaring global gas prices are fuelling a domestic living crisis in the UK and could potentially have economy-wide implications. Energy bills are set to rise by up to £2,000 per year from April, which will be detrimental to those who are already in fuel poverty—people who need help and on whom I will focus. Recent statistic from National Energy Action reveal that an estimated 1.2 million to 1.5 million households across the UK will struggle to pay their electricity or gas bills. Those figures equate to almost the whole population of Northern Ireland, but are spread across the United Kingdom, which is just astonishing. The most vulnerable and those in poverty will be hit.
Back home in Northern Ireland in the past year, gas providers and all six electricity providers have increased their prices. In September, Firmus Energy announced that 50,000 people in its Greater Belfast network would see their gas price rise by a third. SSE Airtricity, which others have referred to, has increased its gas prices by 21.8%, which adds about £112 to the average household bill. Power NI announced that it will increase its electricity price for domestic customers by 21.4% from the start of this month. As we have seen in the press, prices for commercial businesses will also rise by as much as 30% to 40%. Some of the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar tell us just how important this matter is. The figures are truly astronomical and will have a significant impact on those who already struggle to make ends meet.
An emergency fuel payment has been introduced in Northern Ireland by the Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, which I welcome. It is a £200 payment made through the Bryson Charitable Group for those who are vulnerable or in special circumstances and need help. We have taken some steps in Northern Ireland to make that happen. However, the Communities Minister and her respective counterpart in this House must take more of a lead, instead of leaving this responsibility solely to charities, which are doing their very best but need help from our Government to deal with the sheer volume of applications.
We must stand up for those who are directly affected. I stated in the debate on VAT on household bills that I support the green energy push as the only sustainable way forward, but at a time when there is a fuel crisis and pressure on those in financial distress, the £750 that has been referred to should be put on hold for a short term to help our constituents find a way forward. Viable ways to bring down prices must be considered. A plan needs to be put in place to assist those who need help. E3G suggests an extension and increase in winter fuel payments to support those on pension credit and low incomes.
The Minister knows I respect him, and he is always very capable and able to answer questions, but we need an indication of what we can do to help. No doubt all Members are hearing concerns about this issue. It is not about politics; it is about helping those who need it most. I look to the Minister and the Government for reassurance that more financial help will be considered.
It is the most vulnerable who will be most susceptible to gas, electricity and oil prices rising more than in other countries. Therefore, more needs to be done—this is an easy point to make, but it is a fact—to help those who need it most amid the rising electricity, gas and oil prices that we face now, and more so in the future. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross referred to new technology. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that. It is not his direct responsibility, but perhaps he could say how we might use new technology to reduce prices.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing today’s timely and critical debate.
We should soon, hopefully, begin to see some economic recovery at the end of a very long couple of years. Unfortunately, there are too many people across the UK who cannot wait indefinitely for things to improve. The cost of living crisis is here, and it is not avoidable. When the price cap was reviewed and bills subsequently rose, I was contacted by many constituents who were worried about the impact it would have on their living costs. It came just at the time when the universal credit uplift was removed and furlough ended.
At the same time, the Government were struggling to keep on top of state pension claims, and vulnerable pensioners were waiting months for their first payment. There was nothing to address that in the Chancellor’s autumn Budget, and the national insurance hike was also missing from the announcement. It was not missing from the minds of taxpayers, though, particularly those on lower incomes, where every penny counts.
Next month we will hear from Ofgem, and its announcement that the price cap will rise once more come April will be no surprise. Recent projections estimate that household bills could rise by over £700 a year. In my constituency, that is almost the equivalent of the average monthly rent. It is almost an extra £59 added to bills each month. Some people might be privileged enough not to miss £59 a month, but they are few and far between. The average weekly family food shop is around £63. The average cost of sending one child to five after-school club sessions is £62. Are those the kinds of sacrifices the Government expect our constituents to make to keep the heating on?
A coalition of 25 charities, including Age UK and Save the Children, have warned that the rise could push the number of families living in fuel poverty from 4 million to a massive 6 million. That is 6 million households, not individuals, although if it were 6 million individuals it would not be acceptable either. Industry has warned that it might take from 18 months to three years for the energy crisis to resolve.
Jim Shannon
Has the hon. Lady experienced in her constituency an increase in the number of people who are referred to food banks, as the hon. Member for Newton Abbot described? I know I have in my constituency, where the figure is up by almost two thirds on this time last year. That indicates that there are real pressures on those who did not apply in the past, but are applying now.
Margaret Ferrier
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think we all find the rise in the use of food banks in our constituencies shocking. As the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) said earlier, people who would not normally have to attend a food bank who are having to do so now, so there definitely is a squeeze on people’s incomes.
These households cannot and should not have to wait up to three years for the energy crisis to resolve, so what is the solution? What can the Government realistically do? The answer does not lie in defunding the BBC, or in small changes to the universal credit taper rate. The only way to ease the burden on families up and down the UK is to tackle the energy price crisis in a pragmatic, meaningful way. Many options have been put forward to the Government, and I urge them in the strongest terms to please consider those options as a matter of urgency.
A reduction to the VAT rate on energy would provide some much needed breathing space for those who need it most. The Government are keen to keep repeating that, as an importer, we are held to the whims of the current market’s rapid and substantial levels of demand. To a great extent, that is true, but a VAT reduction is within the Treasury’s gift and should be given. A windfall tax on North sea oil and gas companies would also mean that it is not the most vulnerable paying the price for this unusually and regrettably high cost. After all, those companies are expected to report almost record-breaking profit levels for this financial year. They have unarguably benefitted considerably, whereas our constituents have suffered and will continue to do so. Suspending or reducing green levies on energy bills could help too, as could expanding the warm home discount, which many hon. Members have mentioned, or increasing universal credit.
Whatever route the Government decide to take, they must do something; it would be heartbreaking to hear the same stories from my constituents for another 18 months or three years when there are solutions, should the Government choose to implement them—I hope that they do.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate, and for his excellent introduction to the issues involved. Our constituents are genuinely worried about their gas and electricity bills. In Scotland, 640,000 people —one in seven—find that their energy bills are unaffordable at the moment, and those bills are only going to rise. The energy crisis and the cost of energy have once again thrown into sharp relief the glaring inequalities in our society. Inflation is expected to rise to 6%, energy costs are doubling and the national insurance hike is about to kick in, so there is huge concern. Alongside and because of that, we face a debt time bomb as credit card lending jumped by 41% in recent months. Much of that borrowing was to pay for household essentials.
As things stand, 6 million people will slide into fuel poverty because of the rising cost of energy. That will impact on the wider economy, driving up the cost of food, goods and other services. As petrol prices increase, consumer prices will continue to rise, and at a faster rate. Alongside that, we can expect the cost of mortgage repayments to rise as well. We need Government action to tackle this. It is real, and it is crushing my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran.
We have heard today about the need to cut VAT on energy bills and on the warm home discount, to offer some respite to those who are struggling right now. In 2016, the now Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), said:
“If we vote to leave the European Union, we can cut VAT on domestic fuel to zero and that would save households about £60 a year… that would help the poorest families most of all.”
Let us ask the Minister to do what his Government promised they could and would do. We need action on that.
It is time for the Government to listen to the calls to provide loans to energy companies, which are teetering on the brink, rule out a future rise in the energy price cap and reintroduce the £20 universal credit uplift. Households need help right now. The Scottish child payment could be replicated across the UK, and we could deliver a low-income energy payment, introduce a real living wage and raise the level of sick pay. There are a number of things that the Government could do to help families who are struggling right now.
We heard earlier that there are real, genuine and well-founded worries about cold-related morbidity this winter. In this day and age, in a state as rich as the UK, that is a cause for embarrassment and shame. Even the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), has admitted that it was a “mistake” to close off the storage sites, which the Government withdrew support from. Although these issues are global and there are many global factors at play, not having sufficient storage for energy leaves the UK much more exposed to price shocks than it needs to be. We have the lowest storage capacity in all of Europe—1% of all of Europe’s capacity. Any kind of protection we might have had from dramatic price shocks has been given away by this Government. That is really not acceptable.
The UK is going through this whole situation while suffering from the worst levels of poverty and inequality in north-west Europe; in-work poverty is at record levels this century. We really need to get a grip here and listen to our constituents’ problems. We need fundamental and radical measures to protect our constituents. Some have no idea how they are going to cope with the price rises hitting their doorsteps. We have heard about the differentials in energy transmission costs. Those need to be tackled, but when will they be? We need an equitable energy policy that works for all consumers, and I am really looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I start by congratulating my dear hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on bringing forward this important debate. I also commend the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who this week has had the backbone to stand up for her constituents on the cost of living crisis, while the Prime Minister seems to have inadvertently misled himself as to whether or not he attended a party. That does rather stick in the throat and perhaps shows the priorities of this Government.
This issue really matters because it matters to millions. Like many, I have received emails from concerned constituents. One, Margaret, is desperately concerned. Some 3,000 people in Oxford West and Abingdon are already classed as being in fuel poverty, and she is concerned about how many more are going to succumb. She is right to be. Jessica, who lives literally 10 minutes down the road from Margaret, emailed me on the same day. She is already classed as being in fuel poverty. She is considered vulnerable by her energy supplier. She currently pays £85 a month for her energy and has been told that that is going to increase to £200 a month—she says that there is no way she can afford those kinds of prices. Dave, who is on £10 an hour, contacted me with a similar story and Jane, who is a pensioner, told me that when she looks at what she will have to pay, she knows that she simply does not have the money. I ask the Minister: what are these people meant to do?
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I also welcome this debate and thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing it. My constituency of Manchester, Gorton has long faced a fuel poverty crisis. In 2019, almost a quarter of families there were in fuel poverty; given current concerns about sky-rocketing fuel bills, the number will now undoubtedly be substantially higher. Does the hon. Member agree that this issue predates today’s cost of living crisis and that this Government have overseen a dramatic rise in fuel poverty without taking any of the action necessary to mitigate it?
Layla Moran
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I absolutely agree. I am also deeply concerned that the problem will get worse over the next few weeks. We have only to read the emails or listen to the stories to be moved by them. Martin Lewis, who was mentioned earlier, dedicated an entire episode of his “Martin Lewis Money Show Live” to energy prices the other day. Afterwards, he tweeted that he was “near tears” after being unable to help a single mother, who had recently lost her partner, to afford her energy bills. He called on the Government to do more, and I agree with Martin.
The Minister will have heard many good suggestions today. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned cutting VAT on bills, a social tariff and an increase in the winter fuel allowance. Age UK has suggested a £50 one-off payment to those eligible for the cold weather payment and a doubling of household support. All those could work, and we have to ask the question: when are they going to come in? People are already hurting now.
There is also a secondary question, and a correct one: who is going to pay for it? Even more galling than all I have discussed is that after hearing all these stories of hardship and heartache, Gazprom announced a dividend of £179 million. Energy giants such as Gazprom are profiteering from the misfortunes of others. Frankly, the Government are complicit because they are letting them.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Lady mentions Gazprom and how the UK is in hock to such gas producers from outside the UK. If we cast our minds back, do we not see that a mistake of George Osborne’s penny-pinching, bean-counting style of five, six or seven years ago was his reluctance to use the climate change levy to invest in renewables to make us less dependent on energy from overseas and give us more renewable capacity, which could have been built here? For the sake of a few pennies, it was his argument—I disputed it at the time, when I was the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee—that we should not do so. Now the customers of the UK are on the hook for hundreds and hundreds of pounds each and every year.
Layla Moran
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. It is for exactly that strategic reason that the Liberal Democrats are calling for a Robin Hood tax on the super-profits of oil and gas companies. This one-off levy would raise over £5 billion to support households in need of help. Surely that is the fairest way to help the worst off.
However, there is a wider geopolitical point. Gazprom, as we know, is owned by the Russian state, and Gazprom, at the behest of Putin, sent 25% less gas than before to Europe in the last year. We all know that Putin is playing politics with our energy prices, and that is making all of us and our constituents suffer. On one hand, the Government say they will not reward Russia for aggression; on the other hand, by doing nothing about the situation, they are allowing Putin to manipulate the energy market and he is being rewarded for it. We believe that instituting a Robin Hood tax would have many advantages, but one would be to send a powerful message to Putin in Moscow: “You cannot interfere with our energy market”.
Fundamentally—this comes to the point that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) made—in the long term we need to wean this country, and indeed the entire world, off gas and oil altogether as soon as possible. That is why the answer to this problem is not to cut investment in green energy, as some have suggested. Whether it comes into general taxation or there is another way to fund it—that is the conversation that needs to be had—we need to increase investment in renewable energy, because to protect people now we need to think strategically in the medium and long term. The answer is to end our dependency on rogue states and protect the poorest in our communities.
Alan Brown
I just wonder how a Robin Hood tax on oil companies operating in the North sea would affect reliance on Putin or Gazprom, or how it would affect Gazprom’s share price or dividend. Those things seem to me to be almost diametrically opposite.
Layla Moran
We need to ensure that there is fairness in the system, and we know that all oil and gas companies have made enormous profits. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made the point earlier about customers who had been loyal to oil and gas companies but who now face high bills, when the companies themselves are profiteering. There are many reasons why a Robin Hood tax would work, but one is the geopolitical point that I am making today.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure, Sir Edward, to serve under your chairmanship.
As others have done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this debate. He highlighted that the gas and electricity issue is a UK-wide one, but he also made relevant and pertinent points about just how much it affects rural Scotland, and in particular his own constituency. His illustration of the effect that it will have on his constituent who is sitting in the Public Gallery, and on an already struggling hospitality industry, was really stark. I hope that the Minister thought the same and pays heed to what was said.
I thank all other right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. A clear theme seemed to come from all the contributions: basically, we have this cost-of-living crisis and the UK Government are doing nothing about it. The UK Government really need to start taking action.
The UK Government have sat back as household incomes have dropped in real terms by up to £1,200 and energy bills are sky-rocketing. We have had the broken promises about lower energy bills post Brexit, and yet when Labour proposed a 5% cut in VAT in last week’s Opposition day debate, we had the absurd situation of all the Tory Brexiter MPs questioning the validity of such a VAT cut and voting it down. That makes no sense to me, given the broken promises. As a couple of other Members have done, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who followed the courage of her convictions and voted for something that her Prime Minister had promised us.
To return to the theme, without further action, a real crisis is looming—if it is not already upon us, if truth be told. As others have said, it is not credible for the cap to rise to approximately £2,000 per year in April. Previously, National Energy Action estimated there were 4.5 million fuel-poor households in the UK. When the October cap increased, that added a further 500,000. If the cap goes ahead in April as predicted, we will end up with 6 million fuel-poor households in the UK. That is a 33% increase in the number of fuel-poor households in two overnight increments. It is disgraceful, and something needs to be done to prevent it getting worse.
Worse, National Energy Action previously estimated that there are roughly 10,000 premature deaths a year arising from fuel poverty. How many more premature deaths are likely to occur, given the number of households that will be plunged further into fuel poverty? One cohort who have not been mentioned so far today are the terminally ill, who suffer badly from fuel poverty. I cannot think of anything more distressing than someone who wanted to spend the end of their life in a dignified way in their own home being forced, because of fuel poverty, to spend their final days in a hospice. It is distressing for them and for their family, and that is the real impact of fuel poverty.
A common theme has been the impact of a VAT holiday on fuel Bills, which it is estimated would save £80 a year, so on its own it is insufficient—it is hardly even a sticking plaster—but it could provide a small amount of help.
It is critical that the UK Government take proactive action to ensure that this cap rise is not passed on to consumers in April, so direct intervention is required. Some of that intervention could be in the form of loans, to smooth out the £2 billion of additional costs that are estimated to have arisen from the 28 energy companies that went bust in 2021—money that will otherwise be lumped on to consumers’ bills. Again, that is due to the failure of the Government and the regulator.
As others have said, a proper debate is required about the merits of different levies currently on our electricity bills, which contribute 23% of our bills, according to Ofgem. The reality is that these levies are a regressive tax and general taxation is much fairer. At the moment, the Government are putting out to tender the Contracts for Difference fourth allocation round, which commit £265 million per year for renewable energy projects. I am all in favour of that financial commitment, because we need more renewable energy, but again that money will be lumped directly on to our electricity bills, where it disproportionately affects lower income households and does not form part of a wider just transition.
Last week, the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill was considered on Report. The impact assessment for the Bill estimates the capital and financing costs to be as high as £63 billion for a new nuclear power station. Again, it is proposed that that will be added to our energy bills.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government, going back to 2015, have taken their eye off the ball? They have scrapped the Department of Energy and have lost focus on energy. Then they have had 10 years trying to do a smart meter roll-out, which has been bungled, depriving consumers of information about when they could get the best tariffs, which adds to the present problems. The Government have to own the responsibility of the trouble that UK consumers find themselves in at the moment.
Alan Brown
I agree wholeheartedly that the Government have taken their eye off the ball. The previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, talked about cutting out all the “green crap”. That set back the renewable industry badly. Not only did they scrap the Department of Energy but, given that we now have a legally binding target of net zero by 2050, it beggars belief that there is not a stand-alone Department for energy and climate change, or for energy and net zero. The Government need to take responsibility on that.
I have a question on nuclear for the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross on small modular reactors. Rolls-Royce is looking for something like £30 billion in capital costs to deliver 15 or 16 small modular reactors. Again, that is money that will be lumped on to our bills. With the financing on top, the costs are eye-watering. Nuclear is not a solution; renewable energy is the solution.
In terms of direct spending, the Treasury allocated £1.7 billion in the Budget for the development of Sizewell C. That is something like £60 from every household in Great Britain going towards a new nuclear station, instead of helping them pay their bills. That £1.7 billion could offset the cap for the estimated 3 million households that are eligible for the warm home discount this year, or completely fund a VAT holiday for one year for everybody. Under present policies, not only are the UK Government not doing anything; they are making things worse with their long-term planning. At the moment, costs will be added to energy bills, making things more difficult.
As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, people in the Scottish highlands not only have more challenging weather to deal with and risk being off the gas grid, which makes fuel immediately more expensive, but pay up to £400 more to heat their homes because they are on restricted meters—paying up to 4p more per unit of electricity. Why does the Minister think that it is fair that this surcharge is added to an area that is actually supplying energy to the rest of the UK?
Direct intervention could be paid for through a windfall tax on the Treasury. As our energy bills have increased, so have the VAT returns to the Treasury. As fuel prices have increased, the Treasury has raked in more money in fuel duty and VAT. The November Budget’s Red Book showed that, over the lifetime of this Parliament, North sea oil and gas revenues will contribute an extra £6 billion compared to what was predicted just in March 2021. The Treasury should unlock the extra money that it is getting from the North sea.
Alan Brown
Yes. It is the broad shoulders of the UK working in the opposite way from the way in which we are always told it is supposed to work.
By contrast, the Scottish Government are doing their best while operating on a fixed budget. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross can at least tell his constituents in Scotland that they can benefit as follows. The Scottish Government’s child winter heating assistance, introduced in 2020, supports the families of around 14,000 of the most seriously disabled children and young people with automatic payments of £200 a year. Low income winter heating assistance, which will replace the UK Government’s cold weather payment, will give 400,000 low-income households a guaranteed £50 payment, instead of that “maybe” £25 payment.
Jamie Stone
There is an economic point here. The money that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, whichever level of Government is giving it to individuals or businesses to see them through all of this, is money that, as well as giving assurance and comfort, ultimately will be spent in shops and other businesses, and will boost local economies. I might suggest that the Government can then recoup that through corporation tax and other means.
Alan Brown
I agree. People on lower incomes are the ones who spend all of their disposable income, and they spend it in local businesses and support local businesses. For families in Scotland, there is also the game-changing £20 a week Scottish child payment. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, that compares with the heartless £20 a week cut to universal credit by the UK Government. Again, that universal credit uplift was spent in local businesses. It was direct support.
It is absurd that Scotland has paid £375 billion of oil and gas revenues to the Exchequer and that it has been squandered over the years. There should have been an oil and gas fund, which would have provided an additional buffer that could have been used in this time of need. It is time that the UK Government take short-term action to deal with the cost of living crisis and energy crisis, but there needs to be a change in long-term planning, for a fair and equitable energy policy. Perhaps that is why Scotland needs independence, so that we can do things differently.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing the debate. I think the best way to sum up this afternoon’s debate is to call it a united front. I was going to say a cross-party united front, but the party that was going to be in that united front is now no longer in that party—the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) had the Whip removed for daring to say that there should be a VAT reduction on bills as a result of the energy crisis. I commiserate greatly with her. It is shameful that she has had the Whip withdrawn under these circumstances. I would have expected hundreds of her colleagues to vote with her on that occasion, because we all know that we have to do something urgently about the perfect storm in energy prices that is coming towards us. It is a perfect storm because it will be added to the ending of the universal credit uplift and other cost of living increases.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) eloquently put it, millions of people in this country are spinning plates every day to keep their bills, rent and other costs under control. To have a £600 increase in their bills coming their way very shortly—the decision may well be made within a couple of weeks—will inevitably cause those plates to come crashing down across millions of households. This is a crisis emergency that we absolutely have to tackle with equal emergency and resolution as the crisis unfolds.
Hon. Members have talked about both the causes of the crisis and the things that could be done about it. I acknowledge that one of the key bases of the crisis is the unprecedented increase in wholesale gas prices coming into the country, which has had a knock-on effect for electricity prices and bills. Of course, the crisis does not involve a spike in price; it is likely to be a price dome rather than a spike, and it will probably last a couple of years.
The Government are not responsible for that, but they are substantially responsible for making the crisis much worse, as a number of hon. Members have talked about. The Government have managed the retail markets with extraordinary negligence over recent years, allowing a large number of companies to come in and sell us gas and electricity, with no hedging and no serious support behind them. Some 28 of those companies have now gone bust, leaving the customer to pick up the bill, and not just for the transfers that they had to undertake.
About 4 million people have lost their supply and are having to transfer to other companies at the price cap, rather than at the prices they were previously charged, so there is an additional increase on their bills. The companies are potentially having to bear the costs, at about £100 per customer, for the carnage that has taken place with the energy companies that have gone bust and the cost of putting those companies into “supplier of last resort” arrangements.
The Government have also been negligent by allowing gas storage effectively to disappear in this country in 2016, putting us at risk, to a much greater extent, of volatility in the markets, as we have seen recently. There are a number of things that can be laid directly at the Government’s door for their stewardship of the energy economy over the last few years, in addition to what we know are the problems of world prices. That is a double reason why the Government have to act now to put right a number of the things that they have so negligently allowed to happen.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the idea of reducing VAT for an extended period while the crisis in gas prices runs through. That could easily be afforded because of the increase in VAT that the Government have received recently. A windfall tax on companies that have been supplying the gas is an important idea. After all, whether it is supplied to the UK from the UK sector, from the Norwegian sector or from liquefied natural gas, the price that it is sold for is the same in the end. International spot prices are the same, whatever the origin of the gas. That is why a number of companies supplying within the UK sector have made super-profits from this episode, and it is right that they should be subject to a windfall tax that can be clawed back for customers to reduce the level of prices that they are likely to pay.
Hon. Members mentioned increasing the level and extent of the warm home discount, which would be a particularly targeted way of ensuring that those who can least afford it—the real plate-spinners in our society—have an additional plate to spin in the shape of a much more generous warm home discount, and one that expands its range.
Wera Hobhouse
Will the hon. Member pick up on a point that I made? Customers who wanted to do the right thing and bought their energy from renewables only should not be subject to energy price rises when renewable prices are falling because energy supply companies can lump the prices together.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Lady has anticipated exactly what I will say in a moment. One of the wider issues about the energy crisis is how, regardless of where someone gets their energy from, what sources they get it from and who makes the energy, it is all delineated in gas prices eventually, so they pay what they would have done had they been a gas-to-electricity customer, even if they are not. Essentially, the whole market is now delineated—the wholesale market and the balancing market—around gas prices being the price-maker.
Hon. Members mentioned that the long-term issue is that we need to get off gas and go further on renewables, but—I put this straight at the Government’s door—we need urgently to reform the wholesale energy market and balancing market so that the market is not delineated in gas and it works in a way that properly reflects the increasingly dominant form of energy production that is renewables. Had we done that, although the gas price issue would have been considerable, it would not have been as damaging and as universal as it has been under the present circumstances.
I call on the Government to undertake measures that will take that terrible burden off the back of customers in the short term, ensuring that they are not subject, as they look to be at present, to the £600 or so increase that is likely to come their way in April, and indeed further increases that are likely to come their way as the price cap reflects the current price dome in gas.
I ask the Government to look seriously in the longer term at how the market has become so dependent on gas, how we have become so vulnerable to it, and how we can take measures to protect our industry and country from such volatility in the future by reorganising our market so that customers are substantially protected from it. This is an issue not just for domestic customers; it is a substantial issue for industry as well, which is groaning under the current price increases and, among other things, needs protection. I personally think that we need a price cap measure on volatile prices from outside the UK coming into the UK for industrial purposes, so that industry can have some certainty ahead of it regarding what prices it will pay for gas.
I hope that the Minister will have answers on all those issues. I know that the Government have been holding discussions with the industry about measures that might be taken, but the concern mentioned by hon. Members this afternoon is that nothing whatsoever has come out of that so far, and time is running out. The longer we do not know what we are going to do, the worse the crisis becomes. I hope the Minister can tell us what is to be done about this energy crisis.
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate. We have heard from across the United Kingdom, from all nations, of constituents’ concerns about this issue, and rightly so, because this is of huge concern to all our constituents.
The recent rise in energy prices has been driven by the global increase in the price of wholesale gas, and the demand for gas that has grown as we and other nations recover from the covid-19 pandemic. Consequently, higher wholesale gas prices have been observed internationally throughout 2021 and into this year. In addition, greater liquified natural gas demand in Asia, upstream gas production, maintenance affecting supply and capacity during last summer, increased demand for gas in electricity generation, as we phase out coal, particularly in Europe, have also contributed to rising prices.
The first point I want to make is that that has not had an impact on our energy security, a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) and others. The Government continue to work closely with Ofgem, the National Grid and other key industry organisations to monitor energy supply and demand. We remain confident that Great Britain’s energy security will be maintained. National Grid’s gas and electricity winter outlooks, published in October, indicate that there will be sufficient gas and electricity supply in all of its modelled supply and demand scenarios.
The first part is all about delivering renewables—
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On the point about domestic security, the Minister will be aware that 5.6 % of the UK’s energy need, according to the GridCarbon app, comes from overseas. Does the Minister not think that, in the next round of CfDs, it should be paramount that the projects that could have happened over the past number of years, particularly in the Scottish islands, actually get under way, so that there is less reliance on the continent and Scandinavia for some of that energy?
Greg Hands
That is exactly what we are doing. The new contract for difference auction that was launched in September is as big as the previous three auctions, when it comes to renewables. Our dependence on foreign gas is less than 20%. Our dependence on gas from Russia within that is less than 3% or 4%. That is action that we have already taken.
Our long-term strategy is about finding effective replacements for fossil fuels, which are reliable and do not expose us to the volatility of international commodity markets. We already have the world’s largest capacity in offshore wind, but we are not resting on our laurels, because we are going to quadruple that over the course of the next decade. That is all a major step towards delivering the Government’s increased ambition on renewables.
In answer to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on new technology, it is both renewables and nuclear, to which I will turn briefly, which is a key plank in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan in the energy White Paper and the legislation that is passing through the House of Commons. I will return in a moment to the comments from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).
In the brief time of six minutes available to me, I will answer some of the points raised. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross referred to his constituent, the businessman Andrew Mackay. I am happy to engage with the hon. Member on behalf of his constituent. Business bills tend to be set on long-term contracts, which give a certain insulation from volatile prices, at least until the point where the contract comes up for renewal.
On rural support, 15% of the energy company obligation—ECO3—must be delivered to households in rural areas. We consulted in the summer of last year on its successor scheme—ECO4—for delivering energy efficiency heating measures in off-grid homes in Scotland and Wales. We are already extending the warm home discount from about 2 million to 3 million households, from £140 to £150. It is worth pointing out, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun knows well, that the warm home discount is not a zero-cost option. There are people who have to pay additional money on their bills to support recipients of the warm home discount, so it is not something that we can just take action on with the stroke of a pen, like the Labour motion last week—the trebling—without considering the consequences.
The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) is absolutely right on cost-of-living issues, but let us look at a lot of what is happening in this country. We have record figures for those in employment. We have the national living wage increase. We have beneficial changes in the universal credit taper rate and so on. All these things are providing support for people facing cost-of-living issues. I totally appreciate and am totally with the hon. Lady on the impact that energy bills may be having and will be having later this year. On levies and on the heat and buildings strategy, we said that we would publish a fairness and affordability call for evidence, which will set out the options to help rebalance electricity and gas prices and to support green choices, with a view to taking decisions in this year—2022.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said that we are scrapping the ECO scheme. No—as I have already pointed out, we are moving from the ECO3 scheme to the ECO4 scheme. I guess, Sir Edward, technically you may describe that as scrapping it, but we see it as improving it and building on it. The hon. Lady called for a windfall tax. She praised German energy company E.ON for doing a great job, and it does do a great job, but she and other Members have to be careful when they call for a windfall tax while also praising those investing in the energy sector. She has to be mindful of what impact any windfall tax would have on those investment rates.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) made a very moving speech about the situation for low-income households and prepayment customers. There are 4 million prepayment customers. Ofgem obviously put in place licensing conditions to protect prepayment customers at risk—particularly of self-disconnection—including dedicated helplines for prepayment meter customers. There is a lot of support in place, but the issue of PPM customers is something that we keep a very, very close eye on in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and I know Ofgem does as well.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) wanted an indication of what the Government are doing to help. We are doing a lot. We have in place winter fuel payments of between £100 and £300. I have already discussed the warm home discount. There are the cold weather payments. There is the £421 million household support fund. There is a lot of support. I say that while recognising Northern Ireland’s particular status as regards electricity. Obviously, a lot of that is devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) called for a VAT reduction. That is obviously, as she rightly pointed out, a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury. It is not a very targeted way of supporting vulnerable customers. We heard from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). I do not think this is really the right place for a Brexit debate, but she said that leaving the EU allows us to cut VAT on domestic fuel. Her policy of rejoining the EU would surely negate that policy.
Greg Hands
No. I have only two minutes left. The hon. Lady asked a question about storage, and I repeat that the current issue is not a question of supply. Storage helps if there are supply issues, but we have an issue relating to price. Storage does not protect, generally, from price shocks if the supply is secure, and I have already said that our supply is secure.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) made an extraordinary speech, in which she said, I think, a windfall tax would be a powerful message to Moscow. I thought the intervention by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun slightly exposed that. If the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon can show me how to design a windfall tax that would clobber Gazprom, I am all ears. Bearing in mind that our imports of gas from Russia are almost entirely liquefied natural gas and only less than a handful of percentage points, if the hon. Lady can show me how her Robin Hood tax would have an impact on Gazprom, I am all ears. We are not dependent on—she said “rogue states”. More than half of our gas imports come from Norway. I do not think anything she is proposing is going to protect us from rogue states.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made a number of familiar points on supplier of last resort costs. SoLR is there to protect customers when their energy supplier ceases to trade, so that they can transfer their account.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Minister, do you want to give Jamie a few seconds?
Greg Hands
Okay, I will give him a few seconds, Sir Edward. On oil and gas and nuclear, I am constantly baffled by the SNP’s policy. It is anti-oil and gas. It is anti-nuclear. It is hard to know what it is actually in favour of in Scotland when it comes to supporting Scotland’s energy customers and energy suppliers. Finally, I note that we have not heard anything about Labour energy policy in the week since the party’s disastrous four-page, convoluted student union motion in the main Chamber last Tuesday. I thank everyone for participating in the debate, and I look forward to further engagement.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. We have to move to the next debate, I am afraid. There is a strict time limit.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Taxation: Silage Film
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered taxation of silage film.
I am grateful for the chance to raise these issues in debate. Before we begin, I am not seeking to question or doubt the merits of the plastic packaging tax, which I fully support, along with all efforts to make sure that as much plastic as possible that we use is recycled. My concern is shared by many colleagues, plastic manufacturers and farming industries: guidance was—I could say sneaked out—released by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs just before Christmas, and unexpectedly added silage film to the list of items caught by that tax. That was not a position that anyone expected. Industries had not prepared for that, and the costs will fall directly on farmers at a very difficult time for them.
My interest in this stems both from the fact that there is a collection of farmers in Amber Valley who use silage film and from the fact that I have a large employer who uses recycled plastic pellet to make, among other things, refuse sacks for the NHS and damp-proof membrane for construction products. The irony of the situation is that, in the years in which I have been an MP, the main problem that that business has had is securing enough plastic to wash at a different plant and recycle so that it can use it in its production process. The best source of plastic that it can get is silage film, which is being exported illegally as clean waste around the world, rather than being washed and recycled at home. Our enforcement bodies were not enforcing the law that was in place, so we are in a rather strange situation. The industry has been investing, and has been keen to recycle the film for years, and if we ended up by accident with a new tax that the Government introduced to try to encourage more plastic recycling it would stop the recycling of that film so we would end up in a worse position. I am sure that that is not what the Government intended.
I have four arguments for the Minister as to why the HMRC guidance should be corrected or withdrawn before 1 April. First, the primary purpose of silage film is not packaging—it is to ensure that harvested grass can be fermented into silage. Secondly, the purpose of the plastic packaging tax is to encourage the use of recycled material and increase the recycling of plastic material. Extending the charge to silage film will not generate more use of recycled material in the film, and will lead to less recycling of the film that is used. Thirdly, I am not sure that silage film falls within the definition of the measures that were introduced in the Finance Act 2021, so the guidance is incorrect and inconsistent with the law. Fourthly, I contend that this is seriously damaging for our farming industry at a difficult time, and would reduce its competitiveness against international rivals. All of those cases are strong reasons why the guidance, which appears to be out of sync with what had been planned, should be withdrawn.
The first case I should like to make is about the primary purpose of the silage film. I would not claim to be an expert on silage or its creation, but the information that I have had from the National Farmers Union, for which I am grateful, and from other farming bodies, is that the film is very specialised. It is very thin. Generally, contractors go on to farms and, in simple terms, mow the grass and wrap it in film so that is airtight and watertight, so that fermentation can take place and produce silage to feed animals through the winter. If that film is not airtight and watertight, the grass will rot and cannot be fed to animals. That is quite a technical process and the film is an expensive and highly specialised product. It cannot be any old plastic: it has to be a very thin film that is air and watertight, and that can survive being used to wrap on a farm in those conditions, rather than in a nice, safe factory setting.
The main aim of using that film is not simple wrapping or packaging to store the grass; there is a much greater purpose of converting the grass into something that can be used to feed animals through the winter. If that plastic does not fulfil that purpose, there will be no food for animals and we will have to import soya or other foods from around the world to get them through the winter.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I should declare that while I am not one, my family are farmers and have a plastic recycling business. I want to pick up on the point that my hon. Friend is eloquently making about the nub of the issue: silage wrap should not be classed as packaging but is integral to the grass fermentation process to make silage. Does he agree that our colleagues at the Treasury need to realise this very fine point so that legislation and taxation can be addressed accordingly?
Nigel Mills
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, with which I entirely agree. It is not a point that the Government have ever challenged in the past. Only last year, the Environment Agency published a paper on the positions and technical interpretations in respect of responsibility for packaging. On page 31, the document accepts that the primary function of silage wrap is producing the product. I accept that it is a different Government Department, but it has accepted that the primary function of silage wrap is to produce silage, not to package, store or protect it. The Minister may argue that that is a different Department and that it is not Treasury policy, but we are trying, on a cross-Government basis, to reduce the amount of plastic that is used and encourage the use of recycled plastic and of recycling. We have measures coming in to make the producer pay for the collection and recycling of their packaging material through the whole system. It seems bizarre that the Treasury, HMRC and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have different definitions of what counts as packaging in that situation. People come under one set of rules but not the other, even though they are charging for similar sorts of things. I hope that we can achieve consistency across Government.
If the Minister is not convinced by that compelling argument for consistency across Government, I refer her to a 2018 HM Treasury consultation on tackling the plastic problem that concluded that silage film came into the category of non-packaging plastics. Even the Treasury has, in the past, accepted that silage film is not a packaging plastic. I therefore hope that there is no doubt that the primary purpose here is not simple packaging. Looking through the list of items that fall inside and outside this tax, one of the general themes is the primary purpose of the plastic. It is hard to see from that list why silage film has been treated inconsistently with other plastics that are excluded.
My second contention is that what has been done here is contrary to the policy intent. The guidance notes set out that the plastic packaging tax was designed to encourage to the use of recycled plastic instead of new plastic material in plastic packaging. In turn, the tax would create demand for recycled plastic and stimulate increased recycling and collection of plastic waste, diverting it from landfill or incineration. That is the Government’s own stated intent. Because of the very specialised nature of the film––which has to be incredibly thin, light-proof and waterproof, and capable of achieving those things when being used for wrapping in a farm setting––the industry and farming lobbying bodies are absolutely clear that there is no way any level of recycled plastic can be used in that film with current technology and achieve the effect needed for the fermentation of grass. No matter what this tax is from 1 April, there will not be any quantity of recycled plastic incorporated in the film, as that is not technologically possible at the moment. Therefore, including silage film in this tax will not generate increased use of recycled plastic; it will simply be a tax on farmers that they can barely afford to pay, given their current situation.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and for his well-researched and detailed speech. I should also declare an interest; although I am no longer a farmer, before I came to this place I was involved in farming, and silage is an integral part of farming across the United Kingdom.
I am here today to express the views of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which has made many of the points that my hon. Friend has made today. On recycling, does he accept that agriculture accounts for only 3% of plastic use across the United Kingdom, that silage film is just a small proportion of that, and therefore that we are seemingly taking a sledgehammer to crack a very small nut here?
Nigel Mills
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with him.
I was trying to establish that levying this tax would not actually increase recycling, because silage film cannot include any recycled components. In fact, the tax may make the recycling situation worse, because there have long been efforts to get a collection scheme in place for this waste. It is obviously expensive to go and collect the film from every single farm; it becomes hugely dirty, and collecting it is not cheap.
In recent years, a voluntary scheme has been put in place to collect this plastic so that it can be recycled. That has a cost to farmers of about £60 a tonne. The impact of charging farmers £200 a tonne to get the plastic in the first place will be that they will not be able to afford the £60 a tonne for collection, so we will end up with lower levels of recycling; the farmers just will not pay for collection, so there will not be a collection and the plastic will not be recycled. Consequently, as a result of the tax, we will end up with less recycling of plastic than we have now.
I am sure that the Government’s sincere aim is to have more recycling of plastic. However, by far the best approach would be not to include this film in the taxation regime but instead to try to support the voluntary scheme, to get as much of this stuff collected as we can. It is actually very recyclable, making it very valuable; it can be recycled and reused in other products, including those made in my constituency.
My third argument was that silage film would not fall within the definitions set out in section 48 of the Finance Act 2021, which defines a “packaging component” as
“a product that is designed to be suitable for use…in the containment, protection, handling, delivery or presentation of goods at any stage in the supply chain of the goods from the producer of the goods to the user or consumer.”
What happens with silage film is that the grass and so on is mown and harvested in the field, and it is then wrapped in the field, stored on the farm and subsequently fed to the farmer’s animals in the winter season.
I am not sure whether it is possible to call grass that has been stored and fermented “goods”. It is not sold to anybody, it does not leave the farm, and there is no “supply chain” for it at all. It is not packaged to be moved, presented or anything else; it is basically just there to be fermented. Once it has fermented, the plastic is taken off and the silage, as it is now, is fed to the animals on that farm. I am not sure how it can be said that there is a “supply chain” for silage when the grass never leaves the farm. It therefore looks to me, on first principles, that the published guidance of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is not consistent with the law that Parliament passed last year.
The irony, of course, is that the Government have had to introduce a statutory instrument—I think that it is S.I. 2021, No. 1417—to modify the law that we have introduced but that has not yet come into force, in order to try to be clear about what we intended to catch in this situation. I do not have any criticism of that. This is a whole new tax; we want to get it right, and it is more important for us to get it right than to be precious about not correcting our own law. I therefore fully support those changes.
However, the guidance note for the changes sets out, in paragraph 7.4:
“This is to ensure that the tax applies to products which are primarily packaging rather than products whose function as packaging is incidental to their main purpose”.
So the Government are introducing changes to section 48 of the Finance Act 2021 to exclude products whose primary purpose is not packaging; indeed, the packaging is
“incidental to their main purpose”.
Therefore, it seems entirely clear to me that what the Government have been trying to do in clarifying the law in that statutory instrument is exactly what I am arguing for silage film; I argue that it meets the definition in the guidance note of the sort of product that should not be caught by this tax.
It would be far better for all concerned if we clarified that now and had HMRC guidance that was, in my view, consistent with the law, rather than having to resort to litigation and tribunals to establish whether this tax should be collected. If that happened, we may end up with some manufacturers thinking that the tax was not due and not charging it, and some manufacturers taking the other view, and it may have to be resolved by the courts in a few years’ time. I would hope that we could get that clarified now, just over two months before the tax comes into force, so that we have certainty.
My final contention is about the impact of the tax on farmers at a difficult time for them. According to estimates, I think from the National Farmers Union or its Northern Irish counterpart, the £200 per tonne would increase the cost of silage film by roughly 10%—a cost that farmers’ rivals around the world, from where we import much meat, do not have to bear. That would be a blow to our farmers’ competitiveness against their international rivals. It would increase their cost base when they are already struggling, as many businesses are in the current economic climate. As I said, that is just a straight-through cost. There is no way of changing the formulation of silage film to avoid the cost by making it 30% recycled components. That cannot be done. It is just a straight cost for farmers, which is not what this tax was intended to achieve.
I therefore hope, on the basis of all of those arguments, that the Minister can give us some encouraging noises. It was never raised that silage film would be in the scope of the tax in any of the consultations, previous lists of products or discussions with the industry. I hope that the Minister can accept that adding it at a late stage was incorrect and was not appropriate. Its inclusion is inconsistent with the law, will not achieve the purpose of the tax and will be an unnecessary burden on farmers. I look forward to hearing her remarks.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing the debate and on his comments. I have listened carefully to what he has said. I share his expressed aim of ensuring that we get this tax right, and I very much appreciate the tone that he took.
As context to this debate and to the plastic packaging tax overall, I think that we can all agree that plastic waste is a significant and serious environmental threat, because plastics do not decompose. They can last centuries in landfill sites. With our commitment to reach net zero while driving jobs and growth, and our pledge, through the Environment Act 2021, to leave a better world for future generations and build back greener, the Government are determined to use our battle against pollution and climate change to make a positive difference to people’s lives and the wider economy. That is why we have been focused for some years on developing the right incentives, so that businesses can play their part in supporting us in the green economic transition.
That includes our introduction, back in 2015, of a 5p levy on single-use plastic bags, which led to a more than 95% drop in plastic carrier bag sales in England’s main supermarkets. Last year, we went even further, doubling the levy to 10p. As part of DEFRA’s 2018 resources and waste strategy and our 2019 manifesto, we said that we would introduce the tax on plastic packaging that we are discussing today. We estimate that the tax will lead to around 40% more recycled plastic being used in packaging in 2022-23, compared with current levels. Given that the use of new plastic in manufacturing generates more carbon than recycled plastic, we estimate the tax will save nearly 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide in the same year.
Turning specifically to how the tax relates to silage film, let me address the points that my hon. Friend made so logically. First, the design and structure of the plastic packaging tax reflects extensive stakeholder consultation, including two design consultations in 2019 and 2020 and three technical consultations on the legislation. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has also established an industry working group made up of trade bodies and organisations, which was consulted on the finer detail of the policy, legislation and guidance. As part of that consultation work, Treasury and HMRC officials met Berry BPI, a plastic packaging manufacturer based in my hon. Friend’s constituency. There has been substantial consultation and engagement, so I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend say that the guidance comes as a surprise.
My hon. Friend talked about DEFRA’s producer responsibility obligations, which it is in the process of reforming. I am clear that, as he indicated, those obligations and the tax are different schemes with different sets of rules and objectives, and they use intentionally different definitions of packaging. The definition for the plastic packaging tax covers products designed to contain, protect, handle, deliver or present goods at any stage in the supply chain. Unlike DEFRA’s responsibility obligations, the tax includes goods that meet that definition even if they are used by an end user. That is in order to better achieve the objective of the tax, which is to reduce the environmental harm caused by plastic.
During silage season, large amounts of silage film are used by farmers throughout the country. I am sure hon. Members are aware of the quantity of plastic used; I see it in my own area of the countryside. As we attempt to reduce the use of non-recycled plastic and the amount of plastic overall that ends up in landfill, it is right and it makes sense for the Government to include the use of plastic for silage in the tax. Like cling film and plastic wraps, silage film meets the definition I outlined because it is suitable for use in the supply chain for the containment of silage, but it can also be used by farmers—the main end users—to make their own silage.
Robbie Moore
I want to pick up on what I feel is the nub of the issue. Silage wrap is used as part of the process of fermentation to produce silage; it is not classified as packaging in isolation. Could the Minister explore that point specifically?
Helen Whately
I fully appreciate my hon. Friend’s point, which I will come to in a second. There are two sides to this issue. On the one hand, silage film can be part of the supply chain; on the other, it can be used by farmers, as end users, to make their own silage by wrapping grass and other crops with the film. If the Government exempted silage wrap and similar items, such as pallet wrap and cling film, we would be shying away from dealing with the overall challenge posed by the use of plastic packaging. That would undermine the aim of this tax, which is to reduce the environmental harm caused by plastic. I do not for a moment dispute that the film is part of the process of turning grass into silage. However, that does not exempt it from falling within the definition for the tax.
That definition is targeted so that it does not include plastic packaging products that are essential for goods to be used, in contrast to products that are essential for goods to be manufactured. Therefore, products such as tea bags, coffee pods, inhalers and lighters are not taxable because the product contained by the packaging simply could not be used by the end user without the packaging. However, that is not the case for silage film.
Douglas Ross
The Minister has accepted that farmers cannot get silage without silage film. Grass cannot ferment without it. Should it therefore not fall under the heading of plastic packaging that is an integral part of the good? Simply put, it is needed to produce silage. The Minister briefly said that there had been wide consultation. Did any farming unions across the United Kingdom contribute to the consultation? If not, does that not suggest that they did not think they were affected by the change?
Helen Whately
I am happy to get back to my hon. Friend on the conversations that have taken place with different sectors, including the agriculture sector, that were part of work done over the last couple of years on the introduction of the tax.
The definition is set such that it does not include plastic packaging products that are essential for goods to be used, such as coffee pods or asthma inhalers. However, where single-use plastic is required for something to be made, as is the case with silage, it does fall within the definition.
Nigel Mills
We are getting to a perverse situation where things such as coffee pods or perforated bags for boiling rice, which there is no need to use as rice can be cooked without the plastic and coffee can be made without single-use plastic pods, are exempt from the tax, yet silage film, which is an integral part of the process and which there is no way around using, falls within the tax. That is not achieving the objectives. It will seem bizarre to people that we exempt plastic coffee pods but not silage film. Plastic coffee pods cannot be drunk.
Helen Whately
I gave examples of some specific products where the plastic is inherently part of the product—ink cartridges would be another. I recognise that there are some kinds of plastic that are harder to make using recycled plastics. One objective of the tax is to improve the rationale and incentives for the development of plastic packaging that uses more recycled plastic, and to make sure that more plastic is recycled and re-enters the supply chain. Although that will not necessarily happen immediately, it is part of shifting the incentives to encourage businesses to innovate and develop those products. We are already seeing that; as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley knows, Berry BPI is already making great strides in producing high-quality recycled plastic that can be used for a variety of purposes, including agricultural purposes. I know that other businesses are working on this and, with the incentives, more will follow suit.
In conclusion, I reiterate that we have worked closely with manufacturers, importers, the devolved Administrations and others affected by this tax at every stage of its introduction. HMRC has been working closely with the industry, and that has informed the development of the categories of products that are in and out of scope of the tax. I assure hon. Members that HMRC and the Treasury are continuing those conversations and listening to industry. I am confident that by incentivising innovation and encouraging new ideas across our economy, including in agriculture, we will ultimately achieve huge benefits for the environment, nature and the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Covid-19: Forecasting and Modelling
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered forecasting and modelling during covid-19.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I speak not to bury science, but to praise it. During the covid pandemic, there has been some remarkable, wonderful science; I just question to what extent that includes the modelling and forecasts that have come from it. Thanks to some questionable modelling that was poorly presented and often misrepresented, never before has so much harm been done to so many by so few based on so little questionable and potentially flawed data.
I believe that the use of modelling is pretty much getting to be a national scandal. That is not just the fault of the modellers; it is how their work was interpreted by public health officials and the media—and yes, by politicians, including the Government, sadly. Modelling and forecasts were the ammunition that drove lockdown and created a climate of manipulated fear. I believe that that creation of fear was pretty despicable and unforgivable. I do not doubt that modelling is important or that there has been some good modelling, but too often it has been drowned out by hysterical forecasts. I am not, as Professor Ferguson implied, one of those with an “axe to grind”. I do, however, care about truth and believe that if someone influences policy, as the modellers and Imperial College London have done, they should be questioned. Frankly, they have not been questioned enough.
Above all, I want to understand why Government, parts of the media and the public health establishment became addicted to these doomsday scenarios, and then normalised them in our country with such depressing and upsetting consequences for many. I do not pretend to be an expert; I am not. I defended my own PhD at the end of last year, but it is not in epidemiology and I do not pretend to be particularly knowledgeable about that. But depending on time—I know others want to come in as well—I will quote from 13 academic papers and 22 articles authored by a total of approximately 100 academics.
This is a story of three scandals, and the first one took place 21 years ago. In 2001, we faced the foot and mouth emergency. We reacted drastically by slaughtering and burning millions of animals, and farmer suicides and bankruptcies followed. That policy was allegedly heavily influenced by Imperial College modelling and Professor Ferguson. Since foot and mouth, two peer-reviewed studies examined the method behind that particular madness. I quote from them now to show there are practical and ethical questions over modelling going back two decades.
In a 2006 paper, and I apologise for these wordy, long titles, titled “Use and abuse of mathematical models: an illustration from the 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic in the United Kingdom”—they are not that catchy—the authors confirmed that Ferguson’s model
“probably had the most influence on early policy decisions”
and
“specifically, the introduction of the pre-emptive contiguous culling policy”.
That is the mass slaughter of animals near infected farms. The authors said that the consequences were “severe” and
“the models were not fit for the purpose of predicting the course of the epidemic”
—not a good start. They remain “unvalidated”. Their use was “imprudent” and amounted to
“the abuse of predictive models”.
Devastatingly, the authors wrote
“The UK experience provides a salutary warning of how models can be abused in the interests of scientific opportunism.”
It is difficult to find a more damning criticism of one group of scientists by another.
A 2011 paper, “Destructive tension: mathematics versus experience—the progress and control of the 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic in Great Britain”—bit of a mouthful—by four academics said the models that supported the culling policy were “severely flawed” and based on flawed data with “highly improbable biological assumptions”. The models were
“at best, crude estimations that could not differentiate risk”.
That is not a very good “at best”. At worst, they were “inaccurate representations”.
Sadly, the paper said, impatience for results
“provided the opportunity for self-styled ‘experts’, including some veterinarians, biologists and mathematicians, to publicise unproven novel options.”
Some of the scientific work—some of it modelling, some of it not, with some modelling by Ferguson and some not—was cited as “unvalidated” and “severely flawed”, with inaccurate data on “highly improbable assumptions” leading to “scientific opportunism”. Is anybody reminded of anything more recent that would suggest the same?
I scroll forward 20 years. As with foot and mouth, with covid we had a nervous Government presented with doomsday scenarios by Imperial—the 500,000 dead prediction—that panicked them into a course of profound action with shocking outcomes. After the lockdown had gone ahead, Imperial publicised on 8 June a study by, I think, seven of them arguing the justification for lockdown. It claimed that non-pharmaceutical interventions saved more than 3 million lives in Europe. Effectively, Imperial marked its own homework and gave itself a big slap on the back.
That work is now being challenged. Because of time, I will quote only a small selection. In a paper entitled, “The effect of interventions on COVID-19”, 13 Swedish academics—Ferguson ain’t popular in Sweden, I can tell Members that much—said that the conclusions of the Imperial study were not justified and went beyond the data. Regensburg and Leibniz university academics directly refuted Imperial College in a paper entitled “The illusory effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe”, which said that the authors of the Imperial study
“allege that non-pharmaceutical interventions imposed by 11 European countries saved millions of lives. We show that their methods involve circular reasoning. The purported effects are pure artefacts, which contradict the data. Moreover, we demonstrate that the United Kingdom’s lockdown was both superfluous and ineffective.”
I am not saying that this stuff is right; I am just saying that there is a growing body of work that is, frankly, taking apart Imperial’s. Remember, we spent £370 billion on lockdown that we will never get back. I could continue with other quotes, but I think Members get the flavour.
Moreover, a substantial number of other papers now question not Imperial per se but the worth generally of lockdowns. A pre-print article by four authors, “Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19: A Tale of Three Models”, said:
“Claimed benefits of lockdown appear grossly exaggerated.”
In another paper, three authors found no clear, significant benefit of lockdowns on case growth in any country. Other papers continue that theme. I will quote one more, on adults living with kids. Remember: we shut schools because we were scared that kids would come home and infect older people, who would then die. This paper, in The BMJ, found
“no evidence of an increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes.”
We shut down society and schools just in case, doing extraordinary harm to people’s lives, especially young people. I am not a lockdown sceptic, as Ferguson casually describes some of his critics, but I am becoming so. Do you know why, Sir Edward? Because I read the evidence, and there is a growing body of it. In fact, there is one quote that I did not read out. There was a study of lots of countries that had lockdowns and lots that did not, and the data was inconclusive.
The third element of the scandal is the recent modelling. Swedish epidemiologists looked at Imperial’s work and compared it with their own experience. Chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said of Imperial’s work that
“the variables…were quite extreme…We were always quite doubtful”.
Former chief epidemiologist Johan Giesecke said Ferguson’s model was “almost hysterical”. In the House of Lords, Viscount Ridley talked of a huge discrepancy and flaws in the model and the modelling. John Ioannidis from Stanford University said that the “assumptions and estimates” seemed “substantially inflated”.
There was a second example last summer. In July 2021, the good Professor Ferguson predicted that hitting 100,000 cases was “almost inevitable”. He told the BBC that the real question was whether we got to double that or even higher. That is where the crystal ball starts to fail: we got nowhere near 200,000, and we got nowhere near 100,000. There was nothing inevitable about Professor Ferguson’s inevitability, and his crystal ball must have gone missing from the start. In The Times, he blamed the Euros for messing up his modelling because—shock horror—people went to pubs a lot to watch the games during the competition. When the tournament finished—shock horror—they did not. That seems to be the fundamental problem: where reality comes up against models, reality steamrollers them because models cannot cope with the complexity of real life. To pretend that they can and even that they are useful, when so many of them have proved not to be, is concerning.
Ferguson is only one of many people in Independent SAGE especially, but also SAGE, who did not cover themselves in glory. Raghib Ali—a friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who I am delighted is present—is one of the heroes of covid. He noted that many left-wing SAGE members
“repeatedly made inaccurate forecasts overestimating infections”.
Very often, they were falsely described on the BBC.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning my friend and constituent Raghib Ali, who has indeed been one of the absolute heroes of this pandemic—not only in his advice to us all, including online, but through his service in hospitals. I hope my hon. Friend will not mind my saying that I do not think any of us can speak for Raghib about his opinion of modelling, and I know my hon. Friend is not trying to.
Bob Seely
I quite agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for that, but I am deeply grateful to Raghib and other people for speaking out. Just for the record, the communist Susan Michie, who is quoted quite often by the BBC, is not a medical doctor, a virologist or an epidemiologist. She is a health psychologist, so why on earth is she talking about epidemiology?
The third scandal took place this winter. Imperial, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and others—I think they included Warwick—predicted 5,000 daily covid deaths, with 3,000 daily deaths as the best-case scenario. They were hopelessly inaccurate, and at this point the tide really begins to turn. Dr Clive Dix, a former vaccine taskforce head, said:
“It’s bad science, and I think they’re being irresponsible. They have a duty to reflect the true risks, but this just headline grabbing.”
As I say, the tide is turning. Oncology professor Angus Dalgleish describes Ferguson’s modelling as “lurid predictions” and “spectacularly wrong”. The great Carl Heneghan, another scientist who has emerged with great credit for his honesty and fairness of comment, says:
“it’s becoming clearer all that ministers see is the worst-case scenario”.
Professor Brendan Wren says:
“Dodgy data and flawed forecasts have become the hallmarks of much of the scientific establishment 2”—
what a damning quote!—
“which has traded almost exclusively in worst-case scenarios...this must stop now.”
I agree.
I will wind up in the next two to three minutes—I will speak for no longer than 15 minutes because other people wish to get in, and I am always mindful of that. What is the result of all this? The result, as UCL’s Professor Francois Balloux notes, is a
“loss of trust in government and public institutions for crying wolf.”
That is just it. We have had hysterical forecasts, models taken out of context, and worst-case scenarios normalised.
In the Army, there is something called the most dangerous course of action, and there is something called the most likely course of action. To sum up in one sentence how we got this wrong, we have effectively taken the most dangerous course of action and collectively—the politicians, media, scientists and health professionals—presented that as the most likely course of action, but it was not. Why did politicians say, “Follow the science” as a way of shutting down debate, when we know that science is complex and that our outputs are dependent on our inputs? It was down to public-health types, whose defensive decision making would only ever cost other people’s jobs, other people’s health, other people’s sanity, other people’s education and other people’s life chances.
We know that the Opposition supported lockdown from the word go, but a little more opposing might have been helpful. The BBC and the Guardian have been salivating at state control and doomsday scenarios. Against this tsunami of hysteria and fear, thank God for The Spectator, The Telegraph and, yes, the Daily Mail for keeping alive freedom of speech and putting forward an alternative, which is now being increasingly scientifically vindicated. I accept that lockdown was understandable at first—I get that—but I believe the continuation of lockdown after that first summer was an increasingly flawed decision.
In wrapping up, I have some questions. To Professor Ferguson and the doomsday modellers: why are so many of your fellow academics disputing your work and your findings? To the BBC, as our state broadcaster: why did you so rarely challenge Ferguson, SAGE or Independent SAGE? Why did we misrepresent experts, and why did the BBC allow itself to become the propaganda arm of the lockdown state? To the Government: how could we have been so blinkered that we thought that following the science meant shutting down scientific debate? Why did we never use other datasets in contexts with the British people, or even in contexts in which these profound and enormous decisions were made? Why did we think that it was in our nation’s interests to create a grotesque sense of fear to manipulate behaviour? SAGE and Independent SAGE kept on getting it wrong. To the public health types, I quote from Professor Angus Dalgleish again:
“Flailing around, wallowing in hysteria, adopting impractical policies and subverting democracy, the Chief Medical Officer is out of his depth. He has to go if we are ever to escape this nightmare.”
He is not a journalist; he is an oncologist—a senior oncologist.
Twice in 20 years, we have made some pretty profound and significant errors of judgment, using modelling as a sort of glorified guesswork. I suggest respectfully to the Government that, after foot and mouth and covid, never again should they rely on dubious modelling, regardless of the source and regardless of the best intent. I am sure that Imperial and all these other people do the best that they can, and am very happy to state that publicly. However, why has so much of their work been described—and I will use the words of other academics—as “unvalidated”, “flawed”, “not fit for purpose”, “improbable”, “almost hysterical”, “overconfident”, “lurid”, “inflated”, “pessimistic”, “spectacularly wrong”, “fraudulent” and as “scientific opportunism”?
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. To get everybody in, I will now have to ask for a five-minute limit for speeches.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Thank you very much, Sir Edward. I begin by referring to the declarations that I have made in connection to the Covid Recovery Group.
I am a professional aerospace and software engineer—at least I was in my former life. I have an MSc in computer science, and am very interested in models. However, there is an old joke among engineers, which derives from a “Dilbert” cartoon, that the career goal of every engineer is not to be blamed for a major catastrophe. I wonder whether that spirit infuses not only expert advice but modelling in particular. We are all indebted to The Spectator for its data hub, which shows how data has worked out against models. As anyone can see by going to data.spectator.co.uk, it is the same story again and again: enormous great molehills of death projections, and underneath them the reality of much lower lines. I will leave it to people to look for themselves at the data, rather than trying to characterise the curves for Hansard.
There is a great deal to be done in terms of institutional reform of the way in which modelling is done and informs public policy. That is a very old problem; I found a great article in Foreign Affairs that goes back a long time, to the post-war era, about this problem. It is time we did something about it, through institutional reform. The situation is now perfectly plain: under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, even our most basic liberties can be taken away with a stroke of a pen if a Minister has been shown sufficiently persuasive modelling—not even data—that tells them that there is trouble ahead.
I have put this on the record before, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will not mind. Before we went into the 2020 lockdown, he called me; I was amazed to be at home and to have the Prime Minister of the UK call me. “Steve, I have been shown death projections—4,500 people a day and the hospitals overwhelmed.” I gave him two pieces of advice: “First, if you really believe that we are going to have 4,500 people a day die, you’d better do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening,” which is not advice that anyone would have expected me to give, but that is what I said, and, “Secondly, for goodness’ sake, go and challenge the advice—the data.”
That is why Carl Heneghan, Raghib Ali, Tim Spector and I, whether in person or virtually, were seen in Downing Street, and were there to challenge the data. By Monday, Carl Heneghan had taken the wheels off those death projections, by which the Prime Minister had, disgracefully, been bounced, using a leak, into the lockdown. That is absolutely no way to conduct public policy. However, the reason someone—we will not speculate who—bounced the Prime Minister is that they had been shown those terrifying death projections, which could not possibly be tolerated. Those projections were wrong.
It is monstrous that millions of people have been locked down—effectively under house arrest—have had their businesses destroyed and have had their children prevented from getting an education. Any of us who visit nursery schools meet children, two-year-olds, who have barely socialised. We cannot even begin to understand the effects on the rest of their lives. It is not the modellers’ fault, and I do not wish to condemn modellers. They are technical people, doing a job they are asked to do. We have to ask them to do a different and better job—one which does not leave them, like the old joke about engineers, afraid of being responsible for a major catastrophe.
As my friend Professor Roger Koppl said in his book “Expert Failure”, experts have all the incentives to be pessimistic because if they are pessimistic and events turn out better, they are not blamed. I am sorry: I am not blaming them personally, but I am blaming the whole system for allowing this to arise. The extraordinarily pessimistic models plus the bouncing of a Prime Minister did so much harm.
We need to conduct institutional reform. In relation to models, Mike Hearn, a very senior software engineer, has published a paper available on my website. It is a summary of methodological issues in epidemiology. There are about seven points—an extraordinary set of arguments: things such as poor characterisation, statistical uncertainty and so on, which I have no time to get into. The fundamental point is that we must now have an office of research integrity. The job of that office would be to demand—to insist—that the assumptions going into models and the nature of the models themselves were of a far higher quality.
Finally, to go back to an area of my own expertise, I encourage any software engineer to look at the model code that was released.
Mr Baker
I think it should be in the Cabinet Office, because we see that scientific advice applies right across Government.
The code quality of the model that was released was really not fit for a hobbyist. The irony is that the universities that do modelling will overwhelmingly have computer science departments. For goodness’ sake, I say to modellers, go and talk to software engineers and produce good quality code. For goodness’ sake, stop using C++. People are using, as they so often do, the fastest computer programming language, but also the most sophisticated and dangerous. As a professional software engineer, the first thing I would say is, “Don’t use C++ if you don’t have to. Models don’t need to; they can run a bit slower. Use something where you can’t make the desperately poor quality coding errors that were in that released model code”. That is really inexcusable and fulfils all the prejudices of software engineers against scientists hacking out poor quality code not fit for hobbyists. As I think people can tell, I feel quite strongly about that, precisely because these poor modellers have had unacceptable burdens placed on them. All the incentives for them to be pessimistic can now be seen in the data. This all has to be changed with an office of research integrity.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Ind)
I will try to be brief, Sir Edward. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) has raised a first-class, crucial issue. Clearly we cannot predict the future, but we can prepare for it. Traditional crisis management and risk management list the possible things that might happen and look at the severity and the likelihood, and based on that we produce a number of models. That is the old way of doing it.
The modern way of doing it, instead of creating models, is to create a playbook—a mechanism by which we can look at all the challenges that might face a country and at least put in place a mechanism for dealing with the crisis, whatever it is. Bizarrely, the US have taken that approach but, perhaps rather sadly and tragically, never used the playbook model that might have saved them.
We very much went down the model route and took out of our kit bag the one we had for flu. It was too rigid, did not fit and was too slow. The assumptions were not challenged; the real world evidence was not incorporated; and, worse, we limited how we looked at modelling absolutely to covid. We looked at the mortality of covid and the impact; we looked at the morbidity of covid and the impact, but we should have looked instead and as well at the impact of the crisis as a whole and the proposed solutions, including the lockdown and other restrictive measures, across the country, across society and across the economy.
We were told at the time—the Government were challenged on this—that it was too hard: we could not possibly do any modelling with regard to the mortality of lockdown and restrictions, the morbidity of lockdown and restrictions, or the economic impact. That was sadly relegated to second order, but we should never forget that there is a huge interaction between wealth and health.
The interconnectedness of the impacts of the steps that were taken was totally ignored. They were unexplored and unexplained for a good 12 months. So only today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has articulated so clearly and eloquently, are we looking retrospectively at what happened. At last we are looking at the impact, not just on covid patients and those vulnerable to covid, but on those patients not subject to high risk for covid. We are looking at the impact on children’s life chances—not just on their education—as it is far more serious than just their education. We are beginning to look at the impact on society and communities and—at last—the economy. As my hon. Friend said, never again must we be faced with the question, “Did we unknowingly and unintentionally do more harm than good?”
Forecasting and modelling have a valuable place, but we must never forget that they are tools. Advisers advise; Ministers must ask for the right advice, the right variety of advice, and then decide. Never again should we hear, “We will just follow the science.”
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this very important debate and making an excellent speech. I have no wish to repeat the brilliant research that he recited, but he did highlight the repeated failures of modelling throughout the pandemic, not just the modelling but how it is being used. The models have not been out by just a few per cent, as he said, but often by orders of magnitude. The way that the models have been used has had life-changing impacts on people across the country.
Before I was a politician, I was a science teacher. One of the joys of teaching science to teenagers is conducting practical experiments in the lab. Once the teacher has ensured that they are not going to burn down the lab, it is important to teach them how to conduct an experiment properly and write it up. The first thing is to create a hypothesis. They must write a statement of what they think will happen and why, using the scientific knowledge they have and some assumptions, then carry out the experiment, write up the research and, crucially, evaluate. They must look at the hypothesis and at what they have observed, and decide whether they match. If they do match, they go back to their assumptions and see why they were correct. If they do not match, if what has happened in the lab and been recorded does not match the hypothesis, they need to ask why—“What assumptions did I make that did not bear out in real life, that did not happen in the lab?”
It seems to me that those are the questions that have not been asked throughout this crisis. Perhaps we can understand why assumptions had to be made quickly the first time, for the first lockdown—assumptions that turned out not to be true. My hon. Friend said that perhaps we are repeating history of 20 years ago, and that there is not that excuse. However, during subsequent waves and restrictions, why were those assumptions not questioned? There were assumptions about how likely the different scenarios were, about people’s behaviour and fatality rates.
Even in December, when plan B was voted through, some of the assumptions could have been declared wrong in real time—the assumption that omicron was as severe as delta, and that the disease would escape the vaccine. Some of the figures were almost plucked out of the air and given no likelihood. Those assumptions should have been challenged earlier and we need to ask why.
I picked up on one assumption following an interview with Dr Pieter Streicher, a South African doctor. He suggested that SAGE models have always assumed that infection rates do not reach a peak until about 70% of the population have had the disease, whereas the real-world data suggest that the infection rates start to slow at around 30% of the population. That makes more sense from a social science point of view, because we know that people are not equally sociable.
Studies by sociologists such as Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote the best-selling “The Tipping Point”, describe the law of the few, where very few people are extremely sociable and pass on a virus, idea or whatever, to many people. Many more people do not socialise as much and are not as good at transmitting. Perhaps we should have looked a lot more at social science, at behaviour and people’s interactions, rather than pure virology and what might happen in a lab. Of course, we do not exist in labs and cannot model the interactions of human beings that easily.
The tragedy is that this was not a paper exercise. This is not an experiment that happened in a lab where one can go back and repeat until valid results are achieved. These models, and particularly the weight they have been given, have caused serious destruction of lives and livelihoods. Who was modelling the outcomes for education, child abuse and poverty? Who was modelling the impact on loneliness, despair and fear? We have to ask why those assumptions were not interrogated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has made some excellent points about the need for institutional reform. I completely agree with him, but we also need to look at the impact on free speech. At the beginning of this crisis, the mainstream media took on the idea that lockdown was the only strategy.
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend spoke earlier about the repeatability of scientific experiments with hypotheses. One of the reasons I talked about C++ is that by using multithreading, it is possible to end up with code that does not produce repeatable outputs. Does she agree that it is very important that when models are run, they produce consistent and coherent outputs that can be repeated?
Miriam Cates
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I would have said to my students, “It is not a valid experiment if you cannot follow the same method, repeat the experiment and produce the same results. It is completely invalid if you cannot do that.” I am not a software engineer, so I take my hon. Friend’s word for it when it comes to the use of programming languages, but he is absolutely correct that the whole experiment is not valid if the results cannot be repeated.
Over just the past few months, there has been an opening up of debate that has moved from The Spectator into mainstream media, where people such as my hon. Friends present have been able to speak more freely about the problems and costs of lockdown, and have not suffered so much criticism—I hesitate to say “abuse”—in the media and on social media. To avoid this happening again, we need institutional change, but we also need to understand that these are not black-and-white issues. It is good, right and wise to question the data and the science, and to put just as much weight on people’s quality of life—the things that make life living—as on the number of people in hospital at one time for a particular disease.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward, and to follow all my hon. Friends, who I note have usually been in a different Lobby from me on most coronavirus measures. I am sure the Minister will be grateful to have somebody speaking from the Government Benches who has been supporting the Government on coronavirus throughout.
However, I too have issues with modelling, which is why I chose to speak in today’s debate. I have more sympathy with modelling, and I will be offering some sort of partial defence and explanation of it in my remarks, because before I was an MP, I was a modeller myself—a software engineer. I wrote in Visual Basic.NET, which is nice and simple: engineers can see what the code does. I worked for bet365, and I used to write models that worked out the chance of somebody winning a tennis match, a team winning a baseball game, or whatever. I had some advantages that Neil Ferguson and these models do not have, in that there are many tennis matches, and I could repeat the model again and again and calibrate it. If I got my model wrong, there were people out there who would tell me that it was wrong by beating me and winning money off me, so my models got better and better.
The problem we have with covid is that we cannot repeat that exercise—there is no counterfactual. We have heard the phrase “marking your own homework”.
Bob Seely
I am deeply impressed by all this stuff— I do not quite understand what my hon. Friends are talking about, but it sounds fantastic. However, there is a counterfactual. The counterfactual is when people say, “We are not going to follow the lockdown,” and hey presto! we do not get 3,000 or 5,000 deaths a day and all the people who predicted that are proved wrong. There is a counterfactual called real life.
Aaron Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for his point, and I accept it, but the problem is that none of these models model changes in human behaviour. We discussed this issue during our debate on the measures that we brought in before Christmas, and as I said at the time, the reality was that people were not going to the pub, the supermarket or anything because they were changing their behaviour in the face of the virus. If the models do not take that into account, they cannot know where the peak will be. The models show what would happen if nobody changed their behaviour at all, but of course, the reality is that people do. We have not got good enough at modelling that, because we do not know exactly how people change their behaviour.
As a tangential point, behavioural science has had a really bad pandemic. We were told that people would not stand for lockdowns, but—to the chagrin, I am sure, of many of my hon. Friends—people did stand for them. Looking at the polling, they were incredibly popular: they were incredibly damaging, as colleagues have said, but people were prepared to live with lockdowns for longer than the scientists thought they would. There was initially an attempt to time the lockdown, because people would not last for that long. In reality, that is not what happened, so behavioural science also has a lot to answer for as a result of the pandemic.
I think that models still have value. My biggest concern arising from the experience of the pandemic is the bad parameters that have gone into those models at times—I will refer to two particular examples.
The time when I was nearest to following my colleagues into the Lobby was the extension to freedom day in June, because on that day we had a session of the Science and Technology Committee, which has taken excellent evidence throughout; it has a session on reproducibility in science tomorrow, where we will also look at this sort of thing. On the day of that vote, I was questioning Susan Hopkins and we were considering vaccine effectiveness. Public Health England had just produced figures showing that the actual effectiveness against hospitalisation of the Pfizer vaccine was 96%, yet the model that we were being asked to rely on for the vote that day said it was 89%. Now, 89 to 96 may not sound like a huge difference, but it is the difference between 4% of people going to hospital and 11%, which is three times higher. It was ludicrous that that data was available on that day but had not yet been plugged into the models. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), that was one of the reasons that I said in the Chamber that the case was getting weaker and weaker, and that if the Government tried to push it back any further, I would join my colleagues in the Lobby on the next occasion.
The other case is with omicron. Just before Christmas, we had these models that basically assumed that omicron was as severe as delta. We already had some evidence from South Africa that it was not, and since then we have discovered that it was even better than we thought. That feeds into what my hon. Friend was saying about the total number of people who are susceptible. The fact that omicron has peaked early is not because people have changed their behaviour but because the susceptible population was not as big as we thought: more people had been exposed, more people have had asymptomatic disease. There are all those sorts of problems there.
More philosophically, my models when I worked for a bookmaker were about probabilities. Too often we focus on a single line and too often that has been the so-called worst-case scenario. Well, the worst-case scenario is very black indeed at all times, but Governments cannot work purely on a worst-case scenario; they have to come up with a reasonable percentile to work with, whether it is 95% or 90%. Obviously, it must be tempered by how bad the scenario would be for the country. The precautionary principle is important and we should take measures to protect against scenarios that have only a 5% chance of happening or indeed a 2% chance, but we should do that only if the insurance price that we pay––the premium for doing that––is worth paying. That comes down to the fact that not many economic models have been plugged in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has repeatedly said in the Chamber and elsewhere throughout.
Any Government must try to predict the course of a pandemic to make sensible plans and I believe that the best tool for that is still modelling, but we must learn the lessons of this pandemic. We must learn from shortcomings such as the failure to understand human behaviour properly, the failure to make code open source so that other people can interrogate a model and change the parameters, and the failure to enter the right parameters and update the model at the moment politicians are being asked to vote on it. For all those reasons, I am grateful for today’s debate and look forward to hearing the Opposition spokespeople and the Minister. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe for today’s debate.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Thank you for calling me, Sir Edward. My first thought is, thank goodness that health is devolved. It will surprise no one to learn that I will not be joining the libertarian pile-on against scientists led by people who, even in these circumstances in a Chamber this small, still do not use face coverings.
Brendan O'Hara
No, I will not. The libertarian right have had enough of a kick at the ball in this debate. [Interruption.] No, I will not give way. At least half of those who have spoken today are not wearing face coverings.
I know that it is customary at this point to thank the Member who secured the debate but, in a break from tradition, I will start by thanking the scientists––the analysts, the medical professionals, the health experts, the clinicians and everyone else who stopped what they were doing two years ago and dedicated their lives to trying to work out and predict where the global pandemic might go and the impact that it could have on us. Two years ago, when tasked with working out this brand-new virus, every step that they took was a step into the unknown. There was no textbook to chart the route of this pandemic and every decision that they took was a new decision. They knew that every piece of advice they gave could have serious consequences for the population. The pressure of doing real-time covid-19 analysis must have been enormous. I, for one, really appreciate that scientists erred on the side of caution in the midst of a global pandemic in which tens of thousands of people were dying when there were no vaccines or booster protection. To all the SAGE officials, scientists, medical staff and public health experts who have done a remarkable job in keeping us safe, I say a huge and unequivocal thank you.
We know and can accept that forecasting and modelling during a pandemic are not an exact science but based on the best available evidence and a series of scenarios, presented from the best to the worst case. As Professor Adam Kucharski of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said,
“a model is a structured way of thinking about the dynamics of an epidemic. It allows us to take the knowledge we have, make some plausible assumptions based on that knowledge, then look at the logical implications of those assumptions.”
As the much-maligned Professor Ferguson told the Science and Technology Committee,
“Models can only be as reliable as the data that is feeding into them.”
Of course such models have their limitations. They are not forecasting modelling but mathematical projections based on the data available to modellers. If the tests are not being done, or tests are not being registered as positive, for example, the data modelling and forecasting can be affected. It is important to remember, however, that while the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) was telling anyone who would listen that modelling predictions were a national scandal, Professor Chris Whitty was telling the Science and Technology Committee that
“a lot of the advice that I have given is not based on significant forward modelling. It is based on what has happened and what is observable.”
Advice on lockdown and other public health measures was given by SAGE and others on the basis of observable data, not on forecasting modelling alone. I put it to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that he was quite wrong when he told GB News that
“So much of what’s happened since with…inhuman conditions that many of us struggled with”
was
“built on some really questionable science.”
Professor Whitty said clearly that he did not base his advice on that; rather, he based it on what he could see around him.
The primary purpose of modelling is simply to offer a sense of the impact of different restrictions. A report by researchers for the journal Nature found that the first lockdown saved up to 3 million lives in Europe, including 470,000 in the UK. The success of disease modelling was in predicting how many deaths there would have been if lockdown had not happened. SAGE officials, scientists and medical staff have done a remarkable job to keep us all safe, and many people across these islands owe their lives to them. I believe that the work that those people have done under enormous pressure should be applauded and appreciated, not undermined by the far-right libertarian Tories we have today.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Bob, will you calm down, please? Will everybody calm down?
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I want no more shouting; we are wasting time.
Brendan O'Hara
On a point of order, Sir Edward. I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has twice called me a fool. Can you clarify whether that is parliamentary language?
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
It is much easier as Chairman not to hear a lot of what goes on here. I am sure that nobody is foolish. [Interruption.] I respect the hon. Gentleman; all I know is that he is not a fool. I call Fleur Anderson.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Edward; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I congratulate—I think—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate, because I welcome impartial and honest interrogation of the science, as well as decisions made over the last two years that have been important for our country. I also welcome extreme scepticism about some of the decisions made by the Government. This debate has not been an honest and independent inquiry into the science, however. It clearly comes with an ideological bent, so it has to be taken in that light.
I also begin by paying tribute to our public servants and Government scientists.
Fleur Anderson
The hon. Gentleman has not even heard what I have to say yet.
Mr Baker
The hon. Lady said that we have made points that require an ideological bent. I invite her to look at what I said and identify at least three points that required any kind of ideological justification. Contrary to the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), nothing that I said required libertarian political philosophy.
Fleur Anderson
That was another speech. I have never been in a room with so many software engineers who are also MPs. I begin by paying tribute to our public servants, our Government scientists, epidemiologists, and the scientific community who have worked tirelessly and put everything on the line to keep the public safe. That is what they have been trying to do over the past two years: keep people safe and save lives—and they have. They have shouldered the fear, anguish and hope of an entire nation that was experiencing deep trauma. They have, magnificently, been prepared to put their head on the block, if needs be. I hope the Minister will agree with me that it is very disappointing to hear them come under attack today from certain colleagues, despite everything that they have done.
I would remind those who seek to attack SAGE and our Government scientists that, while they were looking forward, planning and working hard on the evidence of what the virus might throw at us next, it was freshers week in Downing Street. They are not the enemy here. In fact, had a bit more attention been paid to their models, had there been more modelling before the start of the pandemic and had more action been taken in February and March 2020, thousands of lives could have been saved. It is not modelling that is the intrinsic problem here—it is decision making.
Modelling is a hugely important tool for managing epidemics that is tried and tested, with constant efforts to improve it. I agree with earlier comments that there should be more models; there should be models about the impact on mental health, education, poverty and models to learn from other countries in order to inform our decisions. As Graham Medley, one member of SAGE, explains very clearly, models are not predictions and are not meant to be seen as such; they are the “what ifs” that can be used by Governments to inform decisions and guide them as to what they might need to prepare for, which should include the worst-case scenarios—that is a crucial distinction. Accurate predictions cannot be made with such an unpredictable virus, when individual behaviour is also unpredictable, so models and scenarios are the best tools to give us the parameters for the decisions that will be made. As Graham Medley said, SPI-M—the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling—the sub-committee of SAGE that he chairs, produced
“scenarios to inform government decisions, not to inform public understanding directly. They are not meant to be predictions of what will actually happen and a range of scenarios are presented to policymakers with numerous caveats and uncertainties emphasised.”
Who would want it any other way?
My question to the sceptical Members present here today is: what is the alternative? We need to have those parameters. The alternative is guessing without parameters and knowledge.
Fleur Anderson
I am going to move on. I do not want another speech from the hon. Member, given the time constraints. I am waiting for the Minister to answer my questions.
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee also had problems with the communication of the modelling. It is there that I might have some common ground with the hon. Members who have spoken earlier. The Committee said in its report last March that communication has not always been transparent enough, and accountabilities have been unclear. I agree with this. If the time is not taken carefully to explain what modelling actually is to the public and media, and instead room is allowed for scenarios to be interpreted as predictions, inevitably the practice of modelling and forecasting will be rubbished and scoffed at and Government scientists blamed as doom-mongers. Not communicating the data and models properly creates more uncertainty and misery for small businesses, who have been asked enough as it is, as we saw over the Christmas period.
Fleur Anderson
No. The PACAC report makes it clear that no one in Government has taken responsibility for communicating the data. The report states:
“Ministerial accountability for ensuring decisions are underpinned by data has not been clear. Ministers have passed responsibility between the Cabinet Office and Department of Health and Social Care,”.
That is why, as a member of the shadow Cabinet, I am responding to this debate. There are questions about the use and communication of the data.
I want to come to why we needed to rely on modelling and forecasting. Significant mistakes made throughout the last 10 years of Conservative government are the problem. There could have been much better information, and we could have been much better informed, if there had been better pandemic and emergency preparedness.
Fleur Anderson
I agree, Sir Edward. Labour invested in pandemic planning in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, but the Tory Government did not continue that investment. Operation Winter Willow in 2007 involved 5,000 people from all walks of life simulating a pandemic. The need for PPE, PPE training and wide-ranging social and economic disruption was identified. The Labour Government, then led by Gordon Brown, made heavy investments in pandemic planning.
Cut to 2016, Operation Cygnus made 26 key recommendations about PPE, urgent and drastic improvements to the NHS, and the likely impact on care homes. Most of that was ignored. PPE training stopped, stocks were run down—much of it left to go out of date—and there were no gowns, visors, swabs or body bags at all. The UK pandemic plan was mothballed and we were unready for the pandemic. No wonder we had to rely so much on modelling and forecasting.
We could have been much more ready. The Cabinet Office should have stepped up to enable cross-departmental organisation, and organisation with the devolved authorities based on plans, informed by the results of exercises and earlier modelling, but it did not. I hope that the Minister will echo that, distance herself from some of the earlier comments and criticism of our scientific community and respond to the points about pandemic planning and what we can learn.
Finally, I know that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) has asked for an inquiry into modelling. I welcome the inclusion of that in the covid inquiry. I hope that the Government will launch that inquiry. They have appointed a chair, but that chair is waiting for the powers she needs to begin getting evidence from scientists, software engineers and everyone she needs to hear from.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Will the Minister allow a short time for closing remarks?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for introducing today’s debate, and all hon. Members for their thoughtful and wide-ranging contributions.
Throughout the pandemic, we have been supported by world-leading scientists, epidemiologists and modellers, many of whom have worked around the clock, often without being paid for their contributions. During the fast-moving and uncertain pandemic, that support has been critical to ensuring that the Government have access to the latest and most reliable scientific advice.
The UK is very fortunate to have such strong academic expertise to drawn upon. Without the tireless work of our country’s scientists both within and outside SAGE, the UK would have been left in the dark at many key moments over the past two years. Scientific advice from disciplines ranging from immunology through to behavioural science have all played a role. Virologists have helped us to understand how different variants behave in the body, while clinicians have advised on higher risks to different patient groups. Similarly, epidemiology and infection disease modelling help us to understand the spread of covid-19 across the population, and the impact it might have.
It is important, however, to remember that such modelling is a tool to enable Ministers to make evidence-based decisions. Modelling provides a good way of understanding the range of possible futures that the pandemic might have in store for us; a good way of identifying what will determine which of those future we could face; and a good way of exploring how different policies, rules and guidance could determine which of those futures we could face.
Maggie Throup
I am conscious that I need to leave time at the end, but I will endeavour to get through my speech and take interventions.
It is not, however, and never can be, a crystal ball, regardless of who is doing the modelling. Models cannot perfectly predict the future, and modellers would not claim they do so. Contrary to how they may be presented in the media, modelling outputs are not forecasts, nor do they focus only on the most pessimistic outcomes. Model advice to Government is not simply a single line on a graph.
There is always uncertainty when looking into the future: uncertainty from potential policy changes, the emergence of new variants, or people’s behaviour and mixing and the changes that that brings. Central to modelling advice is an assessment of this uncertainty, what factors drive the uncertainty and how the results might change if the model’s inputs and assumptions change as new evidence emerges. As such, the modellers look at a wide range of possibilities and assumptions in order to advise policy makers on principles, not to attempt to say exactly what will happen..
Mr Baker
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She heard what I said about my conversation with the Prime Minister—it is, of course, a true account of what happened. The reality is that the Prime Minister was shown a terrifying model that subsequently proved to be wildly incorrect, but he took away freedoms from tens of millions of people on that basis. The Minister must surely agree that that does not accord with the very sensible words that she is saying. That is not what actually happened. The Prime Minister was bounced on the basis of profoundly wrong models.
Maggie Throup
I appreciate the point my hon. Friend is making, and I will come to a point that shows that models are just models; they are not predictions. Yes, they are sometimes proved wrong, but that is for different reasons. It could be that people change their behaviour as a result of the information that they get.
One example that I was about to come on to is a model in December that considered a range of assumptions for omicron’s intrinsic severity, ranging from between 10% and 100% of delta’s, in addition to the additional reductions in severity that vaccines and prior infection provide. Fortunately, we now know that severity is not at the upper end of this range, and models have been updated to reflect the evidence as it emerges. It is quite right that as new evidence emerges, models are adjusted to take that into consideration.
My hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) raised concerns about the Government’s reliance on modelling advice, both more generally and from individual modelling groups. I want to reassure hon. Members that encouraging a diverse range of opinions, views and interpretations of the data is all part of the process. SPI-M-O and SAGE do not rely on just one model or group but look at advice from a number of independent and world-leading institutions. Robust scientific challenge has been vital to the quality of SAGE advice, with modelling papers regularly released online and the methodology and underlying assumptions clearly laid out for everyone to challenge and bring forward other evidence—it is all out in the open. Sir Patrick Vallance has said:
“No scientist would ever claim, in this fast-changing and unpredictable pandemic, to have a monopoly of wisdom on what happens next.”
As the chief medical officer has emphasised, hard data on what is actually happening to patients and to the population as a whole is an essential part of the advice given.
Modelling is a helpful tool, but it must be considered alongside what is happening to real people at home, in schools or in hospital beds. As SAGE has been so visible and transparent in its advice, some people may think that it is the only form of advice to the Government, but this is not the case. Modelling and other advice from SAGE has been invaluable during the Government’s response to covid-19, but it is only one of the many issues we consider. Modelling helps us to understand the possible risks from the spread of covid-19 but, ultimately, this needs to be balanced against other health, economic and societal impacts.
A number of hon. Members questioned the accuracy of modelling forecasts from SAGE. I would like to reiterate that such modelling outputs are scenarios, not predictions and forecasts. As such, comparisons between past scenarios and what happened in reality should be made with caution. Comparisons must be made on a like-for-like basis, and often they are not.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Can you leave a minute at the end, Minister?
Maggie Throup
Yes, I will.
To be frank, what we are doing in many cases is comparing apples and pears. Nevertheless, past modelling has proved remarkably accurate in many cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) said that lessons must be learned, and lessons will be learned. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) mentioned that as well.
In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise just how appreciative we should be, and are, to the scientists, academics and Government advisers for all their hard work over the last two years. It was fitting to see this rewarded in the new year’s honours list. Finally, I would like to thank hon. Members again for their participation in today’s debate and the opportunity to discuss the matter further.
Bob Seely
I think with one exception that was a very good debate. We all agree that we need good science, and we all agree that scientists have power, like politicians. We have the right, in the public interest, to question these people. It was fascinating listening to some of my hon. Friends—I am not quite sure what they were saying, but it sounded amazing. I am also delighted to agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) that, as part of the inquiry, we need to look into the use of modelling, so that if mistakes have been made—with great respect to those who try to say it—we can learn from that experience, we do not make those mistakes again, and the modelling works for the public good, as all good science and all good policy should do.
Written Statements
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
All Members will recognise the crucial role that local councils play as the frontline of our democracy and the contribution they make to our levelling-up agenda. That is why the situation at Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council is of such concern.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council has struggled for many years to resolve a variety of governance issues, including allegations of serious misconduct by both members and officers. The council has had six different leaders in six years and three chief executives over the past three years. This instability has led to a breakdown in trust, respect and confidence between those holding governance roles at the council.
In August 2021, the council’s external auditors, Grant Thornton, initiated a value for money governance review into the council’s arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources. In their view, until the council is able to resolve various persistent challenges, it is at risk of not having adequate governance arrangements in place to ensure the effective discharge of its statutory responsibilities and to maintain financial sustainability. This comprehensive governance review—“the report”— based on evidence gathered from 75 interviews over a period of three months, was issued to the council on 3 December 2021. It makes 45 wide-ranging recommendations, three of which are statutory recommendations, and in my view provides evidence of significant and systemic best value failure. I would like to thank the team at Grant Thornton for their work, and to recognise the critical importance of external audit in protecting and enhancing local accountability as we level up across the country. Copies of the report will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
The report paints a deeply troubling picture of mismanagement, a significant breakdown in trust across the authority, and of ineffective scrutiny and accountability arrangements at the authority. This includes, but is not limited to:
On governance, a lack of a clear performance management framework and agreed key corporate indicators has impacted on the ability of the leadership team and cabinet to take an effective grip of the key issues. The effectiveness of the scrutiny boards and the audit and risk assurance committee need improvement.
On culture and leadership, poor behaviour and a lack of trust across the wider organisation continues to exist. Insularity, along with poor engagement with local residents, businesses, external partners, the West Midlands Combined Authority and the Black Country local enterprise partnership, has resulted in a lack of clarity on the authority’s key strategic priorities.
On financial governance, there has been an ineffective approach to budget monitoring and budget setting, and there remains no visible consultation on the council’s budget setting priorities.
On services, the time the authority has spent responding to internal allegations and complaints has impacted on its ability to focus on service improvement. Inadequate procurement and contract management arrangements have led to poor decision making and has impacted negatively on key services. While a recent Ofsted rating of fostering services demonstrates some positive progress with children’s social care services, which were removed from council control and have been run by Sandwell Children’s Trust since April 2018, some areas of significant improvement are still required.
On capacity and capability to improve, while progress under the interim chief executive officer, Kim Bromley-Derry CBE DL, is recognised, historically senior officers and members have been unable to make the changes required to move away from the past. Recruitment of a permanent chief executive officer has not yet been achieved.
In light of the evidence in the report, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations is minded to implement the intervention package set out below. While the Secretary of State is encouraged by the “green shoots” of progress described in the report, his view is that the risk of progress stalling or slowing is significant. He believes the proposed intervention is necessary and expedient to secure compliance with the best value duty.
I acknowledge that that is not the conclusion of the report, which states that the “green shoots” identified mitigate the risk that the council is unable to manage and govern itself. However, I believe that on balance and in these particular circumstances the risk of Government inaction in the face of evidence of best value failure is too great. Historically, the council has been slow to improve. Furthermore, the report is clear that it is the interim chief executive officer who is now driving change, and a recent recruitment round has failed to find a new permanent chief executive officer. The council’s recovery is fragile and needs consistent leadership capacity. This should not be taken as a criticism of those who have been working hard to generate “green shoots” of recovery, in particular the interim chief executive officer, and I acknowledge the good recent work of the council to take steps in the right direction. I would also like to thank Mr Bromley-Derry’s employers, McLaren Construction Group, for enabling his appointment.
I recognise that it is unprecedented to propose an intervention without a best value inspection or a Government review. However, I have considered this report carefully and the evidence contained within it satisfies me that there is no need for an additional best value inspection. Instead, I believe what is needed now is support for a council at the beginning of a fragile journey of recovery.
Expressed in formal terms, the Secretary of State is satisfied that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council is failing to comply with its best value duty and he is considering exercising his powers of intervention to secure compliance with that duty. To that end, and in line with procedures laid down in the Local Government Act 1999, officials in my Department have today written to the council asking for representations on the report and on the proposed intervention package. That letter emphasises the importance of ensuring that the proposed intervention does not distract the council from the improvements that are starting to be made, and that the council should engage with the Local Government Association’s corporate peer challenge at the end of the month.
The proposed package is centred on the appointment of commissioners to exercise certain and limited functions as required, for two years—it is envisaged this will be a shorter and narrower intervention than has been seen previously. The proposal is for the council, under the oversight of the commissioners, to prepare and implement an improvement plan, and to report on the delivery of that plan to the Secretary of State every six months; and for the commissioners to appoint a permanent chief executive officer within 18 months and then step back from the council.
I expect the council to continue to take the lead on its recovery. Given the gravity of the report’s findings, the Secretary of State must consider what would happen if the council failed to deliver the necessary changes, at the necessary speed.
The Secretary of State is, consequently, proposing to direct the transfer to the commissioners of all functions associated with:
The governance and scrutiny of strategic decision making by the authority.
The appointment and dismissal of persons to positions the holders of which are to be designated as statutory officers, and the designation of those persons as statutory officers.
The new leadership team is putting in place the necessary foundations and the Secretary of State envisages that the commissioners will work closely with them to build on the work they have begun. I hope it will not be necessary for the commissioners to use these powers, but they must be empowered to do so if they consider that required improvement and reforms are not being delivered.
The commissioners will work closely with Emma Taylor, chief executive of Sandwell Children’s Trust, and Mark Gurrey, the Department for Education’s children’s services adviser and chair of the council’s improvement board for children’s services. This will ensure that the improvements that he has overseen to date through the Department for Education’s statutory intervention continue to be made, and that services for Sandwell’s vulnerable children and families are delivered to an acceptable standard.
We are inviting representations from the council on the report and the Secretary of State’s proposals by 11 February. We are also seeking its views on moving to a four yearly election cycle at the earliest opportunity and how best to achieve this.
We want to provide the opportunity for members and officers of the council and any other interested parties, especially the residents of Sandwell, to make their views on the Secretary of State’s proposals known. Should the Secretary of State decide to intervene along the lines described here, he will make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act and appoint commissioners. I will update the House in due course
The Government do not take these steps lightly and recognise and respect the role of local councils in our communities and our democracy. The Government also recognise the importance of councils having an effective relationship with their local auditor. I urge all councils to consider whether they could be doing more to ensure that they are delivering the good governance that residents deserve, including considering the governance risk and resilience toolkit developed by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny. Despite the rare cases like Sandwell, as a whole, local authorities in England have a good record of service delivery, transparency, probity, scrutiny, and accountability. It is a reputation worth protecting. Local people deserve better than this from their local councils.
[HCWS540]
House of Lords
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 18th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (18 Jan 2022)
Baroness Meacher
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify and prioritise how use of sums paid to NHS England under section 223B of the National Health Service Act 2006, better known as the Better Care Fund, can be used towards service integration for children.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 177. Amendment 20 requires the Secretary of State to ensure that the better care fund, an important and successful initiative, is used to support service integration for children as well as adults. As the Bill stands, the better care fund will continue to be focused exclusively on adults. This is one of a number of amendments that we will debate over the coming weeks which together ensure the children are given equal treatment with adults in the Bill. I assume at the outset that the Minister agrees in principle with us that children and adults should be treated equally in the Bill. Can he give the House an assurance that this is the case—I cannot believe it is not—and if it is not, can he give us the reasons why?
We understand that the fund has focused on adults until now but surely it is time to extend it to children’s services. When the better care fund is all about integration of health and social care, it is hard to understand why children’s services should be excluded. Integrated multiagency support for children and families is key to delivering on the Government’s policy agenda, including for disabled children, those with special educational needs, children supported by the social care system and children during the first 1,000 days of life. Extending the scope of the better care fund to children would greatly accelerate this process of integration and support the Government’s ambitions for children.
I recognise that the funding streams and systems involved in services for children are complicated and it would involve work to extend the better care fund to incorporate those systems. However, this complexity is precisely why good and integrated services for children are so hard to achieve and why the better care fund could be so beneficial.
To illustrate the point, I will quote from a letter I received last week from Julian Wooster, the Somerset director of children’s services. He welcomes this amendment and explains that
“unfortunately we currently have a perfect storm of issues nationally in relation to placements of teenagers with complex needs, which is having a detrimental impact on their well-being.”
Apparently, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services has made a number of submissions, including the following commentary to the review of children’s social care which is under way:
“Despite long standing and ongoing discussions about the needs of children across the children’s social care, mental health and youth custody secure estate, the three systems continue to be separately commissioned, operate under separate legislative frameworks and are the responsibility of different government departments, each with different priorities. This can present practical barriers to local innovations and change. Locally in Somerset the council and NHS colleagues have worked well together on a joint initiative, which is receiving national interest. If the country is to benefit, Wooster claims, there needs to be a joint framework which the better care fund could provide.”
I am aware that officials from the department have been having positive conversations with colleagues from the Children and Young People’s Health Policy Influencing Group and the National Children’s Bureau, and I hope these will continue. But what I hope today is that the Minister will clarify to the House is that he has no objections to the principle of extending the remit of the better care fund to children, and that he is happy to explore how that might be achieved.
I turn briefly to Amendment 177, which seeks to ensure that the needs of those aged nought to 25 are adequately met under the integrated care systems. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on how ICSs should meet their obligations and with which ICS bodies would be required—that is a very important word—to comply. I do not think that I really need to persuade the Government that meeting the health needs of children from birth to adulthood is perhaps the most important investment in the health of the nation. Obviously, good health in childhood is likely to lead to good health in adulthood, to the benefit of every single one of us and to our NHS and taxpayers. We know that integrated care systems will have to cater for all ages in the context of the historically large backlog of appointments and treatments. It will be all too easy for particular groups to be left behind, unless there are specific provisions in the legislation to make sure that they are not.
As this Bill passed through the House of Commons, I was really pleased to hear that the Minister for Health had recognised the importance of meeting the needs of babies, children and young people. In particular, I warmly welcomed his commitment in Committee to ask his officials to develop bespoke guidance spelling out how ICSs should meet their needs. I understand that officials from the Department of Health and Social Care are currently engaged in discussion with the Children and Young People’s Health Policy Influencing Group on the development of that guidance, which is really encouraging.
I hope the Minister understands the reason for this amendment. Given that the Minister in the other place has shown his commitment to the principle of issuing guidance, our purpose here is to ensure that the guidance is published and will have statutory force to ensure compliance with it. I shall not go into the details of the amendment, but those are its objectives. I hope the Minister will be able to agree to this amendment, as it does nothing more than ensure that his colleague’s commitment in the other place is honoured by the new system. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is taking part remotely, and I invite her to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have my name to Amendment 98. I am very pleased to support the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, in this amendment, so that the safeguarding of children has an important place in this Bill.
Vulnerable children’s needs must be highlighted. It is not long ago that six year-old Arthur and the little girl called Star were cruelly murdered, and the chances of saving them were missed. Over the years, there have been many other shocking cases where children were tortured and killed. It is vital that all the safeguarding people involved in the many tragic cases of vulnerable children work together. It should not be left to one junior social worker, who may be frightened of facing difficult, devious and cunning parents. I hope that the Government agree on the need to upgrade safeguarding children’s needs and will help to see that it is in the Bill. The needs of children should not be passed over and neglected.
I also support many other amendments in this group.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I rise to speak to Amendments 51, 98, 141, 151 and 162 in my name and, briefly, the other amendment to which my name is attached. I shall make one opening remark. This group is all about children and young people. I know that all noble Lords feel very strongly about this issue. Children and young people make up 30% of the population but are not mentioned anywhere in the Bill.
Amendment 51 would require integrated care boards to share relevant information and data with key partners in the children’s system and to collect multiagency data from those partners. As the Bill stands, there are a number of crucial areas in which adults are, rightly, set to benefit from improvements to integrated working in ways that children are not. One of the most concerning ways in which it feels to me as though children have been an afterthought in the Bill is in the sharing of data and information.
Barriers to sharing information have been identified over many years as a key barrier to better joint working, commissioning and delivery of services but, due to the invisibility of children in existing data-sharing legislation, the children’s system faces even greater barriers to sharing information than that for adults. However, the measures to improve the sharing of information and data in Part 2 apply only to the adult system. Frankly, I find that inexplicable.
Alongside the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Hunt, to whom I am very grateful for adding their names to my Amendment 51, I heard numerous accounts of the huge challenges that the NHS and local authorities face in collecting, sharing and interpreting data as part of the recent Public Services Select Committee inquiry into child vulnerability. We heard this time and again. I quote just one sentence from the report:
“poor data-sharing between Government departments and local agencies endangered vulnerable children and their families by undermining safeguarding arrangements and preventing referrals for early help.”
As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, following the heartbreaking murders of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Star Hobson and other vulnerable children in this country, it is essential that arrangements for data sharing between the health system and local authorities for babies, children and young people are urgently improved. As I have said, Part 2 focuses on data sharing between health and adult social care but does not extend this to the children’s system. It is not just that children are not specifically included in the wording of the Bill; they have been explicitly excluded.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, colleagues in the sector, including the National Children’s Bureau—to which I am very grateful for its help and support on these amendments—have engaged in discussion with officials on this issue. I was pleased to hear that this engagement is going well and is set to continue, but I hope to secure today the Minister’s agreement to look again at this issue, which is in the best interests of vulnerable children in this country.
Amendment 98 would add the discharge of duty as a safeguarding partner to the general duties of ICBs in Clause 20. It would require new regulations that specify how ICBs should perform the statutory child safeguarding duty when it is transferred to them from CCGs, which are obviously abolished as a result of the Bill. Although the statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children already sets out the responsibilities of a safeguarding partner, the recent tragic events that I have just referred to show that a more robust legislative approach is needed to ensure that children are properly protected by a really effective multiagency safeguarding system.
It was heartbreaking, and I know that all noble Lords in the Chamber were shocked when they heard the details of the tragic death of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, a six year-old boy who suffered prolonged abuse and was murdered by the very people who were supposed to keep him safe. I recently met the NSPCC, which highlighted government data showing 536 incidents involving the death or serious harm of a child due to abuse or neglect in 2020-21.
Sadly, young Arthur’s case is only one of far too many, but health practitioners such as GPs, nurses, midwives and health visitors are in a prime position to recognise and report safeguarding concerns; during medical examinations they might identify signs of physical or sexual abuse. Missed medical appointments can also indicate neglect. As the strategic safeguarding leader, the ICB will be responsible for ensuring that health practitioners are fully supported to work with other agencies on safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. Alan Wood’s review from 2021, which has been discussed in the Chamber on a number of occasions, makes clear recommendations on strengthening the existing safeguarding arrangements, which came into effect in 2019, including by ensuring effective leadership, data sharing and scrutiny. The Bill offers a golden opportunity to act on these amendments to bolster local health partners’ role as a lead safeguarding partner and to embed effective joint practices that really do keep children safe.
Amendment 141 would require NHS England to assess how well an integrated care board has met the needs of children and young people in its area. In order to make a judgment about this, the amendment would require NHS England to publish an accountability framework for setting out national priorities for children and young people. Among other things, ICBs will have a crucial role in commissioning primary and community healthcare services directly for children and young people. They will play a key role in jointly commissioning services for disabled children and those with special educational needs, and in contributing to education, health and care plans, and they will be crucial in commissioning the joined-up services in the first 1,000 days of life, which the Government, to their credit, are investing in.
However, as we all know, there is unwarranted variation, with the support that children and young people receive in the health service often based on where they live rather than on their level of need. This amendment would create much needed accountability for integrated care boards and provide an overarching framework for children’s health that ICBs can work within, importantly without being prescriptive in any way about how local systems fulfil their duties.
Turning to Amendment 151, Clause 21 requires every integrated care partnership to develop an integrated care strategy. The amendment would require ICPs to consider specifically the needs of babies, children and young people when developing this strategy. I think the Minister knows my concern and that of other noble Lords—the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to it—that if we do not refer explicitly to children in the Bill, they will not be given priority equal to the adult population’s when it comes to implementation. Sadly, experience shows that when legislation does not explicitly require health systems to consider children, they are often overlooked in subsequent implementation.
Children and young people have distinct development needs. They use a distinct health and care system staffed by a distinct workforce with its own training, and they are covered by distinct legislation. Simply hoping that integrated care systems will take full account of that of their own accord will just not cut it. A more robust legislative approach is needed. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I was also pleased to hear that the Minister in the other place recognised the importance of focusing on children and families in the new ICS structures and made a commitment that the Government would develop bespoke guidance for integrated care systems on meeting the needs of babies, children and young people. That is why I support Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and to which my name is attached, to put this guidance on a statutory footing.
Amendment 162, on Clause 26, would require the Care Quality Commission to work jointly with Ofsted to plan and conduct reviews into the provision of health and children’s social care in integrated care board areas.
Again, I refer back to my experience as a member of the Lords Public Services Select Committee. I can confirm, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be able to, that the committee investigated the role played by the relevant regulators and inspectorates. Indeed, we took evidence from the senior leaders of the relevant inspectorates and regulators, specifically Ofsted and the CQC. Our conclusion was that, despite the very best intentions, these inspectorates do not work together closely enough or have a truly integrated approach. It is telling that our report revealed that the CQC itself called on the Bill
“to give it the ‘ability to look at [the] care of children across all settings’ as part of its regulation of Integrated Care Systems”.
I believe that the Bill should give the Care Quality Commission and Ofsted powers jointly to hold integrated care systems, service providers and local decision-makers accountable for the long-term outcomes for children’s health, including health inequalities.
I very much support Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. It has been explained and it very much goes with the grain of my other amendments.
I also strongly support Amendment 142 in the name of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, which would provide an opportunity for the Government to ensure that children and young people are prioritised on ICBs while maintaining local flexibility, which is important. An impact assessment would allow for good practice to be shared quickly and for both Houses to exercise effective scrutiny over the implementation of this legislation.
On Amendment 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the idea of the appointment of a strategic clinical lead for children and young people’s health is an excellent proposal, but I will leave the noble Baroness to express that.
In conclusion, the Government have a very important agenda for children. There are a lot of things that they are trying to do. I strongly support most of them but I really feel that we must have an effective legislative framework to allow that agenda to be taken forward successfully.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments is particularly important because it concerns the next generation, addressing children and young people’s health and social care needs. As has been said, I have tabled Amendment 87. I have also put my name to Amendments 141, 151 and 162, introduced so comprehensively by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I also support the other amendments in this group.
These amendments address how the needs of children and young people aged nought to 25 will be met by the relevant healthcare and social care provision within the area of each integrated care board. A bonus from recognising this in the Bill would be the encompassing of young people with learning difficulties and autism, whom we discussed last week.
I was struck by a figure raised during the debate in the other place. According to Young Minds, 77%—more than three-quarters—of sustainability and transformation partnerships failed to consider children’s needs sufficiently. Only one of the 42 ICSs in existence listed a strategic lead for children and young people. Given the range of agencies and pathways, someone must have responsibility for the integration of services at the local level and for listening to the needs of young people.
More than 12.6 million children aged 18 and under live in England, yet the Bill reads as if it is written by adults for adults. Let us not forget that an estimated 800,000 children in England are child carers and more than 250,000 of them are likely to be providing high levels of care for their relative.
Alarmingly, the UK is fifth from bottom among 27 European countries for infant mortality, and one in six children has a diagnosable mental health condition. The number of children in looked-after care is rising and we have heard terrible stories of children whose lives have been lost through abuse and illness.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, on behalf of my right reverend friend the Bishop of London, who cannot be in her place today, I speak in support of Amendment 141, to which she has put her name, alongside all the amendments, which I too support, having listened to the discussion and read them carefully. They all aim to strengthen the services for children and young people. The Government should be congratulated on continuing in the NHS a long period—perhaps 20 to 30 years—of raising the profile of children and young people. The work of the clinical director should be noted, and the involvement of young people in the design of services, although we have already heard this morning that this could be increased.
The pandemic has shown that there are still gaps through which children and young people fall. My right reverend friend the Bishop of London, and myself in Birmingham, are in regular contact with head teachers of Church schools and know about the increase in children’s mental ill health, continued inequalities, and the uneven provision of services across the country.
In the second day of Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, emphasised the need for focus in the NHS. Other noble Lords here have spoken of the need for levers in the Bill to ensure accountability. I think that this is what Amendment 141 attempts to do—to provide such a regular assessment and framework to ensure that the needs of children and young people are always included and that there is a general and regular accountability. I trust that the Minister will consider the amendment carefully, along with the others—but particularly this one—and accept it.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. I apologise to the Committee for not being able to be here at the start of the debate on this group, owing to a medical appointment.
I shall address my remarks to Amendments 141, 151 and 177. I do so because, like other noble Lords who have put their names to these amendments, and as I made clear at Second Reading, I believe that supporting speech, language and communication development and better outcomes for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs, which I shall refer to as communication needs for the remainder of my contribution, is incredibly important and a cost-effective investment.
I should at this point declare my interest as a proud vice-president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. I should also say that I have incorporated within my remarks those that would have been made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who has a passionate interest in adequate support for people with communication needs as a former speech and language therapist.
My first point is that these amendments do not come with a significant price tag attached. Indeed, the price tag of not implementing what they propose would be considerably greater. These amendments would actually facilitate cost-efficiency because of the significant benefits over the medium to longer term of getting the system right at the outset—in other words, by ensuring that the system works to maximum effect when it matters most, as early as possible in children and young people’s lives.
We know that the impact of not supporting children and young people with communication needs in particular can be significant. For example, children and young people with long-term communication needs—10% of all children and young people—are at greater risk of worse educational attainment, mental health problems, unemployment and potential involvement in the criminal justice system if their needs are not identified and adequately supported. It seems common sense to require NHS England, as Amendment 141 proposes, to assess how well an integrated care board has identified and met children and young people’s needs in relation to the national accountability framework, which, of course, it has responsibility for publishing. It would help ensure transparent value for money—in other words, optimal bangs for bucks for the taxpayer. I have to ask: what’s not to like?
This amendment gives us the opportunity to ensure that children and young people are prioritised by decision-makers in the health system. Sadly, children and young people with communication needs are often even less of a priority. Indeed, this has been demonstrated by decisions taken during the pandemic, when speech and language therapy services to children were stopped and speech and language therapists were redeployed in many areas. As a result, according to a survey conducted by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, 62% of children and young people received no speech and language therapy during the first lockdown. That is almost two-thirds whose life chances will have been adversely affected, and that will definitely come with a price tag attached over time.
It is therefore vital that integrated care boards are held to account to ensure that they give children and young people the priority they deserve, with a clear set of outcome metrics, including outcomes for children with communication needs. In fact, this would be in line with the Government’s very welcome acknowledgement—in a response to a Written Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in July 2019—that speech, language and communication skills are a primary indicator of a child’s well-being.
Surely it makes complete sense that this accountability should be grounded in a national accountability framework so that we actually see equitable support across England and thereby reduce the risk of babies, children and young people and their families facing a postcode lottery of access to services. I assume that all noble Lords would agree that the service they receive should be based on need rather than where they live. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell me whether the national accountability framework will include metrics on outcomes for children and young people with communication needs.
Amendments 151 and 177 are in a similar vein and would, I believe, also bring considerable cost benefits. Amendment 151 would require an integrated care partnership to specifically consider the needs of babies, children and young people when developing its strategy. As with Amendment 141, to ensure that the Government’s very welcome ambitions for babies, children and young people, including those with communication needs, are achieved, it is essential that an integrated care partnership’s strategy specifically considers the needs of babies, children and young people so that they can achieve the best possible outcomes, not least in terms of life chances. This would help to develop a holistic, local approach to supporting babies, children and young people and their families, including, of course, those with communication needs.
It is also crucial that the strategy includes plans to support speech, language and communication development at the population level. This would help not only to deliver better health outcomes for children but to tackle health inequalities, an issue that I appreciate noble Lords have already addressed in considerable detail in Committee.
Finally, on Amendment 177, this proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay regulations and publish guidance on how integrated care systems should meet the needs of babies, children and young people. This would also require integrated care systems to act in accordance with guidance. The key point here is that bespoke guidance for integrated care systems on meeting the needs of babies, children and young people must be on a statutory footing if we are to ensure that the strongest possible support is provided, including for those with communication needs and their families. I suggest that only then can we be confident that meeting their needs will not be considered optional and that a potential postcode lottery in access to services and support can be pre-empted and prevented.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of the British Stammering Association; indeed, I am a stammerer myself. I regret that I could not join in at Second Reading. I support all the amendments in this group, as does the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.
I want briefly to add my support for Amendments 141, 151 and 177. As the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, said, Amendment 141 would improve the lot of some 10% of children in the United Kingdom. That is a large proportion. Those are the ones who have identified speech, language and communication needs, which, as has already been said, affect their life chances in many ways. The way to do this, as the right reverend Prelate said, is to have the vital structure of accountability for their needs being identified and met.
There is a big equality issue here. I remind noble Lords that up to 50% of children in areas of social disadvantage start school with delayed language or another identified communication need. The 2010 Marmot review on health inequalities emphasised that
“giving every child the best start in life … is our highest priority recommendation.”
The review identified reducing inequalities in the early development of physical and emotional health and cognitive, linguistic and social skills as a priority objective, noting communication skills as crucial for “school readiness”. Levelling up is for children too; arguably, it is particularly important for them. The national accountability framework in Amendment 141 must include metrics on speech, language and communication development at the population level and outcomes for children and young people with communication needs.
On Amendment 151, I can do no other than echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, with whom I agree entirely.
I strongly endorse Amendment 177, which would put the guidance on a statutory footing. One advantage of this, which should be done for all sorts of reasons, is that it would enable the postcode lottery to disappear or at least be very much reduced. Of course, it ought to include specific guidance on supporting speech, language and communication development at the population level, explaining how the needs of children and young people with communication needs will be met. I hope that the Government will pay attention to this often rather neglected aspect.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and in so doing declare my interest, as laid out in the register, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a non-executive director of Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
NHS England defines the better care fund as being there to support
“local systems to successfully deliver the integration of health and social care in a way that supports person-centred care, sustainability and better outcomes for people and carers.”
So why is that not the case for 30% of the population, children and young people, who have the same complex needs and the same need for integration as adults do to help and support them on their journeys? The better care fund has been around since 2014. My guess is that this was an oversight rather than a deliberate means to keep children and young people out. Having looked at examples of what the better care fund can achieve in integration and outcomes for adults, I believe that this oversight needs to be addressed. Children and young people need to be on the face of the Bill.
I think that the Government accept that things need to happen, because we have the children’s social care innovation programme, which is particularly about looking at innovation in social care along with healthcare partners. The problem, however, is that it is a bidding system and it is not for all local authorities. If you win the bid, you can do it. Children and young people across the country deserve and should expect the right to have innovation in integration to improve their outcomes regardless of where they live. It should not be conditional on their local authority being successful in a bid.
I can see no reason why, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, the Government would not want to do this. It is an oversight in the better care fund. Putting children and young people on the face of the Bill would ensure that they received the integration and better outcomes that adults achieve through the fund.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer the support of the Green group for all the amendments in this group. My name is attached to Amendments 51 and 87 and it would have been attached to others had there been space. I can only commend the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher, Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for identifying a serious lacuna in the Bill and for providing practical, careful and sensible solutions to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that the Bill was “by adults for adults”. The other amendments in the group address only half that phrase. It addresses the “for adults” part but not the “by adults” part, which is what my Amendment 103A aims to address. Young people are experts in being young people. We may think about the life experiences of a 12 year-old or an 18 year-old, but none of us really knows what it is like to be 12 or 18 at this moment. A phrase often used particularly by marginalised groups is “Nothing about us without us”—given the hour, I will spare noble Lords the Latin version.
Young people are undoubtedly a marginalised group in our society in that their voice is far too rarely heard. As I have reflected previously, they are hugely underrepresented in this place and in the other place. The under-18s do not have the vote. The under-25s in the voting population, for structural reasons that could be fixed but have not been, do not have the same kind of voice.
I entirely accept that, among paediatricians and social workers, there are many older people who have much expert knowledge, but it is crucial that we actually hear. My amendment seeks to address ICBs and sets out that, in statute, there should be an advisory board consisting of young people on every ICB. I believe that this is an important addition to ensure that young people’s voices are heard. It might be said that many ICBs may set up such a structure, but that is not the same as it being statutory, ensured in the Bill with a message from Parliament saying, “You have to listen to these young people’s voices”.
I doubt that I need to address this in detail, particularly with the occupancy of the Chamber for this group, but I want to mention the Children’s Society’s Good Childhood Report 2021, which looked at 10 to 17 year-olds. Among them, one in 15 were unhappy with their lives—the highest level in a decade. We know that children who are unhappy at the age of 14 are significantly more likely to display symptoms of mental ill health, to self-harm or, sadly, to attempt to take their own life by the time they are 17.
As the report makes clear, the pandemic is only part of this story. There is a climate emergency and a pervasive fear about the future that young people have lived their entire lives through. We are talking about people whose whole life experience, virtually, has been since the financial crash. One thing that we know addresses a sense of powerlessness, with all its negative effects on mental and physical health, is giving people a sense of empowerment—that is, a sense that they can take control of their lives, make choices and make a difference. I often see this with young climate strikers.
I believe that the measure proposed by my Amendment 103A would ensure that this group of amendments collectively addresses the two sides of the problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, identified. I want to take this forward and I invite noble Lords who are interested to talk to me about it. This should be included in the Bill. Let us hear from children and young people and make sure that ICBs listen to the children and young people they serve.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness and I support the broad thrust of these amendments. As this is my first intervention on the Bill, I should declare my interests as a board member of the GMC and the president of GS1 UK, the British Fluoridation Society and the Hospital Caterers Association. I am also a trustee of the Foundation for Liver Research.
I support Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. As she said, she, the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who also put his name to the amendment, and I are members of the Lords Public Services Select Committee, which has just produced a report on vulnerable children. When taking evidence and listening to the arguments, it was sobering to hear that it is now estimated that the number of vulnerable children has accelerated, particularly during Covid, so that more than 1 million children are growing up with reduced life chances. Too many of them end up in our criminal justice system but, despite this, there is no government strategy to deal with vulnerable children.
The result is a lack of co-ordination both nationally and locally. Too many children fall through the gaps. Public services intervene far too late to prevent some of these children from getting into difficult circumstances. Although the amendment deals with only one aspect, it is but one aspect of a more general problem that we believe the Government need to address. The particular problem that we wish the Committee to take account of is the silo working that continues to be evident both nationally and locally, as well as the frustrating unwillingness of public bodies to share data even though it is abundantly clear from both the law and the Information Commissioner’s comments that they are perfectly able to do so.
I do not pretend that passing an amendment to the Bill will change everything overnight, but we look to the Government to be firm in their intent. It is unacceptable for public bodies, many of which have a direct relationship with government, to refuse to share information for all the miserable reasons of tribalism and managers not being willing to let go. We need to do something here.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I am sure that he has, like me, a feeling of déjà vu. We were here not so long ago talking about the Domestic Abuse Bill, when I and many Members here today urged the Government to put children in the Bill. I am pleased that the Government listened, although it took some time and a lot of effort—that is why I am pleased to support the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on Amendment 20. It seems clear to me that children should be front and centre in this Bill, as we made them in the Domestic Abuse Bill.
We have worked closely with Barnardo’s, which has advised many of us, and I know that it raises three issues here: to protect the needs of young carers; to mandate that the child impact assessment is undertaken by the Government within two years of the Bill’s implementation to assess its impact on children; and to clarify and prioritise the better care fund so that it can be used to achieve service integration for children. I do not want to take time—I just think that my noble friend the Minister may want to look at Hansard and our debates on the Domestic Abuse Bill. I am sure that he will find a way to put children front and centre in this Bill.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, this morning the Committee has heard from the noble Baronesses who have spoken to amendments many good reasons why it would be helpful to the Government’s agenda to improve services for children, if children were referred to explicitly in several places in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to consider this matter and see whether there is anything that he can do about it.
I have Amendment 142 in this group. New Section 14Z57 in Clause 20 is about performance assessment of the integrated care boards; it contains several important measures, but one is one missing. This amendment would mandate that, two years after the Bill is implemented, a child impact assessment should be undertaken by the ICS annually to assess its impact on children. This would provide the information to enable NHS England to do the assessment which Amendment 141 requires it to do. I very much support all the amendments, particularly those that would gather information, publish it and enable its sharing, because that will help. We know that early intervention works, but we do not know where to intervene unless we know what is going on, and that is why these things are very important.
There is no duty in England for government to assess and publish the effects of legislation on children—neither is there a duty in this Bill on the ICS. It was in about 2010, I recall, that the then Government committed to regularly assess the effect on children of relevant legislation, although it is not mandatory to do so and it is often not done, despite the fact that Nadhim Zahawi, now Education Secretary, when he was Children’s Minister in the Department for Education said:
“The use of children’s rights impact assessments is widely promoted across the Department and wider Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/19; col. 447.]
Well, I hope so.
Scotland and Wales have taken a slightly different approach; they have systems to assess the effect of devolved legislation on children. I have to say, as a proud resident of Wales, that those two nations have always led the way in relation to children’s rights.
As others have said, this is a very adult-focused Bill, but there are more than 12.6 million children aged 18 and under living in England, compared to just under 10.5 million of 65 year-olds and over—people like me. As drafted, the Bill does not explicitly recognise the health and well-being needs of those children and young people, who, as we have heard, have very specific needs and no voice and are often more dependent than adults on integrated services. They could benefit from the Bill perhaps more than any other group.
We know that around half of mental health disorders start at the age of 14 to 16 and that, although research has shown that around 30% to 40% of the risk of anxiety and depression is genetic, 60% to 70% is environmental—and we can change the environment. I am grateful to Barnardo’s for these figures. In addition, this generation, from infants to older teenagers, will have had their physical health and mental well-being impacted by the pandemic, and in just over a decade, over half of this group will have left school and entered further and higher education or the workforce. Other amendments will allow the ICBs to gather information and share it. This amendment would allow them to publish an impact assessment, which would help NHS England to publish what it has to publish.
The Government cannot meaningfully address the challenge of improving overall population health without tackling child health inequalities. The success of the Bill should be measured by its practical and tangible impact in ensuring children and young people’s access to timely and appropriate health and care services, and ultimately in doing what the Government want to do: improving health outcomes for the whole population.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the House will recognise that children have very different needs. They are vulnerable in many ways and in need of the recognition that all the services have to work together. It seems strange that in a Bill on health and social care, children are not identified as a special group. I support these amendments.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, today’s debate has shown the strength and depth of feeling across your Lordships’ House that children and young people should be properly provided for within the scope of the Bill and not just as an afterthought, as many noble Lords have said.
Intervening in the early years of a child’s life is the most effective way of shoring up their good health and well-being as an adult. This group of amendments seeks to do just that, ensuring that our children are not sidelined in a healthcare infrastructure currently designed with adults, and just the NHS, in mind. This group also seeks to strengthen the Bill by including safeguarding, interagency working, service integration and data sharing, especially between government departments and the NHS and social care.
I thank noble Lords for putting forward these amendments, particularly the indefatigable noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her proposals across Clauses 20 and 21 to ensure the joining up of the roles and work of ICBs and ICPs in these crucial areas. Indeed, what is particularly striking about today’s debate is that the experience and contributions of noble Lords have joined up children’s needs across a whole range of service provision and support in a way that government structures currently fail to do. This is a major issue that needs to be addressed, particularly to address the needs of vulnerable children, as my noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords have stressed.
If the Bill is to stand any chance of improving government health outcomes, it must start with the youngest among us all. Right now, in this, the fifth-biggest economy in the world, child health inequalities are widening, while 25% of children in the average reception class will be overweight. By the time those children are in year 6, it will be 40%. The all-cause mortality rate for under-14s in the UK is among the worst in Europe, and the World Health Organization tells us that 50% of lifetime mental illnesses start by the age of 14. Noble Lords will recall the debate last week about the need for robust mental health services, which include those around potential young suicides, self-harm and eating disorders. As the charity YoungMinds reminds us, after-care and follow-up are crucial although, sadly, ignored in current sustainability plans, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out.
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has expressed particular concern that there is currently no duty in the Bill to include representation from children’s health and care services on integrated care boards. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, underlined in her Amendment 87 the importance of safe staffing levels and of this in driving forward improvements in child healthcare outcomes and ensuring that children and young people can access the care they need, when they need it and from the most appropriate person or team.
Barnardo’s is similarly worried about the absence of a child impact assessment, without which there will be no clear, objective idea of the impact of the changes in this Bill on young people. The right governance and rigorous evaluation, aimed at providing lessons learned for future service design and reform, can surely only be a good thing. We strongly support Amendment 142 on this issue, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which calls for the impact assessment to be undertaken within two years of the Bill’s implementation. It also emphasises the need for an annual report and debate in Parliament on the impact of changes, scrutinising, in the first year in particular, how the changeover from CCGs to ICBs is working in practice.
Following last week’s debate on the appalling backlog of waiting lists and the NHS’s duties under the mandate and constitution, I remind the Committee that last month’s National Audit Office report showed that more than 288,000 children and young people are waiting for NHS treatment, 86,000 of whom have been waiting for longer than the 18-week target I asked the Government to reaffirm.
Whether it is ensuring proper information sharing between care providers, safe staffing levels or clarifying how the Better Care Fund can specifically be used to better integrate children’s services, these amendments have compassion and common sense behind them. We have an opportunity in this Bill to give our children a healthier future. I hope that the Minister will agree.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at this stage but I cannot let the opportunity pass to say, in my view, how important it is that children be particularly referred to and their circumstances be properly taken into account. We have very powerful legislation on the care of children, but the same is not true with health, and it is extremely important that that be kept in view. Apart from anything else, special staff and treatments are required for children, and I therefore strongly support this amendment. I am sorry that I was not able to do so at a more appropriate time, but I arrived a little later than I would have liked.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments for debate, and noble Lords from across the House for their eloquent contributions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, rightly said, it is important that, as the fifth-largest economy in the world, we treat all our citizens equally and give them the respect and access to services they deserve. As she also said, the strength of feeling across the House on the importance of this issue is clear, and this was amplified most eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
With your Lordships’ agreement, I will look at some of these amendments from a different perspective. Each amendment touches on a different aspect of providing health and care for children. Before I turn to matters of detail, let me say that we believe that the Health and Care Bill’s proposals represent a huge opportunity to support and improve service planning and provision and ensure that they better meet the needs of infants, children and young people.
With your Lordships’ permission, I will start by addressing Amendment 20, which was spoken to so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lord Polak. It would clarify and prioritise how the Better Care Fund could be used to integrate services for children. I remind the Committee that the relevant legislation does not prevent the use of the Better Care Fund for the integration of children’s services. The disabled facilities grant within the BCF is already used to fund housing adaptation for individuals aged under 18 with disabilities. Some areas also extend the scope of their BCF-funded initiatives to include integrated services for children and young people.
However, we can go further. The Government believe that integrated care partnerships and integrated care boards represent a huge opportunity for partnership working. The Bill explicitly requires integrated care partnerships to consider whether needs could be met more effectively under Section 75 of the NHS Act 2006, which provides for arrangements to be made between NHS bodies and local authorities. The Government are also working on bespoke guidance on the measures that statutory bodies should take to ensure that they will deliver for babies, children and young people.
Turning to Amendment 51, I particularly welcomed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on vulnerable children. The amendment would require ICBs to share and collect information from partners when arranging for the provision of services for pregnant women, women who are breastfeeding and young children. I sympathise with the amendment, and in fact, I would go further: one of my three big priorities in my departmental portfolio, as the Minister for Technology, Innovation and Life Sciences, is to push digitalisation and sharing data. As all noble Lords have rightly said, that is not just for children’s services but right across the sector. We hear stories almost every day of something that could have been prevented, had data been shared more appropriately.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I say a huge thank you to and congratulate Members from across the Committee who have made the most amazingly powerful contributions to this debate on the children’s amendments. I think that we are all just taken aback that there is no mention of children in these crucial clauses. I confess that I was very disappointed in the Minister’s response; we do not seem even to have managed to persuade the Government that the Bill should mention children somewhere, so I think that a number of us will want discussions with him before Report to see whether we can make some progress on making sure that children in future are taken care of. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barker
“Appointment of a National Clinical Director for Women’s Reproductive Health
NHS England must appoint a National Clinical Director for Women’s Reproductive Health.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require NHS England to appoint a clinician to provide national clinical leadership, advice, input and support on issues relating to reproductive healthcare.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sexual and Reproductive Health. At Second Reading, I said that it was not at all clear exactly what contribution the Bill would make to the strategic aims that all parties have to turn the NHS into a body that is preventive, forward-looking health promotion service, which concentrated far less on the acute sector and looks at population health much more strategically while making greater use of technology and, in doing so, seeks to reduce health inequalities. On day 3 of the detailed examination of the Bill in Committee, I am still no clearer about that.
In every set of amendments that noble Lords have put forward, they have tried to ascertain from the Government exactly how the Bill will achieve that aim—and, as yet, the answer is unclear. But if the Bill is about anything, it is about enabling those within the NHS, as well as patients and interest groups that work with them, to take what we have as a National Health Service at the moment and introduce into it new and innovative ways of looking at conditions, to build different pathways and processes of treatment in order to bring about the much-improved health outcomes that we believe are possible from the NHS.
In this amendment, I am very much influenced by the 2009 report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Better for Women, which did exactly that: it took a longitudinal life-course investigation of women’s health needs. The report decided that the way health services have traditionally been provided is lacking, because it is by and large built on some fairly old established ways of thinking from a provider’s perspective rather than from the perspective of women and their partners. In terms of reproductive health, the RCOG report showed, with a number of different stakeholders, the many different ways in which we could look at women’s health and achieve far better outcomes.
The RCOG report started by looking at the data on reproductive health. Bear in mind that reproductive health is unique. It is perhaps the one area of medicine in which the people engaging with health professionals are, for the most part, not ill. They are in need of medical intervention and occasionally surgical intervention, but by and large they are not ill. They are going through a process that is natural but needs the informed intervention of health professionals. It is very different from other areas of acute medicine.
We have a national health service and all the years of experience behind that, yet we currently have very poor outcomes for women. Almost half of British women experience very poor reproductive and sexual healthcare. It is estimated that about 45% of pregnancies in the UK are either unplanned or there is ambivalence, and that is after decades of different Governments making concerted efforts to deal with unwanted pregnancies. The abortion rate is probably the highest it has been since records began and, crucially, access to contraception, and to particular forms of contraception, including long-acting reversible contraception, is now in significant decline. Also crucially, cervical screening for eligible women is at 70%, significantly below the national target of 80%.
This is largely due to one simple fact: we have completely fractured service provision. We know that reproductive health services were traditionally part of primary care; indeed, access to information about reproductive health services was part of the education service. We know that an element of women’s reproductive health will always have to sit in the acute sector, yet in all these years we have failed to build a coherent system that works with the three different elements—primary care, acute care and the education system—and in which women can access what, by and large, they know they need.
For some sections of our community, the outcomes are even worse. We know that the figures are much worse for women from black and minority ethnic communities. Eight per cent of abortions occur in women who report as being black, but that is in 3% of the general population. We also know that black, Asian and minority ethnic women also have much worse outcomes in maternity services. Only of late has that begun to be looked at and systematically analysed by one or two very good, interested professionals in maternity units.
The amendment, which calls for a national director, was tabled to highlight the case for having somebody in the leadership of the NHS who can look at the whole question of information for women, access to services and the different outcome statistics for different methods of arranging reproductive health services. We have different arrangements in the four nations of the United Kingdom because this is a devolved matter, so we can have comparative statistics to see which approaches work better.
If we follow the lead set out in the RCOG report, we can have an inclusive approach to women in all their diversity, and inevitably we will look at systems that are beneficial to men. Clearly reproductive health has a particular impact on the lives of women, but men are included too.
It seems to me that, if this Bill and the flexibilities in it are a route to better outcomes, this is perhaps one way in which we could try to have innovation at the centre. It impacts in different ways throughout the system, which hopefully will be integrated between local government, primary care and tertiary care. It is in that spirit that I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s proposal for this simple reason: it would enable focus on the very particular needs of women’s reproductive health. As we heard earlier in our debate, children have specific needs. Well, so do women, particularly with reference to their reproductive cycle.
I am particularly keen on the element of prevention of ill health. Many services for women focus on it. Obviously, we all have cause to be grateful for the breast and cervical screening services that are available; I was professionally involved with them many years ago. It is also, however, cause for concern that the number of women taking advantage of those important preventive services has been falling. A national lead would have the expertise, responsibility and ability to focus on areas where women need to be encouraged to take advantage of the services that are available to them.
There must be concern about the quality of maternity and perinatal services, given some of the dreadful cases that we have heard about and the poor quality that has been rife in a few centres in the country in the past. I hope that things are being put in place to improve that, but there is an element of prevention here too. Good-quality maternity services prevent women and their babies having a bad experience at the beginning of their life together. It is so important for the ongoing mental and physical health of the child that women can bond with their children and babies can bond with their mothers. That bonding starts at the very beginning, but it is less likely to happen with poor-quality maternity services, which of course cost the health services and the country later on.
These services are vital for preventing further problems not just for the mother but for the children. It is the sort of thing that a highly qualified and knowledgeable national lead can focus and advise on in trying to ensure that access to good-quality services is available to all communities in the country. My noble friend Lady Barker highlighted the difficulties that some communities face in getting those good services. I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment in a positive light.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for introducing this amendment. Yet again, it is an indication that if this Bill actually presents the opportunities that the Government tell us it does, they need to accept something that recognises the opportunities that are being suggested to them across a whole range of issues, including children, about whom we have just had a very good debate.
The amendment would require NHS England to appoint a national clinical director for women’s reproductive health to provide the kind of clinical leadership that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about and to support this important area of women’s reproductive healthcare. In recent years, the Government have issued policy papers about women and health, so I would have thought that this particular proposal would chime with that.
We know that almost half of British women will experience poor sexual and reproductive care. It is clear that we can take the opportunity to improve this situation, particularly on the postcode lottery that some women face. I can certainly see, as the two noble Baronesses have said, that a single clinical director for the whole of the UK would give the area energy and focus, particularly for the 50% of women who have not had a good experience. We agree with the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, which supports this amendment. I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this important issue, and I hope that the Minister may have some good news for us.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for bringing Amendment 20A before the Committee today, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Thornton, for their very wise insights. I do not think there can be anyone in Committee who does not agree that delivering high-quality reproductive healthcare is critical for the health service.
This is definitely a priority area in the Government’s work on the women’s health strategy for England. Proof of that, I hope, is that on 23 December 2021 we published Our Vision for the Women’s Health Strategy for England. The vision is informed by analysis of the call for evidence, which ran for 14 weeks from March to June 2021.
On reproductive health specifically, the vision sets out our ambition that
“women can access services that meet their reproductive health needs … and women’s experiences of services and reproductive health outcomes are improved”.
As a bit of further background, we were clear that the strategy should be evidence-based, so the vision is in fact underpinned by the analysis of what we heard through the nearly 100,000 responses to the call for evidence. We owe it to women and girls across England to get it right, and when we publish our full strategy later this year we will set out our ambitions in more detail and will follow that up with full delivery plans where appropriate.
Joined-up national policy and clinical leadership are essential to the delivery of women’s reproductive health services. I can assure the Committee that this is also recognised as a priority by NHS England and NHS Improvement. We continue to work closely with NHS England and NHS Improvement on the development of the women’s health strategy for England. We will also be working closely with NHS England and NHS Improvement on the Government’s forthcoming sexual and reproductive health strategy to ensure that, together, the women’s health and sexual and reproductive health strategies take a holistic and comprehensive approach to improving women’s reproductive health. The sexual and reproductive health strategy will consider how we can strengthen leadership and accountability in relation to reproductive health, as well as how we improve access to contraception.
Self-evidently, NHS England regards these as major areas of work. We do not, however, think it appropriate in the Bill to require NHS England to appoint an additional national clinical director specifically for reproductive health. The first reason is because, within the current NHS England and NHS Improvement, the role of national clinical director for maternity and women’s health already exists. This position is responsible for clinical advice and leadership on obstetrics and gynaecology matters, which are of course important areas of women’s reproductive health. The post is currently held by Dr Matthew Jolly. The national clinical director works alongside the national speciality advisers for gynaecology and four other national speciality advisers, covering broader aspects of obstetrics and public health. Creating an additional post of national clinical director for reproductive health is likely to be counterproductive, in that it may lead to duplication or less clarity over responsibilities and clinical leadership.
Secondly, as a point of principle, we should try to resist the urge to specify the clinical directors that NHS England should appoint. If we make a habit of doing that, it strips it of its operational autonomy. It is better to allow it to determine the directors it needs, based on the challenges it faces.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, rightly pointed out the disparities that exist between different groups of women in this country. I can only express my agreement with the points that she made on that subject. It is essential that we recognise that women are not a homogenous group. The different characteristics that make up each woman’s identity can lead to multiple, sometimes overlapping barriers to accessing healthcare and can contribute to disparities in health outcomes.
When we launched the call for evidence that I mentioned, we said that we wanted to better understand where there are disparities between men and women and between different groups of women. As set out in the vision, a key priority running through this work is to ensure that all women have equitable access to and experience of services and that disparities in outcomes are reduced.
In addition, NHS England and NHS Improvement regularly review their clinical leadership, including national clinical director and national specialty advisor roles, to ensure alignment with strategic priorities for the NHS and patients, as set out through the NHS Long Term Plan, and to support areas in which NHS England and NHS Improvement are taking forward major programmes of work or areas identified as priorities for improvement. In other words, this is not a static landscape. I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured by this and so will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I realise that time is at a premium, but it was useful to air these issues. I thank the Minister for his full response, although it was not entirely unexpected.
I do not doubt that NHS England has a number of clinical directors, but the stats speak for themselves: 45% of pregnancies are either unplanned or ambivalent and abortion rates are at their highest level. Whatever we have at the moment is not working. The call for this director came from the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare and RCOG; they are people who know this subject in great detail.
I know that across the NHS there are different initiatives trying to bring a greater understanding of gender in medicine. For example, for NHS England I know that the Government are working with the Royal College of Physicians to try to bring about a greater understanding of gender in medicine in the form of training for medical students. But this area of medicine is one in which information, and particularly digital transformation, is already having a significant impact and could have an even greater impact on outcomes. That in itself is a challenge to practitioners, and NHS practitioners are not always the best at dealing with that sort of challenge to their existing practice. Therefore, there is perhaps a case for refreshing the clinical leadership of NHS England in this respect.
If the stats do not improve, we will definitely have to look at this before too long. I listened to what the Minister said about the two strategies that are coming out and I will look at them with a keen eye. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets a determinate period for the clinical commissioning group or groups to propose the constitution of the first integrated care board.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 24 and 53 in my name. Amendments 22 and 24 are probing amendments about the time it should take to set up a new ICS constitution and who should do it if the local CCGs fail to do so. I also support Amendment 23 on the importance of consultation, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
I welcome the short delay to implementation that the Government have announced. However, as the Minister probably knows, I am still dubious about whether the Bill is being brought forward at the right time. The NHS is currently in crisis, the staff are exhausted, many are absent through Covid illness or the need to isolate, and the Army and volunteers are being brought in to help. There is evidence that some of the shadow or non-statutory ICSs are not quite as ready as some noble Lords have suggested. Last year, nearly half of them did not publish board papers as they are supposed to do. This is a strong indication that they have not been holding routine public board meetings or joint committee meetings. They may say that they are not obliged to do so until the Bill is implemented, but NHS England said in a paper in 2019 that ICS partnership boards and joint committees, despite not then being statutory bodies,
“should be required to … Make decisions in public meetings … Minute and make public its discussions and decisions”
and publish board papers in advance of meetings. This followed the Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee recommending that
“we expect ICSs to meet the highest standards of openness and transparency in the conduct of their affairs by holding meetings in public and publishing board papers and minutes.”
It seems that this has not been happening.
At Second Reading, we heard the noble Lords, Lord Stevens of Birmingham and Lord Adebowale, as well as the Minister, assuring us that the NHS is ready for these changes, has been preparing for them for some time and, indeed, has been behaving as far as possible as if these statutory powers and duties to collaborate were already in place as shadow authorities. The passing of legislation, we heard, was just a small barrier to getting on with things. We are being asked to rubber-stamp the way they have done it, despite the amendments that many noble Lords have laid to ensure that people with the right skills and experience to achieve the ICSs’ mandatory objectives are appointed to the boards. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will have more to say about that.
What we do not want is a postcode lottery where some areas, which are already well on the way to getting their ICS running smoothly, are getting on with it, while other areas—perhaps those that have been particularly badly stretched during the pandemic and had their attention elsewhere—find themselves with gaping holes in their commissioning for an unacceptable period or even with the wrong people on the board.
That is why I have suggested in Amendment 22 that the relevant CCGs must set up the constitution of their ICS within three months of the passage of the Bill, which would give them time to appoint additional people to the board if your Lordships’ arguments persuade them, and the Government, that they need additional skill sets. In Amendment 24, NHS England can do it within the same period if the CCGs do not. The Bill says “within a reasonable time” but, if what I am being told about all the detailed preparation is correct, three months is a perfectly reasonable time.
Amendment 53, my other amendment in this group, refers to new Section 3A in Clause 16:
“Power of integrated care boards to commission certain health services.”
It changes the word “may” in subsection (1), which is about securing improvement, to the word “must”. It is a simple amendment, but it is fundamental to legislation that seeks to improve the way in which health and care services are provided through integration and collaboration. New Section 3A requires the ICB to commission services to improve its population’s physical and mental health and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of their physical and mental ill health.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, brought us very persuasively to the point of Clause 14, which I must say I am extremely puzzled about, because it purports to set out the whole set of arrangements that have to be gone through before integrated care boards can be set up as statutory bodies. However, it appears that that has already been done.
I register a very strong protest with the Minister at the actions of NHS England in going ahead and establishing these bodies, issuing extraordinary edicts such as no local authority councillor being able to serve on an ICB. What right does a quango have to say that local authority councillors cannot be represented on ICBs? This is absolute abuse of parliamentary power, because quangos do not have the right to set out what should happen on governance issues at local level in the NHS without parliamentary endorsement.
NHS England has put out a note that says that, subject to parliamentary progress, arrangements for the new statutory bodies are to come in now, on 1 July. How can that be, when we have not even gone through the sections that deal with the composition of integrated care boards? It is quite possible that your Lordships might insist on Report that local authority councillors are members of the ICBs. That is not impossible, so what will happen? Will the Minister say that, despite what Parliament says, the ICBs will go ahead, or does it mean, as I read this legislation, that the Government have to start again?
Lots of issues will be raised in this and the next group, not least the outrageous governance issue, which says that NHS England basically appoints the chair and the chief executive officer is also at its disposal. There is no attempt locally to have a board that elects its own chair or one that is appointed independently; they are essentially place-people put in there by NHS England. These are matters that Parliament should decide. I accept that Parliament may say that it is happy to go ahead on that basis—but I strongly object to this clause. It is dishonest; it purports to go through a process from the start that says that this is how ICBs will be set up—but they have all been set up, the boundaries settled and the chairs nominated, without any proper public accountability process whatever.
I hope that, when we come to agree Clause 14, the Minister will think again and that he will issue instructions to NHS England to withdraw the letter that says that the new arrangements will come into place on 1 July. I do not understand how that can possibly be.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 45. This is a disparate group of amendments, dealing with the issue of integrated care boards. I strongly support the comments already made. My amendment addresses another issue. There are questions about what the boards are; the issue is for whom they provide services, and how they are defined.
I have been made aware of a case that raises real questions about how this is going to develop. The case was reported in September, in the Manchester Evening News, about a woman who suffered burns while on holiday. She returned to her local urgent care centre in Rochdale and was advised that, because of long waiting times, she should go to another A&E in Bury. When she arrived there, she was told that that centre did not treat people from Rochdale, because of rules laid down by the integrated care board predecessor, which had established the rules in that part of Lancashire. She was left literally on the pavement, unable to obtain the care that she required.
That is a specific case under the existing rules, but it points out the lack of clarity in the Bill about how the integrated care boards will operate. The fear is that they will be membership bodies along the lines of health management organisations in the United States, which are responsible for providing services to members. That contrasts with the residential basis on which the NHS was based, at least up to 2012.
Proposed new Section 14Z31(4) gives the Secretary of State astounding power to set out which ICB is responsible for a particular individual’s care. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance, but the problem with membership-based organisations is that, first, there will be cherry picking of patients and, somewhat counterintuitively, at the same time they will be competing for the less expensive patients. Without far more clarity through the Bill from the Minister, people will have reasonable fears over how these new organisations will work and how people will attain the services that they currently expect from a seamless provision of services. My amendment seeks to address the issue of it being a single service. We have these 43 ICBs, or whatever they are, but it is a single service, and patients can access services wherever it is best for them and not best for the service.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I echo the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
We are living in a parallel universe. We are discussing the legislative framework for this new system while, out in the real world, the foundations and the bricks are being built. People are in place. Dates are being set. People are being told that they cannot be on boards. This Parliament has not decided. Under what legislative framework are these organisations working? They have no legitimate powers or approval from Parliament, yet they are being set up. People are being put in place. Chairs are being appointed. Councillors are being told that they cannot sit on ICBs.
This Parliament has not decided that yet. Letters are going out from NHS England telling the system when it will start, and Parliament has not gone through the legislative process. This is not collaborative working at a local level, because many local authorities feel that they are not even in the car let alone in the driving seat; the car is leaving and they are being asked to join at a later date. This is not a good start for collaborative working. It has to stop. NHS England has to be reined in and told that, until there is a legislative framework, the system must stay still.
In that sense, I support Amendment 23, because, significantly, it would give local authorities powers to determine their own destinies. As a former NHS manager, I am not somebody who says that this is a bunch of bureaucrats who are a waste of time. I understand the importance of NHS leaders and managers, but they cannot start drawing lines on a map and ignore local authorities’ democratic mandate. This system is not just about administrative convenience; there are real questions about the identity of local authorities, which have built regional boundaries.
Some local authorities look two ways. Let me give noble Lords an example, not a health example but something that happened in south Yorkshire and in which I was involved. The people and the authority of Barnsley, on the edge of south Yorkshire, look to west Yorkshire as well as looking to, and being administratively in, south Yorkshire. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, will know, because she knows the local area, when we set up the economic framework it caused a lot of distrust and bad blood for four years, simply because the local authority was not allowed to use the democratic mandate that it had been given and people from the centre were pushing how local economic partnerships and mayoral authorities should be set up.
If we are talking about local authorities and the National Health Service working in a collaborative way, the democratic right of local authorities must be taken into consideration. They know the nuances of their local people in a way that NHS managers do not. I say that having been an NHS manager, a councillor and a leader of a council. It is important to establish the democratic mandate in the system right from the beginning. I can tell you now that if you get a system where two local authorities out of four are forced into an area that they do not want to be in, I can tell you now that it will not work. There will be years of fighting and distrust. This is not just a plea; this is really important. The system has to stop. It has to be a collaborative approach in which local authorities’ elected mandate is key, but NHS England must also take its foot off the brake and wait until this Parliament has set the legislative framework before the system gets going. This is a parallel universe and it has to stop.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I share the outrage of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about how this is proceeding. In a way, I can see how some of this has come about. Perhaps the Minister will say that the Government are building on what is happening on the ground. It is perfectly true that many organisations at a local level found their way around the disaster that was the 2012 Act. They set up systems so that they did not have to follow it and could collaborate and not compete. Many of those systems operate practically on the ground, but they do not operate in a proper legislative framework, as we have heard, and nowhere is that more important than the outrageous decision in some areas to preclude local authorities, as noble Lords have said.
For those of us who know our way around the system, it is easy to ignore the fact that most patients and users—after all, the Bill is supposed to be focused on their experience and what their outcomes will be—have no idea about the difference between local authorities and the local health producers. To them, it is all the council or the NHS, and they have no idea that the GP, the district nurse, the care provider and the local care home do not talk to one another or have any mechanism for coming together. That is the kind of mechanism that we are trying to establish. We must ignore the informal arrangements that may have taken place as a result of the 2012 Act, and establish the proper legislative framework in which all those who have the interests of patients and users at heart are properly represented.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the LGA and the NALC. I will speak particularly to Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which I have attached my name; it is unfortunate that we have not heard from her yet. It is about consultation with local authorities, which is what so much of our debate on this group thus far has already addressed. I particularly associate myself with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Davies. A great rearrangement of the NHS has happened entirely under the radar, and it is deeply disturbing to those of us concerned about the risk of the Americanisation of our NHS and its takeover by private US healthcare for-profit companies.
I am slightly surprised that no one has yet mentioned the report in the Times this morning about the Health Secretary seeking to model NHS hospitals on academy schools, which has been seen as a large privatisation of our education system. Also, we found out only recently and entirely by accident that the Chancellor was giving days of his time to visit US healthcare companies in California. When you look at those facts, the runes seem very disturbing. To defend against the incidents that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to, and the restructuring by stealth, we need local authority involvement. That is what Amendment 23 seeks to ensure, at least in part.
I also want to comment briefly on another amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, Amendment 44, which is about protecting the collective arrangements for pay and conditions for staff. We have to look at it in the context of the survey this week that showed one in four doctors saying that they were exhausted to the point of being impaired in their work. We have an exhausted, utterly worn-down workforce, and we have nurses who are not paid enough and end up going into food banks to feed their families.
It is obviously a matter of justice that we at least protect, and in fact improve, the pay and conditions of healthcare workers. But more than that, it is very much an issue of health as well, because workers who are overworked and underpaid are simply unable to deliver the quality of care that we would hope to provide.
I very much hope that this group of amendments will get some attention, because this has all happened under the radar. There has been no public discussion of this and that desperately needs to happen, so once again it seems to fall to your Lordships’ House to try to get this on the agenda.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments to Clause 14, which is a very important clause. There is absolutely no doubt about that, and the Minister can be in no doubt that that is exactly how we see it. It was touch and go whether we would have a clause stand part debate on this, and I am not sure that we were right not to do so, because this debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Hunt’s comments, has highlighted some serious problems.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is quite right that the arrangements that we are seeking to put into statute, which have grown up over the last few years to allow areas to collaborate, were the right thing to do. In my area of the world, I have no doubt that it was important that the boroughs collaborated together, particularly in their relationship with and commissioning of services from the very big providers.
The question in Clause 14 is: what is going on with the arrangements that the Government are putting into statute? I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and to speak to Amendments 23 and 44 in my name. Amendment 23 addresses the vexed issue of boundaries for an ICB. In this Bill we are dealing with geography, whereas the 2012 Act dealt with GP lists. The area of an ICB is defined in terms of tier 1 local authorities.
Concerns have been expressed, because the NHS is often a bit clueless and sometimes very defensive about local government, its boundaries and its powers. Maybe the Minister will tell me I am wrong, but I suspect that one of the reasons why elected members have been precluded from the boards is that the NHS does not feel comfortable with the direct democratic accountability at that level. That is a great shame. I think it is wrong; accountability is extremely important.
How can we have an integrated service when social care is provided by local government, which is democratically accountable, and we want to integrate that with the NHS at a local level in an area to provide the best service that we can for that population and those patients? The almost offensive way of constructing a board that does not allow elected representatives is not acceptable.
My quite modest amendment seeks to change that situation for the future. There were exchanges in the Commons about this, and there have been meetings with disgruntled authorities that seem to have ended without agreement. We may need to take a step back and learn some of the lessons, perhaps from Scotland and Wales where more logical boundaries have been applied for their health boards.
We may learn a bit more about plans for integrated commissioning at this level when we get the promised but overdue White Paper on integration. It is possible that it will set up a third set of geographies, and who knows how that will line up? This seems to be the wrong way around. Our amendments at least elevate the need to consult with local authorities over boundaries to start off with. That is perhaps a pious hope, but we can agree that any future changes can be made only if the local authorities agree.
Amendment 159 arises out of lengthy discussions elsewhere. In the twin-striker model for ICS, we have the ICBs and the ICPs. We know almost nothing about ICPs; all that is said is that it is part of the “flexibility” and so should be valued. Referring back to my previous remarks, I just hope that local authorities will be genuinely involved in the ongoing discussions about ICPs, how they are set up and their governance. What we do know is that the ICPs will own the analysis of needs and the strategy that follows from that. What, therefore, is the role of local health and well-being boards?
There are echoes of 2012 here, as, during the consideration of the 2012 Bill, amendments were advanced on the same issue. In the 2012 version, it was the health and well-being boards that did the strategy and the CCGs that did the commissioning, at least of health. Nobody ever properly addressed how social care would be commissioned in any integrated way in a wider strategy. It was proposed in 2012 that the health and well-being boards had to approve the plans of the CCGs, and that was the glue that would hold the whole thing together. We know that that has not worked. It has sometimes worked on paper, but it is not the thing that has driven the work of the CCGs.
The answer so far for 2022 is that everyone will play nicely and it will all be resolved. I do not think that can possibly be the case when there is such a serious imbalance. Our Amendment 159 acknowledges that there just might be a dispute over whether some decision or plan of an ICB was genuinely aligned to the strategy that it was supposed to be following, so a process for resolution is needed.
I am not sure whether Amendment 44 sits easily in this group, but it is a matter on which assurance is needed. When foundation trusts came into being, they were rather bravely given the power to set their own terms and conditions for staff. One of them might have tried it, and it was not a great success. In general, despite whatever powers exist, almost every part of the NHS follows the Agenda for Change, the collective agreement that took 10 years to agree but which has stood the tests of time.
Now, as with CCGs, we have the power of ICBs to set their own terms and conditions. They are probably unlikely to do so, as it takes an enormous amount of work and the risks that it brings are probably not worth the effort. Without doubt, some staff are worried that they just might be the ones picked on for special treatment. The Minister will no doubt say that the ICBs need the flexibility, but surely, given the pandemic and everything else that faces the NHS, it would be much better to give staff certainty and confidence they will be treated properly.
We agree with the sentiments of Amendments 22 and 24, which try to ensure that agreement on ICB constitutions will be done promptly. We agree with the sentiments of Amendment 53, which echoes a previous amendment about the need to drive improvement. In my noble friend’s Amendment 45, he asks a legitimate question, which I think the Minister will need to answer.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Once again, I thank all noble Lords for bringing this debate before the Committee today. There have been a wide range of views on the establishment of the ICSs and on what is currently going on in the NHS.
I will start with Amendments 22 and 24 from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which were supported very strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, and on the ICBs’ establishment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for bringing the amendments, and I understand her concerns about ensuring that ICBs are established in a timely way. We agree. We have had an interesting debate here. A number of people have said that it is really important, given that ICSs have already been established, that you put it on a statutory footing, but we are also being asked how they dare to go ahead and do this, because the legislation is not there yet.
In recognition of the fact that ICSs have been set up in some areas and are being established, we are trying to get the right balance. That is why work is under way to prepare existing organisations, including CCGs, for the transition once the Bill comes into force.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rightly asked whether NHS England is pre-empting Parliament. He raises an important point but I assure him that the powers necessary for establishing each ICB and publishing any statutory guidance cannot be made until the Bill has been enacted and the relevant provisions commenced. However, to ensure that ICBs are ready to begin work, NHS England is producing a range of draft guidance, including a model constitution, so that system partners can start work on preparations—but this does not have the power of statutory guidance. The guidance and the model constitution are based on the proposed requirements—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I accept that but how can NHS England give guidance to say that no local authority councillor can be on the ICB? That is not for NHS England to say, and how can it do it prior to the Bill going through Parliament? It is for Parliament to decide these matters, not a quango.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord because I was coming to answer that point, but maybe in too long-winded a way. One issue that was clearly raised, and very strongly felt in the contributions from more than one noble Lord, was about banning councillors from sitting on boards. There is nothing in the Bill that expressly bans this. We recognise the points raised in this debate and will raise them directly with NHS England. It is not statutory guidance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am sorry but this is a very important point. They have made the appointments and are not going to start again, which of course they should, because this is an absolutely hopeless position. No one from NHS England has ever had the guts to come here to explain why they are making this decision, and who will believe it? The chair of the ICB is appointed by NHS England. They know that NHS England does not want local authority councillors on the boards. Who are they going to take notice of? They are going to take notice of NHS England. The Minister has to tell NHS England to stop sending out this ludicrous guidance and telling the NHS that the new arrangements will start from 1 July. It cannot possibly do so if we go through what is contained in Clause 14.
I sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but the fact is that we must have a three-month consultation process on the proposals. This is the problem we are in: none of this stands up because Parliament is being treated with absolute contempt by NHS England.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I hear the strength of feeling from the noble Lord. I will take this back to the department and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I hope noble Lords are reassured by that. I may not get the perfect answer, but I will try. I understand the strength of feeling on this issue; no one can fail to do so. Let us put it this way: it was not subtle but direct. It is really important that, as the Minister here, I take this back and reflect the feeling of the House in my conversations with the Secretary of State, and his subsequent conversations with NHS England. I will take that back and look at the consultation process and the CCGs consulting all the relevant local authorities.
I understand the point made strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that we have to be careful about prescribing in a top-down way how to work locally. I have always been a strong believer in localism and making sure that powers go down to a local level rather than being taken away. Let me again assure the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords that I will take this back, because clearly there is concern. I had not appreciated the strength of that concern. At Second Reading the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Adebowale, said, “We are already doing this. It makes sense to go ahead and put it on a statutory footing”. But I have now heard the other side of the argument, and it suggests that I should go back and have a stronger conversation with, in effect, my boss—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I hope that gives some reassurance.
On Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I assure your Lordships that we intend to provide as much stability of employment as possible while ICBs develop their new roles and functions. I hope that noble Lords are aware that there is already an existing commitment that staff transferring into ICBs will transfer across on their current terms and conditions in line with the NHS Terms and Conditions of Service Handbook. NHS pension rights will also be preserved. As a result, staff transferring into ICBs will not see any change to their existing conditions.
However, the Government are concerned about forcing ICBs to adopt conditions and practices that the ICBs do not believe work best for new staff. We believe that it is important to give ICBs flexibilities relating to staff terms and conditions; they are there for a reason. For example, when it is difficult to recruit and staff are going elsewhere, this would include allowing ICBs the flexibility to diverge from collectively agreed pay scales in order to attract staff from elsewhere or with unusual or valuable skills, or to reflect local circumstances. It will also give ICBs the flexibility to support joint working and bring in staff currently working in local authorities or foundation trusts, for example, supporting integration and the joint working approach that the Bill hopes to encourage.
I also note that ICBs having the independence and flexibility to choose whether to adopt collectively agreed pay conditions and pensions for new staff is not unique, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, acknowledged. NHS foundation trusts, which are already free to exercise their discretion in adopting such conditions, overwhelmingly choose to honour and apply such terms to their staff unless there are good reasons to diverge.
On the proposals for very senior managers, existing procedures are in place to ensure that the most senior staff within the NHS are appointed with fair and equitable salaries. Proposals to pay very senior staff more than £150,000 must be similar to those for other equivalent roles or be subject to ministerial oversight.
The Government are in the process of finalising the procedures that will apply for ICBs. The specifics may differ but the effect and intention will be the same: to afford ICBs agency in setting pay at competitive rates so that we can continue to attract the most senior and experienced leaders, while putting adequate checks and balances in place to ensure appropriate use of taxpayers’ money and keep senior public sector salaries at an appropriate level. The Government believe that this amendment, which also asks for ICPs to approve annual salaries in excess of £161,000, is unnecessary. I am happy to have further conversations.
I now turn to the amendments on how the ICBs will function once established, starting with that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, which relates to the question of treatment outside the ICB area. The new clause in question provides that NHS England must publish rules for determining the people for whom integrated care boards have responsibility. Importantly, this clause ensures that everyone in England is covered by an ICB.
We intend that the rules set by NHS England should replicate the current system for CCGs as closely as possible. This means that the ICB will be responsible for everyone who is provided with NHS primary medical services in the area—for example, anyone registered with a GP. It will also be responsible for those who are usually a resident in England and live in their area if they are not provided with NHS primary medical services in the area of another ICB.
It is important to remember that no one will be denied healthcare on the basis of where they live. We want to ensure that, under the new model, bodies that arrange NHS services—decision-making bodies—are required to protect, promote and facilitate the right of patients to make choices with respect to services or treatment. This means allowing patients to choose to be treated outside their ICB area. Choice is a long-standing right in the NHS and has been working well for some time. The Bill continues to protect and promote it. However, I am afraid that we have concerns about this amendment, as it places a requirement on providers rather than commissioners. It would not be reasonable to expect providers to provide services regardless of whether they were funded by an ICB to do so, and it is important that ICBs should be able to make decisions about with whom they contract and where they prioritise their resources.
On Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I hope I can assure the Committee that the Government are committed to ensuring continuous improvement in the quality of services provided to the public. As your Lordships will be aware, there is already a wider range of duties in relation to the continuous improvement of services. Clause 20 imposes on ICBs a duty as to the improvement in quality of services. Furthermore, the ICB must set out how it proposes to discharge that duty at the start of each year in its joint forward plan and explain how it discharged the duty at the end of each year in its annual report. I hope this goes some way to meeting the noble Baroness’s concerns.
Clause 16, which this amendment seeks to alter, recreates for ICBs the commissioning duties and powers currently conferred on CCGs in the NHS Act 2006. It ensures that ICBs have a legal duty to commission healthcare services for their population groups. It also recreates Section 3A of the 2006 Act, which provides the commissioning body with an additional power to commission supplementary healthcare services in addition to the services they are already required to commission. This power enables ICBs to arrange for the provision of discretionary services that may be appropriate to secure improvements in the health of the people for whom it is responsible—or improvements in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness in those persons—so it is important that the clause remains as it is currently drafted.
The Bill will ensure that the existing local commissioning duties conferred by the NHS Act 2006 will transfer over to ICBs. This is set out in proposed new Section 3, which is also to be inserted by Clause 16 on page 13. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will be reassured that it rightly uses “must” rather than “may” when referring to the arranging of services. I can therefore assure the Committee that ICBs will continue to commission the services previously delivered by CCGs. That will ensure that service delivery for patients is not impacted.
Amendment 159 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, touches on the important relationship between ICBs and ICPs. I remember that, when we had an earlier consultation, the Bill team had a diagram about how ICBs and ICPs would work together; It might be helpful if I ask for that to be sent to noble Lords so that all of us can have more informed conversations about the intentions of the amendments and the issues that noble Lords want to raise. I will make sure that that is done.
This amendment would add a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a dispute resolution procedure if an ICB fails to have regard to an assessment of needs, an integrated care strategy or a joint local health and well-being strategy in respect of the ICB’s area. The Bill was introduced to ensure that existing collaboration and partnership, working across the NHS, local authorities and other partners, is built on and strengthened; I recognise the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.
We intend for these assessments and strategies to be a central part of the decision-making process of ICBs and local authorities. That is why we are extending an existing duty on ICBs and local authorities to have regard to relevant local assessments and strategies. The ICB and local authorities will be directly involved in the production of these strategies and assessments through their involvement with both the ICP and health and well-being boards at place—that is, at a more geographical level. As a result, they have a clear interest in the smooth working of the ICP.
More widely, there are several mechanisms to ensure that ICBs and local authorities will have regard and not intentionally disregard the assessments and strategies being developed at place in their areas. First, health and well-being boards have the right to be consulted.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I just had a flashback moment. I remember being asked, or volunteering, a decade ago to produce a chart of the various organisations under the 2012 Act. I think that the King’s Fund did a rather good job of doing it back then; perhaps it might do it again, although it will find that it is more complicated this time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked a perfectly reasonable question that might simplify the process. If health and well-being boards do the same job as integrated care partnerships, in large measure, why cannot integrated care partnerships and health and well-being boards be the same organisation?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I remember hearing in an earlier discussion on the Bill that nothing prevents that where they coincide. My noble friend and I have had conversations about health and well-being boards and where they sit. Given that, and given my noble friend’s experience of this issue, perhaps we could have a further conversation on this matter before the next stage to clarify some of the issues that he rightly raised in previous conversations.
At this moment, we believe there are mechanisms to ensure that ICBs and local authorities have regard to and do not disregard the assessments of the health and well-being boards. As my noble friend points out, that is for further conversations.
As noble Lords know, NHS England must also consult each health and well-being board on how the ICB has implemented its joint health and well-being strategies, so there is another level of reassurance there. The ICB must also include in its annual report a review of the steps it has taken to implement any relevant joint local health and well-being strategy and must consult the health and well-being board when undertaking that review. NHS England has formal powers of intervention if an ICB is not complying with its duty in any regard. That is sufficient to ensure that ICBs will have regard to both ICP and health and well-being board plans, but I understand the concerns raised.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, decides what she wishes to do with this amendment, I say to the Minister that this is very important; I cannot stress this enough. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I are in agreement again about this. At the next stage of the Bill, the Government could find themselves in very serious trouble indeed if we do not resolve it between now and then.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I appear to have opened a can of worms. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to go back to his boss and talk about some of the serious issues raised by noble Lords.
My purpose in introducing Amendments 22 and 24 was simply to ensure that once the Bill has passed through all its stages in Parliament and an implementation date has been reasonably proposed, from that point onwards there is reasonable coherence across the country so that there are no gaps in the proper commissioning of services and everybody gets on with it in a reasonably timely way.
However, noble Lords will remember that both at Second Reading and when I introduced this group of amendments I expressed my view that it is too soon, for a number of reasons—first of all, the state of the NHS. Also, as has been pointed out by me and other noble Lords, the Bill has not gone through Parliament yet. Last week noble Lords proposed a number of amendments about who should be on the ICB and what skill sets, knowledge and experience should be represented on it. It has become quite clear that, should this House decide to press those amendments, the shadow boards may have to look again at who they have appointed, because Parliament will have said that perhaps they need to appoint some more appropriate people to carry out the objectives that the Government have rightly laid down for them. It became clear to me that the three months I had suggested might not be quite enough, because of the consultation. It would not be the first time that noble Lords had laid amendments that were to some extent faulty but had stimulated an important discussion among other noble Lords.
I very much appreciate the Minister’s commitment to going back. I hope that, when he has those conversations, he remembers that noble Lords in this House are very supportive of the objectives of allowing local authorities to play their appropriate part in the establishment and running of these new boards, and allowing health and care people to work collaboratively in the interests of patients.
I want to say a brief word about Amendment 53. The Minister gave me several reassurances about where, in other parts of the Bill, there really is a duty to improve. I am afraid that he succeeded only in convincing me that changing “may” to “must” in the place I suggested in the Bill is totally consistent with what he says exists in other places, so I may come back to that at later stages.
Noble Lords will have their say about who should be on these ICBs. Things may have to change and appropriate time may need to be allowed for the now-appointed chairs of all the ICBs to make some corrective measures regarding who they have on their boards. I will leave all those thoughts with the Minister. For the moment, I would like to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, we will start the next grouping now but we will stop at 2.15 pm. Anybody who is speaking three minutes before 2.15 pm should realise that they will have only three minutes before we stop, if the Committee sees what I mean.
Amendment 25
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“ NHS Appointments Commission (1) There is to be a body corporate known as the NHS Appointments Commission.(2) The NHS Appointments Commission has the function of—(a) appointing the Chair and ordinary members of integrated care boards;(b) other duties as set out in regulations under subsection (3).(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for—(a) the establishment and constitution of the board of the Commission;(b) the financing of the Commission;(c) the duties of the Commission.(4) The Commission must prepare and submit an annual report of its activities to Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would provide for an independent commission to have responsibility for the appointment of the chair and ordinary members of integrated care boards.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 25, I will speak to other amendments in this group, which follows on from the previous group and the last comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. On day two in Committee, we had an interesting discussion about the composition of integrated care boards. My noble friend Lady Thornton and other noble Lords argued for specifying in some detail the composition of ICBs, including having representation from mental health trusts, public health, staff and the patient’s voice.
Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, discussed the problems that arise when members on committees are seen to represent what he called “other agendas”. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, was supportive of that view, although she argued that
“we should think more about what we want the integrated care boards to do”.—[Official Report, 13/1/22; col. 1303.]
and how we will measure this, rather than exactly who is on them. I see the force of that argument; I for one am pretty uncertain about what exactly these integrated care boards are all about.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, went to the heart of this when he raised an issue that has troubled me right from the beginning: the provision that NHS trusts and foundation trusts are to be members of the integrated care boards. As he said:
“Organisations that provide the bulk of NHS services”
are therefore brought into the work of commissioning. The current system is one where commissioners—CCGs—hold providers to account
“objectively determining whether they are best placed to provide a service and assessing their performance”
and, as he said, the question then arises as to how the new integrated care boards can
“continue to perform that role.”
He felt that the membership of provider appointees on those boards at least created a risk of
“a conflict of interest between the roles of those individuals on the board and any roles they may hold with provider organisations”.—[Official Report, 13/1/22; col. 1297.]
In response, the Minister said that
“each ICB must make arrangements on managing the conflict of interest and potential conflicts of interest, such that they do not and do not appear to affect the integrity of the board’s decision-making processes. Furthermore”—
this is a very relevant point—
“each appointee to the ICB is expected to act in the interests of the ICB. They are not delegates of their organisations, but are there to contribute their experience and expertise for the effective running of the ICB”.—[Official Report, 13/1/22; col. 1308.]
Up to a point, Lord Copper. I am now totally confused as to what ICBs are. I must admit that I thought that reason for having all the key local players around the table was to brokerage deals, sort out the flows of money and keep the show on the road, but the Minister’s vision seems to be for a rather more rarefied forum, where members of the ICBs have to leave their interests behind them and think Olympian thoughts in the interests of the greater good. However, when you think of an ICB, with members of a major trust sitting around the table, and local authorities represented not by their political leadership but by officers, how on earth can they leave their principal interests behind them? Surely the responsibility of the CEO of a trust or presumably of a local authority or the director of adult social care is to represent the interests of the organisations on that board.
I will give a couple of examples. On page 21, the Bill states in relation to new Section 14Z50 on the joint forward plans for an integrated care board and its partners that
“an integrated care board and its partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts must prepare a plan setting out how they propose to exercise their functions in the next five years.”
That is fine, because that is probably one of the most important things that they have to do, but what are the trusts’ chief executives on the ICB expected to do? Are they expected to sit there and declare that it is a conflict of interests and therefore take no part in the discussion, or are they there to represent the interests of their trust, because the forward plan is very important to the success or otherwise of their organisation? It would be the same with the local authority representative, even though that representative, because they are an officer, will have to report back all the time to their political leaders to get the green light to what they have to agree to within the ICB board, which is why it is so stupid to keep local authority councillors off that board.
The Minister says, “Oh well, if it all goes wrong, we can use regulation powers to put it right”. But we are at the beginning of this process, and we need to get it right now. I very much ask the Minister to think again about the structure of ICBs and how on earth you can expect them to operate if the large trusts that they are supposed to commission serve round the table. It is really a nonsense in governance terms. Only NHS managers could have come up with this—and, oh dear, it was NHS managers who came up with it. Much though I love them and have represented their interests, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that accountability and democracy do not come very easily to them, and you can see that in the complete mess that we see before us today.
We then come to the question of whether these ICBs are accountable at all locally. I see no evidence of that at all; they are clearly part of a top-down managed hierarchy. How can you explain the reasons for the chair being appointed by NHS England and not by the board itself? How can the chair be removed from office only by NHS England? The chair should hold office at the confidence of the board. It should be the board that decides whether the chair is competent to continue, subject to external regulatory interventions, as of now, where that is necessary.
Secondly, why does the appointment of the ICB members have to be approved by the ICB chair? I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is not here. If I, as leader of Birmingham City Council, for instance, decided that my director of adult social care should go on to the board of the Birmingham and Solihull ICB, what right does the chair have to give their approval or not to that appointment?
We have already discussed the nonsense of local authority councillors being left off, but let me just make one other point. If you were the chief executive of the local authority appointed to an ICB, where you are making big decisions about finance, does the Minister imagine that that officer will do it off their own bat, or does he think that every step of the way they will report back to the leader of the council and the cabinet member for social care? Of course they will.
The problem is that NHS managers think local government is run in the way the NHS is run; they think the officers are in charge. But they are not, because you have political, democratic leadership. It is the same with Ministers in government, which it seems is why they have got themselves into such a mess in relation to this governance.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise only to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt. I will speak very briefly to Amendment 24 in the name of my noble friend Lady Merron, which would ensure the involvement of the integrated care board and the integrated care partnership in the appointment of the ICB chief executive. That seems to me to be sensible.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support that. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, introduced Amendment 34. According to the Bill as it stands, the chief executive of the ICB could be appointed only by the chair—of course with the approval of NHS England. Like many of your Lordships, I have been on a board, including being the chair of a board, and as such, I always thought it good practice to appoint my chief executive with the help and approval of my board members. As an ordinary member of a board, I cannot imagine how I would have managed the relationship with a chief executive officer who had been appointed over my head only by the chair without any consultation with me or other members. If we want to encourage collaboration, that is not the way to do it at board level.
It is inconceivable that the mechanism would work in practice in such a situation. Indeed, it is vital that all the senior people who steer the ICS, the members of the ICB, and indeed the chair and members of the ICP, must have confidence in the chief executive; the word “confidence” was so appropriately used by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. How could that be if they had no involvement whatever in the appointment? It is a simple matter of good practice and I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister can possibly find to say against it.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I know we have 10 minutes to go, but perhaps it makes sense to stop now in case noble Lords want to interject during the Minister’s speech.
EU-UK Partnership Council
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the EU-UK Partnership Council, and when will that meeting take place.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the date for the second meeting of the Partnership Council has yet to be confirmed. The first Partnership Council met on 9 June last year; it marked an important milestone in standing up the trade and co-operation agreement governance structures. The agenda for the next meeting will be agreed with our EU counterparts. We will push hard to ensure that priority issues for the UK are discussed and our interests are protected.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
If this means that the Minister has replaced the noble Lord, Lord Frost, I welcome him to his new position; he is saying, “No fear”, so I thank him at least for answering the Question today. As we have passed the authority in both Houses to establish the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, the membership of which is due to be announced very shortly, can he give us an undertaking that our Foreign Secretary, as co-chair of the Partnership Council, will report both before and after meetings of the council to the newly established Parliamentary Partnership Assembly?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I will certainly convey the noble Baroness’s message to the Foreign Secretary; I cannot make an undertaking on her behalf, but it certainly seems in the spirit of the approach she has taken of involving both Houses and maximum transparency.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, technically the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly will cover only the trade and co-operation agreement, yet some of the key issues between the UK and the EU are within the withdrawal agreement—not least Northern Ireland and, most importantly to MPs and Members of this House, UK and EU citizens’ rights. Will the Government sympathetically support the assembly extending its remit to the withdrawal agreement and those key areas?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, our relationship with the European Union hinges in many respects on issues yet to be resolved. The noble Lord mentioned two of them. Resolving issues around the Northern Ireland border is an absolute priority for the Government; likewise, issues around friction-free visa travel within the European Union and changes to border requirements are high on the agenda. His priorities are very much in sync with those of the Foreign Secretary.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the experience of the first year of operation of this council has shown that the very passive and rather negative approach to it—doing the least possible and having only the one statutory meeting required—has not so far delivered any very useful outcomes? Would it not be better if the new British chair of the council showed a more proactive policy towards it and, when items are to come up on the Partnership Council, started to shape up what decisions that might come out of it would be to our benefit?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure I agree that we have taken an insufficiently proactive approach, but I certainly think the new Foreign Secretary has brought a particular level of energy to the task. The first meeting last year saw frank but constructive discussions on the TCA implementation; yes, a number of areas of disagreement were identified, but the process launched the governance and committee structures of the TCA and our commitment to dialogue and co-operation. I think it achieved the first goals that were set out.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend take this opportunity to update the House on meetings of specialist committees between the UK and the EU, particularly in areas such as fisheries, which are so key to our ongoing and future relationship with the EU in these policy areas?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I will try in due course to provide answers relating to other specialist committees, as the noble Baroness mentioned, but on fishing licences our approach has been and remains fully in line with our TCA obligations. We have said throughout the process that we have issued licences where we have received evidence of an entitlement. It is worth pointing out that the UK has issued over 1,800 licences to EU vessels seeking to fish in our waters.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, at the meeting of the Partnership Council on 9 June, sanitary and phytosanitary measures were discussed. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to seek what is often called a veterinary agreement and whether there is any progress on that?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am not able to give the noble Baroness any kind of detailed update on those discussions. I do not believe there is an update to provide, other than that those discussions continue. If there is more to provide, I will do so in writing.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, on 16 December, in answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Hannay, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, indicated that performing artists would be discussed at the next meeting. Little has been done to resolve the huge concerns of musicians touring in Europe; cabotage, for instance, has to be discussed at the TCA level. Will this be put on the agenda?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting the music sector to adapt to our new arrangements. We worked with DCMS to speak to EU member states about the importance of touring; 21 of them have confirmed that they offer visa and work permit-free routes for performers and other creative professionals. This includes most of the biggest touring markets, including Spain, France, Germany and the Netherlands.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, before we left Euratom, EU representatives used to carry out external checks on the way in which we monitored emissions from UK nuclear sites. That no longer happens. It has not been replaced by another system. Can the Minister say, or find out, when the Partnership Council will discuss our post-Euratom radioactive substances status, an important policy area which intersects, as he will know, with the trade and co-operation agreement?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, much of the work the noble Baroness describes was conducted on the back of UK experience and expertise, neither of which have gone. On the precise relationship we will have with Euratom going forward, those discussions continue but I will see whether I can provide more of an update to her in due course.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies recently highlighted that trade with the EU has declined sharply since 2019. Based on OBR figures, the prediction is that this reduction in trade post Brexit will reduce productivity in this country by 4%. What action will the Government take to address this? Will they finally admit that the promised benefits of the UK leaving the single market have not been realised?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, a number of factors—not least a Covid lockdown across Europe and businesses adjusting to our new trading relationship—have made inevitable the dip in exports to the EU that the noble Baroness describes. However, the Office for National Statistics has cautioned that it is impossible to identify the underlying causes, at least at this point, and that we should be careful not to extrapolate. In answer to the second part of her question, I say that the Department for International Trade will continue to work with businesses and business groups across all sectors and the whole country to make the export support service work as well as possible for businesses. As we set out in the 2025 UK Border Strategy, our ambition is to create the most effective border in the world.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Will my noble friend use the next meeting of the Partnership Council to point out to the European Union that Northern Ireland is now the only part of Europe in which laws are made for its people without any democratic mandate or input from them and that this situation is incompatible with its own EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend makes a hugely important point. I reiterate that our overall aim is to renegotiate the Northern Ireland protocol to resolve the undoubtedly significant issues that people in businesses in Northern Ireland face daily. The EU has recognised that the current arrangements do not work. Any solution must be underpinned by the commitments made in the Good Friday agreement.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, we have not yet heard from a non-affiliated Member, so we will do so now.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, how will Her Majesty’s Government judge the success of this partnership and whether it is worth continuing in the future?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it is hard to know how effective the partnership is, given that we have only had one of those meetings. We have another meeting at some point this year. It has not been scheduled yet, but we certainly expect it to happen. It would be easier to answer that question on the back of the results of that meeting.
Peat
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to undertake further consultation on the professional use of peat.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, we are currently consulting on measures to end the use of peat in horticulture in England and Wales. This includes a call for evidence on the impacts of ending the use of peat and peat-containing products in the professional horticulture sector. The consultation closes on 18 March this year. Our assessment of the responses and the evidence that we receive will inform our next steps, which will include targeted engagement with specialised areas within the sector.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I was frightened that that would be the Answer. Environmentalists are sick of all these consultations. The Government promised to ban peat in 2020, and there were years to achieve that then. In the interests of moving on, I suggest two things: first, that imports of professional peat be stopped, because when we stop selling it here it will just get imported. Therefore, this is a primary thing to do. Secondly, we must replace peat with something, and we could use green waste from councils, for example. Can the Minister take that back to his department and make them think about it?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I will certainly take both those suggestions back to the department. The point the noble Baroness makes about imports is a good one; I will have that discussion with the Secretary of State. She is not the only person who is sick of endless consultations but unfortunately, they are unavoidable when the impact of a policy affects the value of a business or of assets. We have no choice but to consult, but we are doing so as quickly as we can.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, with apologies for jumping in too soon, the main concern of those who use peat professionally is finding alternatives of sufficient quality and quantity. This is not easily solved, even by just using green waste. Can my noble friend ensure that very real research is done by his department into a cure for this problem?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend raises an important point, and she is right that there are insufficient amounts of suitable replacement materials. However, there is clearly scope for making better use of what is otherwise garden and vegetable waste. There are high-quality peat-free alternatives that are effective and price-competitive, including a growing material formulated with wood fibre, bark or coir, all currently available in garden centres.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, 3% of the earth is covered with peatlands, but they account for a third of the store of carbon. It is imperative that this carbon is not disturbed. We have a huge amount here in the United Kingdom. Can the Government commit to reducing to a minimum the amount of carbon from peat bogs?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I absolutely make that commitment, and that is one reason why we are moving with renewed vigour on banning the use of peat in horticulture. Additionally, our England peat strategy lays out ambitious plans to restore degraded peatlands on a scale we have not done before in this country, with plans leading up to 2050 involving hundreds of thousands of hectares being repaired, for all the reasons that the noble Lord has identified.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, the Minister may be aware that DAERA has undertaken a consultation on the peatland strategy for Northern Ireland. While peatlands cover 11% of England’s land area, 24.6% of Northern Ireland is covered by peat. Is there scope for Defra to play an active part in the formulation of this strategy to ensure that it delivers the very best results for Northern Ireland and its ecosystem?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The peat strategy we have produced is an England peat strategy, so clearly, there are geographical limits. However, the issue goes far beyond England: it is a UK issue, for the reasons the noble Lord has provided. Peatlands are iconic features of our landscape. They are the UK’s largest stores of carbon by far, and they provide hugely important ecosystem services, supply over a quarter of the UK’s drinking water, decrease flood risk and provide food and shelter for rare and, in some cases, endangered wildlife. That is why peat recovery and peat protection is a priority.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats. The noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, wishes to speak virtually and this is a convenient point to call him.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, the UK’s peatlands are of immeasurable importance, storing three billion tonnes of carbon—as much as the forests of the UK, Germany and France combined. What discussions have the Government had with other countries about stopping the extraction of peat, and was any progress made at the recent COP 26?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, an enormous amount of progress was made at COP 26. The story that made the headlines related to forests but the principles that were agreed around the protection of forests apply also to peatlands. Between us, we secured unprecedented sums—billions of dollars of finance—specifically to protect fragile, carbon-rich, biodiverse-rich ecosystems such as peatlands. Part of the agreement we reached involved commitments by countries with those precious habitats to end their destruction and to engage in restoration with renewed vigour.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has already referred to the need to protect peatlands as an example of our iconic landscapes; they are a feature of these islands. Considering that the devolved Administrations are involved in this work as well, as a follow-on to COP 26 and as a means of protecting our landscapes, can he give due consideration to leading a summit with his ministerial colleagues and those involved in environmental organisations on how to protect our precious peatlands the length and breadth of the United Kingdom?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am very happy to make that commitment on behalf of my colleagues in whose portfolio and remit this issue sits. From an international perspective, the noble Baroness makes a very important point. We are designing programmes on the back of the new commitments we have made using our ODA; £3 billion of our international climate finance commitment will be invested in nature-based solutions, a very big part of which will be peatlands. I hope that we can describe in more detail soon what those projects will involve.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in a Written Answer to me, the Minister stated that all government departments and their arms-length organisations should meet the mandatory government buying standards, which include not purchasing peat. Can he confirm that all government departments are indeed abiding by that ruling, and explain why organisations such as the Forestry Commission are still purchasing and using peat when, as we have heard, other alternatives are available?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Baroness is right: Forestry England continues to use peat in the manner she has described. However, it has committed to eliminating completely the use of peat in the growing media by 2028 at the very latest. All government departments and their related organisations must ensure that they meet the minimum mandatory government buying standards when buying goods and services. We also encourage the wider public sector to do likewise, but it is certainly our intention to accelerate the progress that is and being and needs to be made.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, where does peat as a fuel fit into this picture?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am not convinced that peat as a fuel does fit into this picture. Our priority is to restore peatlands as closely as possible to their natural conditions, so they can fulfil the ecological functions we need them to fulfil.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I am interested to understand how the Government reconcile allowing commercial peat exploitation while at the same time the Exchequer, and thus taxpayers, are paying millions of pounds for peatland restoration.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am afraid I cannot provide that justification because there is a clear contradiction, but that is why we are pushing ahead with our proposals and measures to eliminate the use of peat in horticulture. The noble Lord makes a very good point.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend share my concern that, since we have left the European Union, we will now have different environmental standards in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland? Will he use his good offices to ensure that the devolved nations all impose a ban on the use of peat for horticultural purposes, bearing in mind that it takes 200 years to create a peat bog?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it is not a source of concern that we are able to legislate or regulate differently; the UK has demonstrated a commitment to raising the bar in terms of environmental protections. It is generally recognised—if not in this country then certainly elsewhere—that the UK is a world leader in conservation and nature restoration, but it is for the devolved Administrations to make their own policies and, of course, we will continue our discussions in the hope that we are as closely aligned as possible.
State Pension Age
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bryan of Partick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they will give to the latest Office for National Statistics’ projections for (1) life expectancy, and (2) healthy life expectancy, when reviewing the state pension age.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
The department launched the second review on state pension age in December 2021. It must be published by May 2023, in accordance with Section 27 of the Pensions Act 2014. The review will be informed by two independent reports and will consider a wide range of evidence. This will include consideration of the latest Office for National Statistics projections for life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. Tempting though it is, we must wait for the report to come out before we comment.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response and the point she makes that the ONS projections seem to confirm that life expectancy is no longer increasing. As it is, the people most dependent on a state pension are more likely to have a shorter life expectancy than those with additional pension provision. Many will die before they reach retirement age or will receive their state pension for only a few years. Does the Minister accept that a fair pension scheme must take account of the life expectancy and healthy life expectancy of people in deprived areas—not just a broad average across the board? Can she assure us that the Government’s review of the state pension age will take that into account?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a number of important points. We want a fair pension system, and her points about life expectancy, particularly in some of the poorer areas of the country, are valid. On the review, I know that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe will want input from Members of this House who are concerned and who have expertise, and I encourage the noble Baroness to make sure that those points are made to my noble friend when she carries out her review.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Has my noble friend considered the conclusion of the Office for National Statistics that:
“Over a 20-year period the estimated change in deaths associated with warm or cold temperature was a net decrease of 555,103 … A decrease in deaths from outcomes associated with cold temperature greatly outnumbers deaths associated with warm temperature”?
Is it not good news that climate change has prolonged or saved the lives of more than half a million of our fellow citizens—
Lord Lilley (Con)
—a laughable matter to the Liberal Benches over there—and how long does she expect this beneficial effect to continue?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My noble friend has again given us some interesting facts and data. I am afraid that the impact of climate change is way outside my brief, but I am sure everybody notes the points made.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister quite rightly referred to the ongoing reviews, but I simply ask, as a matter of logic, that, if the policy is that because people are living longer, retirement age should increase, is it not the necessary corollary that if people are not living as long as previously expected, retirement age should not be increased in the same way?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I will not argue with logic; that would not get me anywhere. On the noble Lord’s point about the state pension age, I know that people are sceptical of government reviews, but I ask all noble Lords to approach it in a positive way, make their points—particularly the one raised by the noble Lord—and get them into the review.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, around 1.5 million low-paid workers pay a 25% penalty for their pension savings. When will the Government publish the outcome of their call for evidence on pensions tax administration to enable low-paid workers, who are typically women, to receive pensions tax relief on their contributions?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Many noble Lords have made this point, including the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and my noble friend Lady Altmann. The truth is that I do not know when they will do it, but I will go back and find out, and will write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, women are disproportionately affected by pensioner poverty. What are the Government doing to support and help them?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Since 1994-95, rates of female pensioners in poverty, by all measures, have fallen by a larger amount than rates of male pensioners in poverty over the same period. The proportion of pensioners in absolute poverty, after housing costs, has halved since 2002-03. Pension credit is the safety net—I know that will open the floodgates for a raft of other questions—and we must make sure that as many people as possible apply for that benefit.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot let that go: relative poverty among pensioners is on the rise again, having fallen considerably for years. However, controversially, I will come back to the Question. The latest ONS tables show that life expectancy at birth in the UK is 79 for men and 83 for women. But life expectancy is lower in Wales and Northern Ireland, and especially Scotland, than it is in England. What are the Government doing to engage with the devolved Administrations, and how might pension policy take account of that?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I hope that, during the review, the devolved Administrations will be consulted. I will certainly go back to the department and speak to the Secretary of State to make sure that that is included in the review. The review will then report, and the noble Baroness will get the answers that she is looking for.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe will be leading an independent inquiry. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that some flexibility in state pension age will be considered for those who are not healthy and wealthy enough to wait for the ever-rising state pension age? With a significant, 20-year difference in healthy life expectancy across the country, perhaps very long national insurance records might be considered for early access to the state pension.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
As I have said many times, I cannot give any guarantees, but I am absolutely sure that the points my noble friend raises about flexibility and age will be included in the review. I urge her to take part in that consultation.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, poorer people tend to die at a younger age than richer people. Each increase in the state pension age effectively results in a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, who will receive the pension for many more years. Can the Minister tell the House why the Government have pursued pension policies that penalise the poor and transfer wealth to the rich? Why this reverse socialism for the rich?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I doubt I will be able to convince the noble Lord, but nobody wants pensioners to be in poverty and nobody wants to run a book on transferring wealth from one place to the other. The noble Lord raises a valid point. I know I am repeating myself, but it is one that I expect will be in the review; knowing how much knowledge the noble Lord has, especially on how to pay for these things, I look for him to have input into the review.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, in the last two years, life expectancy has been below the expectancy of the industry. If that continues to be the case, does it mean that slight pension increases could be afforded?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I imagine that, if things go as my noble friend has just said, that is a possibility, but I am not able to confirm it. Again, I urge my noble friend, who has a raft of experience in this field, to get his point into the review.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and declare my interests as set out in the register. Referring to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, does the Minister agree that the interaction between health and climate change really warrants a more sophisticated analysis of all the factors involved, rather than the assertions made by the noble Lord in his intervention?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I can assure the House that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe will pay due attention to the seriousness of the interaction between the points the noble Baroness has raised. I have no doubt that will happen.
Enforcement of Lockdown Regulations
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the equality of treatment between different groups in respect of the enforcement of lockdown regulations by the police since spring 2020.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we are clear that nobody should ever be subject to police enforcement based on their race, gender, ethnicity, age or any other protected characteristic. That is why the NPCC—the National Police Chiefs’ Council—has commissioned an independent analysis of fixed penalty notices issued to different demographic groups during the pandemic. The findings from this analysis will be published in due course.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that, particularly after such a long night. Broad police powers, however well-intended, will inevitably lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. She makes the point about racial bias and I look forward to the fuller picture. Have the Government now gathered more complete data on differentials in enforcement of lockdown regulations? How much was directed at, say, small family picnics or peaceful protests, as opposed to unsafe places of work?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I said to the noble Baroness in my first Answer, there is going to be more analysis of FPNs issued to different demographic groups. The outcome will be very interesting in all sorts of contexts—social and otherwise. Like her, I look forward to the findings from the analysis. In parallel to that, the HAC has published its report, The Macpherson Report: Twenty-two Years On, which raised the same concerns over disproportionality of FPNs.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, when the Prime Minister was holding a series of parties in No. 10, what were the police doing to enforce regulations?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I was not there, I am afraid.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the ONS has recently published data that shows, after adjusting for age, that men and women of black ethnicity are four times as likely to die from Covid as people of white ethnicity. What steps are the Government taking to identify and then eliminate the causes of this very worrying disparity?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend asks a pertinent question—that there is a disparity is not disputed. I know that the Ethnicity Subgroup of SAGE has done some work on this, both the year before last and last year. Factors include people’s jobs, and therefore their exposure to risk; household circumstances, such as more people in the house interacting; and financial difficulty in isolating. Vaccine hesitancy is an undoubted factor. The Government are giving financial help with things such as Covid support payments, but I think there is more to be gleaned. On people’s responses to Covid, maybe there is something in the physiology or make-up of different types of people—such as the cytokine storms that we talk about and inflammatory responses—that make them susceptible to more serious illness. I think some of that is yet to be uncovered.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, the sad thing is that any new regulations tend to have more impact on the black community. How will the Government make sure that equality means equality for all groups?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the Government are obliged, when they do anything, to make sure that there is not a disproportionate effect on different communities. That requirement is placed on them under the public sector equality duties set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act and covers decisions with respect to the Government’s response to Covid-19.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I think the whole House is relieved that the noble Baroness has not been present at No. 10 parties, but it is not a general rule that Ministers can answer questions only about events at which they were present. I wonder if she might possibly write to the noble Lord, Lord Watts.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think I answered the noble Lord’s question. I was not there; I was not witness to any events that may or may not have happened. As the noble Lord will know—and yes, I do speak for the Government—Sue Gray is doing her review, and the outcome of that will be known in due course.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, on this very point, the question did not require the Minister to have been present to be able to answer it. The question that troubles some people is that the Metropolitan Police has already publicly said that it will not investigate anything but will wait to hear what Sue Gray says and that it is in contact with Sue Gray. The Metropolitan Police has police officers in Downing Street, both inside the building and outside. Surely it is legitimate to ask: are statements being taken from those officers by Sue Gray, and is the Metropolitan Police offering them to Sue Gray’s investigation, seeing as it is not investigating this itself?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord asks a perfectly legitimate question. To that I would say that the police are operationally independent of government, but the review and the investigation will take their course.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Do the Government currently believe that there has been equality of treatment between different groups in respect of the enforcement of lockdown regulations by the police since spring 2020? If the Government do not believe that that has been the case, what action are they taking now to address that point?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I said to noble Lords, there clearly has been a disparity, with BAME people more likely to have fixed penalty notices issued to them. As I said, the NPCC is going to analyse that in more depth, and will report in due course.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, given the differences in health status among the different minority groups in the country, with those in the most deprived areas staying healthy only into their early 50s while those in the wealthiest areas stay healthy until around the age of 70, will any assessment be made of the impact on those required to go out to work—to defy lockdown, perhaps—or to find other sources of support if, for example, they were lacking a private pension to tide them over to the ever-rising state pension age, which we were talking about in the previous Question? Lockdowns impose much more hardship on those in poor health, who have much lower resources. I would be grateful if my noble friend could write if she does not have the answer.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I might have part of an answer, which I addressed in an earlier question. I do not think there is any doubt that nervousness in isolating because of financial circumstances was both anecdotally a factor and found to be a factor in people not wanting to isolate because they needed the money. I talked about Covid support payments, but I am looking now to my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. I admire my noble friend Lady Altmann for linking the previous Question to this one, but I am sure that my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott will be able to answer in more detail in due course.
Elections Bill
Tuesday 18th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 January 2022 - large print - (17 Jan 2022)
Underpayment of Benefits: Compensation
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, a vulnerable person with multiple health needs recovering from a heart bypass was left for years living on half the money she was entitled to when the DWP moved her on to ESA, which also stopped her getting free prescriptions and other passported benefits. The ombudsman looked into her case and reported that Ms U, as she is known, could not afford to eat properly or heat her home, and that:
“Her mental and physical health declined drastically”.
Over 118,000 other people were similarly affected. The DWP eventually paid arrears but is refusing to pay compensation. The ombudsman recommended it paid compensation
“in recognition of its error and the potentially devastating impact it has had on people’s lives.”
When this matter was debated in the Commons last week, the Minister in the other place said that the Government had published the previous Thursday an update of these cases on GOV.UK. I have searched GOV.UK, as has the Library, and have found no such documentation, so I am dependent on the Minister to answer these two questions. First, can she say whether the DWP has now complied fully with the ombudsman’s recommendation to pay Ms U £7,500 in compensation and interest on her £19,832 of arrears? Secondly, will the Government also follow the ombudsman’s recommendation to provide remedies to the others who have suffered injustice or hardship as a result of the same maladministration?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
I will go back to the department and check the first point that the noble Baroness raised. This situation is appalling and awful, and I apologise to all those affected on behalf of the Government and the department. I can confirm that Ms U has had a £7,500 compensation payment and a further payment of interest on the benefit arrears payment of £19,832. There is little more that I can say about her, other than that we have complied completely with the PHSO’s point.
On others affected—and I understand the depth of feeling on this—the department has a discretionary scheme that allows special payments to be made to customers to address any hardship or injustice caused by DWP maladministration. Consistent with other large-scale LEAP exercises, special payments under the DWP discretionary scheme will not routinely be made. There is no legal requirement to make special payments as the scheme is discretionary. However, as the Minister for Welfare Delivery said in the other place on Thursday, if anybody believes that they are a special case, they are quite free to make representation to the department.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, as has already been said, this woman has suffered appallingly through maladministration. The Minister did not really address the point about compensation, which the ombudsman’s report specifically asked the DWP to reconsider. Would she look at that again and perhaps come back to us on it? The report also points out that the DWP has put aside its own guidance in the remedy it is offering—so it does seem that the DWP needs to look at this report again.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, mentioned the very many others affected by these circumstances. Mention was made in the other place of the DWP not having had time to consider this report fully. Will the Minister take back the points we have made here and address in particular the point about compensation, and will she come back to us with a considered response from the DWP to the recommendations in the ombudsman’s report?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I really thought that I had confirmed the situation about Ms U. She has had an unreserved apology. We made a £7,500 compensation payment. We paid the benefit arrears of £19,832.55 and gave money for interest. I think that I have been very clear about that. On the issue of compensation to others, again, it is a discretionary scheme, but I re-emphasise that if anybody believes that they have a special case, they can make representation. I think that clears the way.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, should it not be axiomatic that where somebody suffers as a result of maladministration there is automatically compensation? This is not a criticism of my noble friend, who is the most kind-hearted of people, but we must have compensation if maladministration is the cause of suffering.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I have shared with the whole House the legal position on compensation when it is a LEAP scheme. The PHSO has let the department know what he thinks should happen. I have told noble Lords what the legal position is, and I know that the department needs to respond to the PHSO. When it does that, I am sure that the whole House will be made aware.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, of equal distress to people is the issue of overpayments in the benefits system, which is allied to the issue of underpayments. What measures will the Minister take, along with ministerial colleagues in the DWP, to restore confidence in the benefit overpayment recovery waiver system—a write-off system that would help people so that they are not forced to pay back money they do not have?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very fair point about overpayments. When letters arrive in the post saying, “You owe me X and you’ve got to pay it back”, they do cause distress. I do not argue with that point at all. We have a team that deals with customer interface. It is trying to make the system better all the time. I will go back and speak to the official responsible for that particular sphere of our work and, if it is acceptable to the noble Baroness, I will write to her to see what comes of that discussion.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to the Minister’s comment about payment of compensation to others being discretionary with a quote from the ombudsman:
“If Ms U’s decisions were typical, DWP will have declined to make others special payments on wrongly applied grounds, will have told them they could not complain to its Independent Case Examiner and will not have told them about the Ombudsman. That means that likely routes for such evidence were closed off.”
In the face of that clear statement from the ombudsman, how can the Government continue to refuse to commit to paying compensation to all other victims of the same maladministration?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I can only tell the House the position of the department. I understand completely the situation and the depth of feeling about compensation for others, and I have to leave that to the Minister for Welfare Delivery and others in the department to consider, although there is no need to. As I say, if people feel that they are a special case and have experienced the same things as Ms U, we would want them to make their case.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, when something terrible happens, the cry goes up: “This must never be allowed to happen again.” Is the department making investigations to see how the error occurred in the first place and how it can be avoided in the future?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
When things like this do happen, they are awful and nobody is proud of them, but I am very pleased to say to my noble friend that the team responsible is looking at what happened and putting in place processes that will ensure that, God forbid, this never happens again.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to remind the Minister, the noble Baroness and the House of the underpayment of pension to widows and widowers. This is representative of some systematic problems within the department. Will the Minister be reporting to the House on the issue?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am not aware of the facts of the underpayment of the widows’ and widowers’ pension, but as I always try to answer in full, I will go back to the department, find out if there is any correlation and write to the noble Lord.
Business of the House
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 26 January to enable the Committee stage of the Health and Care Bill to continue before oral questions that day.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Health and Care Bill
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the instruction of 5 January be revoked and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Health and Care Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Clauses 5 to 14, Schedule 2, Clauses 15 to 17, Schedule 3, Clauses 18 to 27, Schedule 4, Clause 28, Schedule 5, Clauses 29 to 40, Schedule 6, Clauses 41 to 43, Schedule 7, Clauses 44 to 61, Schedule 8, Clauses 62 and 63, Schedule 9 ,Clauses 64 to 68, Schedule 10, Clause 69, Schedule 11, Clauses 70 to 74, Schedule 12, Clauses 75 to 80, Clause 4, Clauses 135 to 144, Schedule 17, Clauses 145 to 148, Clause 95, Schedule 13, Clauses 96 to 109, Schedule 14, Clauses 110 to 120, Schedule 15, Clause 121, Clauses 81 to 94, Clauses 122 to 134, Schedule 16, Clauses 149 to 154, Title.
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 18th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (18 Jan 2022)
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the group of amendments to which noble Lords spoke before the break deals in various ways with the appointments processes for integrated care boards. I will deal first with Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which is designed to ensure that the chair of an integrated care board can be removed only by the integrated care board and not by NHS England. This is a worthwhile issue for debate, and while I recognise the spirit in which the amendment is offered, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I are coming at this from rather different perspectives.
It is worth reminding ourselves that ICBs are accountable to NHS England and thereby to Ministers and ultimately to Parliament. That link is fundamental, given the amounts of public money involved. It is therefore right that the appointments and removals process should involve these bodies. In contrast, the noble Lord’s amendment would effectively break that accountability link, because under this amendment, neither NHS England nor the Secretary of State would be able to remove a chair who was acting inappropriately. We cannot have that.
I understand the concern that there should be a safe and robust process for the appointment and removal of the chair of an ICB. I can assure noble Lords that there will be. The chairs of ICBs will be public appointments and therefore managed in line with the Governance Code on Public Appointments and regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I regret that the Government cannot support this amendment, but I hope I have explained sufficiently why.
Amendment 33 would ensure that the chief executive is appointed by the integrated care board rather than the chair and not subject to the approval of NHS England. I am afraid that, once again, this amendment is not one we can accept. As your Lordships are aware, the chief executive is the accountable officer for the ICB and a crucial person for ensuring that the board is operating effectively. It is therefore right that the appointment should be ultimately made by the chair and approved by NHS England. This approach ensures that we bring together local knowledge and a commitment to ensuring the board is appropriately constituted, while also ensuring that golden thread of accountability from ICBs to NHS England and then ultimately to Parliament. Making the ICB the sole appointing body would break that chain of accountability.
I also remind the Committee that in order to ensure that ICBs can be established and formed in time, NHS England has carried out a selection process for intended designate chief executives which, subject to the passage of the Bill and commencement of the relevant appointment provisions, it expects to be appointed by the chairs of ICBs. All provisional ICB chief executive designates have been agreed by the NHS England appointments and approvals committee, and all candidates were subject to a fair and open recruitment process.
While the current process for appointing designate ICB chairs has primarily been managed and agreed by the NHS England appointments and approvals committee, chiefly in the interests of ensuring that ICBs will be ready to begin work, I reassure your Lordships that we would expect future appointments of chief executives to involve significant engagement from the ICB as a whole to ensure that all chief executives command the confidence of both the ICB and NHS England.
I would also like to address two other significant points the noble Lord raised in his speech: first, the question of conflicts of interest. I can assure the noble Lord that ICBs will have robust duties in relation to conflicts of interest and will be required to maintain and publish a register of members’ interests and make arrangements for the management of conflicts or potential conflicts of interest. Furthermore, part of the purpose of the chair’s veto is to ensure that candidates for the board who are unsuitable or have unreconcilable conflicts of interest are not appointed to the board.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The appointments commission worked extremely well for many years. Why is it not good enough now?
Earl Howe (Con)
As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is proposing a separate NHS appointments commission. I am suggesting that it would be unnecessary to add that arms-length body to the existing landscape.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response, which he has clearly put a great deal of thought into. At the end of the day, what is being proposed is a very top-down, hierarchical approach to running the health service. ICBs may be accountable to NHS England and, through NHS England, to the Secretary of State, because the Government are taking power of direction through this legislation. However, it becomes abundantly clear that ICBs do not look outward to their local communities; they look upward to the hierarchies above them.
This is the problem with giving NHS England such power over the chief executive and the chair. Anyone who has worked in the NHS knows that, in the target-laden, panic-ridden approach from the centre to local management, the ICBs will be under the cosh right from the start. For all the wonderful words that have been used about what they will do, the reality is that they will be beaten up by the centre in the traditional “target” approach to running the service. Of course, it did not have to be this way. While it is perfectly proper to have boards making their own decisions and appointments, and being held to account for interventions where necessary, this is such a top-down approach that I do not think it will work. I believe and hope that the House will seek to amend it in some of the ways suggested in these amendments. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“(ba) a director of digital transformation (see paragraph 7A), and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the other to page 137, line 10, ensure that a director of digital transformation is appointed to the integrated care board.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 26 I will also speak to Amendments 70, 73, 84, 134, 140 and 160. I start by warmly thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for allowing me to speak to and lead on this set of amendments, to which his is the leading name. By the same token, I am delighted to see that he is now back in his place and able to advocate much more knowledgeably than I can the merits of the amendments in this group, which relate to the digital aspects of the NHS and the importance of digital transformation in the health service. They are designed to ensure that a digital transformation duty is set out, five-year plans are made, digital issues are high up on the agenda of the ICBs, and progress in this area is assessed and reported on.
I am sorry that I was not able to contribute at Second Reading on digital or data matters. However, as Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, said in his Observer piece two Sundays ago,
“we need a national transformation programme that embeds modern technology, 21st century medicine, integrated care closer to home and much greater emphasis on prevention at the heart of our health and care system.”
There is huge potential for technology to help health and care professionals to communicate better and to enable people to access the care they need quickly and easily when it suits them. Quite apart from its impact on planning and administration, the technology, as the NHSE digital transformation website emphasises, goes all the way from ambulance iPads through fitness apps to digital home care technology. It ranges from websites and apps that make care and advice easy to access wherever you are to connected computer systems that give NHS staff the test results, history and evidence they need to make the best decisions for patients.
As the recent Wade-Gery report points out:
“Digital technology is transforming every industry including healthcare. Digital and data have been used to redesign services, raising citizen expectations about self-service, personalisation, and convenience, and increasing workforce productivity.”
It says that the NHS should be in the vanguard. It goes on to say:
“The pandemic has accelerated the shift to online and changed patient expectations and clinical willingness to adopt new ways of working.”
It also says that
“the vaccine programme, supported by so many brilliant volunteers and staff, was only possible through the use of advanced data analytics to drive the risk stratification, population segmentation and operational rollout.”
However, the review also says:
“The need is compelling. The NHS faces unprecedented demand and severe operational pressure as we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, and we need new ways of working to address this. Now is the moment to put data, digital and technology at the heart of how we transform health services … Effective implementation will require a significant cultural shift away from the current siloed approach in the centre with conscious management to ensure intentions translate to reality … This system leadership should be responsible, in a partnership model between the centre and ICSs, for setting out the business and technology capability requirements of ICSs and the centre with the roadmaps to realise these, and for determining the appropriate high level technical standards, and blueprints for transformed care pathways.”
I have quoted the Wade-Gery review at length but the What Good Looks Like framework set out by NHSX last year is an important document too, designed as it is to be used to accelerate digital and data transformation. It specifies in success measure 1:
“Your ICS has a clear strategy for digital transformation and collaboration. Leaders across the ICS collectively own and drive the digital transformation journey, placing citizens and frontline perspectives at the centre. All leaders promote digitally enabled transformation to efficiently deliver safe, high quality care. Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) build digital and data expertise and accountability into their leadership and governance arrangements, and ensure delivery of the system-wide digital and data strategy.”
Wade-Gery recommends, inter alia, that we
“reorientate the focus of the centre to make digital integral to transforming care”.
In the light of all this, surely that must apply to ICBs as well.
We need to adopt the measures set out in the amendments in this group; namely, specifying in Amendment 26 that there should be a director of digital transformation for each ICB. ICBs need clear leadership to devise, develop and deliver the digital transformation that the NHS so badly needs, in line with all the above. There also needs to be a clear duty placed on ICBs to promote digital transformation. It must be included as part of their performance assessment—otherwise, none of this will happen—and in their annual report, as set out in Amendments 84, 134 and 140.
The resources for digital transformation need to be guaranteed. Amendment 160 is designed to ensure that capital expenditure budgets for digital transformation cannot be raided for other purposes and that digital transformation takes place as planned. It is clear from the Wade-Gery report that we should be doubling and lifting our NHS capital expenditure to 5% of total NHS expenditure, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and the Institute for Public Policy Research back in June 2018. We should have done that by June 2022 to accord with his recommendations but we are still suffering from chronic underinvestment in digital technology. Indeed, what are the Government’s expenditure plans on NHS digital transformation? We should be ring-fencing the 5% as firmly as we can. As Wade-Gery says:
“NHSEI should therefore as a matter of urgency determine the levels of spend on IT across the wider system and seek to re-prioritise spend from within the wider NHSE budget to support accelerated digital transformation.”
It adds up to asking why these digital transformation aspirations have been put in place without willing the means.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for speaking so eloquently in support of this group of amendments. There are a number of amendments relating to data in this Committee and they fall into three categories. The first category, the group that we are debating today, is about the prioritisation of the digital transformation in the NHS. The second group looks at specific patient groups and the potential of data to improve their care outcomes. The third set is about confidentiality of data as far as patients are concerned. My view is that all three run together.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, I am enthusiastic about digital transformation in the NHS; indeed, I believe it is the only way we can hope to meet the challenges that healthcare faces over the next 20 or 30 years. However, there are two conditions. One is that the integrity of patients’ data is assured for individual patients. That has not always been the case in the past, and the debacle of care.data is a salutary warning of what can happen if we do not protect patient information in an appropriate way.
The second condition is resources. I was very glad that my noble friend referred to the issue of resources and to the Wade-Gery report, which is the most recent report looking at the arrangements to support digital transformation in the health service. Wade-Gery reported that
“transformation funding is … split between revenue and capital and dispersed across the organisations. Tech funding is variable, often diverted and not necessarily linked to strategy and outcomes, incentivising either monolithic programmes or small-scale initiatives.”
She commented:
“The requirement for digital transformation in other sectors has driven up the proportion of their spend on digital and technology”.
It has been well-known, for many years, that the NHS locally has not been spending sufficiently on data and data transformation. The latest estimate from NHS England is that the NHS spends less than 2% of its total expenditure on IT, while the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and the IPPR suggest that this should be nearer 5% by 2022. I say to Ministers that, unless they can find ways to ensure the NHS starts to spend at that level, we are simply not going to achieve the kind of transformation we want.
One way to do that is to ensure that, at the ICB level, there is an official charged with driving this forward at the local level. We know, in general, in relation to boards of the health service, that the data/digital leadership often does not have a seat, in contrast to many organisations. This is why we think that needs to change. Overall, we believe this set of amendments would enable the Government and Parliament to show how important it is to prioritise the kind of digital transformation that we want to see.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments but first I believe in putting right wrongs. I failed to declare my interests in last Tuesday’s debate, so I took advice from the registrar. He assured me that I do not have to give a full account of my life and times, which is a great mercy to everybody, but I do have to declare what I am currently involved in and the remunerations. I serve on the Maternity Transformation Board, which is owned by NHS England, and the maternity Stakeholder Council, which is also supported by NHS England but is much more of a free agent.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath; it was a very rounded, fulsome and clear introduction to these amendments. I want to pick up the issue of trust, because both noble Lords linked trust and confidentiality. That is absolutely essential. We will not get the support or trust of the public if we do not respect their confidentiality, and I will say a word about that in a minute. I support Amendments 84, 134, 140 and 160—I have added my name to them. I also support Amendments 70 and 73, and wish to comment on those.
I strongly support digital transformation. Amendments 84, 134 and 140 place a duty on integrated care boards to promote digital transformation and to produce their own five-year plans. It will need money, so Amendment 160 requires the NHS to spend at least 5% of its capital allocation to achieve it. That is right, as digital needs sustained resource—it is not simply a “nice to have”; it is absolutely essential for the future of our services. I have talked to visitors from the USA and cannot believe how antiquated they think our systems are. In many places, they are still in the dark ages, so we have to invest in digital.
I support the increased use of digital technology in healthcare largely because of my involvement in two major inquiries into NHS services in the last few years. One evening in 2014, I had a telephone call from Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, before he was knighted and welcomed into your Lordships’ House, where he has already made a very significant contribution. He invited me to chair an inquiry into maternity services for England. The noble Lord has a sense of humour: he gave me nine months in which to deliver.
I set up a panel and we delivered in time, calling our report Better Births. Our 28 recommendations were accepted by NHS England, which then set up the Maternity Transformation Board and the Stakeholder Council, on which I have declared my interests. The Stakeholder Council is interesting because it is full of a wide range of people. A lot of charities, in particular, are on that council, and add a lot to the work that we do.
Two of the 28 recommendations are particularly relevant to this Bill and these amendments. We recommended that every mother should have her own digital maternity record, which she would create with her midwife. This record would set out the plans for managing her pregnancy, the birth and aftercare, which is so necessary for the baby, the mother and, I would add, the family. The mother’s record would then be accessible, with her permission, to all those contributing to her care. In future, we could see it being part of the child health record, and possibly the lifetime health record of the mother.
Although some progress has been made on improving access to NHS health records, we are still some way from achieving this, or the ambition set out in the NHS Long Term Plan for every citizen to have their own personal health record. We need to galvanise the NHS to move quickly and capitalise on the enormous potential that digital offers. That is what these amendments are designed to do. I am sure my noble friends on the Front Bench will consider them carefully and assess the potential that they offer.
I also recently had the privilege of chairing an investigation into the safety of medicines and medical devices; our report was called First Do No Harm. Thousands of women and children suffered avoidable harm relating to the medicines and one of the medical devices which we reviewed. They continue to live with the terrible consequences today. This harm did not take place in one isolated moment; it has spanned years and even decades. Why was it not detected and stopped? Many people could have been spared the misery it has been for them and their families.
Part of the answer to that lies in the absence of data. We found that data was not collected or that, when it was, there was no attempt to link data to identify patterns of concern. Paper records, such as there were, were incomplete, dispersed, archived or destroyed. The healthcare system could not tell us how many women had taken the epilepsy drug sodium valproate and gone on to have damaged babies. It could not tell us how many women had pelvic mesh implants, or which implants were used, or where and when.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I too stress the importance of digital transformation in our health and care services. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for their contributions and for enabling us to have this debate.
The way that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has characterised this as three different issues interwoven is an extremely good way to think about this. I completely agree that the integrity and confidentiality of patient data, and having the resources to lead transformation, are essential components. I would just like to add a contribution on the third element, the prioritisation of digital and data. I too am going to cite the Wade-Gery review. It is really important that those of us who have worked in digital transformations in other sectors also encourage our health system to look outside. All health systems are probably 10, perhaps 20, years behind other sectors—financial services, retail and, dare I say, even politics—in their digital journey.
This is not just an NHS issue: it is a health sector issue. One reason why that is the case is that we have tended in health to think that digital is “other”, something separate from healthcare itself; whereas, actually, healthcare is that most human of services and digital is an enabler. It is the means, not the end, and it is hugely important that we think of prioritising digital and data as prioritising the overall transformation of care, rather than the digital transformation. This is not just semantics: it is important that everyone owns that transformation, most importantly our front-line clinicians, and that it is not something that is parked separately.
When I was growing up, my parents’ generation abdicated responsibility for the family VCR to the children. Certain business leaders, 10 or 15 years ago, abdicated responsibility for their technology transformation to their chief technology officer. If we really want to see the benefits of digital transform our health and care system, we must not abdicate that transformation to a digital transformation team. It needs to be the business of everyone—most importantly, our leaders. I hugely support the spirit of these amendments and particularly the amendments looking specifically at funding and a duty to lead transformation, but I caution against creating a post of digital transformation because that needs to begin with the chair, the chief executive and the medical and nursing directors, not just an individual with digital in their name.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, my colleagues and I built the first online facility for the voluntary and social enterprise sector in this country in 1997, called CAN Online. We learned rather a lot from doing that, and I actually came to many of the conclusions that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, is telling us about. When we started this, we naively thought that this online environment was going to solve all our problems, as if it sat “out there” somewhere. We bought 12 computers: they came in very big boxes at that point, as noble Lords might remember. We put them in a room in a conference centre—we were in the Cotswolds—and I invited 12 entrepreneurial people working in the social sector to come and share a few days with them. We connected them all up. We thought it was about technology, but we actually we discovered that it was all about people and relationships; that this technology was simply a tool—an enabler—to facilitate a marketplace that we needed to build between us.
We began to understand that this was not about large systems up there that you plonk in the middle of things in some separate way. It is actually organic: they are very connected, and you need to co-create it and invent it together around the real needs and opportunities that are presenting themselves. I think this technology is telling us something about what needs to happen to the health service. It is organic; it is entrepreneurial; it is about creating a learning-by-doing culture. My colleagues and I have seen examples in the NHS and other parts of the public sector where millions of pounds have been spent on systems that have landed from Mars and have not worked.
First, we must understand the detail of this technology, and the opportunity that it brings. Later on, as we go through the amendments, I will share with noble Lords some technology platforms that we are working with across the country that have absolutely understood this. When they are engaged with the NHS, instead of the system getting behind them and building on their success and knowledge, it never follows up on the conversation with them. They never heard from the NHS again. There is a disconnect going on, and a fatal misunderstanding of how this new world now needs to work.
I welcome these amendments and this conversation, but we must understand—from those of us who built some of this stuff, even in the clunky old days of 1997 —that it is all about the relationship between people and technology and a learning-by-doing entrepreneurial environment.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I, too, praise the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his analysis and for rightly identifying the important connection between trust and confidentiality, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his diagnosis. In particular, I double up on the praise for Laura Wade-Gery and her report, which provides a huge amount of insight for this debate, and praise also my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who has been a pioneer and remorseless champion of safety. She is entirely right that we are talking here not just about productivity but safety. Data saves lives, and her report made that point extremely well.
Basically, I just want to repeat absolutely everything that my noble friend Lady Harding said about ambition. My concern about this debate is not the analysis, which I think is spot-on; it is the level of ambition. I have lived through digital transformations. I lived through one in the music industry, and it did not just come from digital transformation officers—although I know that that is not the point of these amendments—but required the commitment of everyone from the superstars down to the roadies. Everyone in the industry was affected; it was a massive revolution; it led to an incredible improvement in the industry; but it was hard fought and a difficult thing to go through.
I have also lived through a revolution in digital in healthcare. Over the past two years, we saw amazing breakthroughs in individual areas, the vaccine rollout being a really good example to which my noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred, but also in non-present appointments with GPs and in other areas. But it took a pandemic to drive that progress as quickly as it did, and I never again want to see such a horrible emergency be required to create change.
The message to the Minister is that the Bill is a remarkable enabling document that helps the healthcare system in the UK make important progress across the board on many different areas, but the big challenge of our generation is digital transformation. It does not require a lot of legislative change. These amendments are not what will make a difference. My noble friend needs to have the energy, passion and determination to see through that transformation when he gets back to the department, and I hope that the Bill gives him the tools to do that.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thought noble Lords would have more to say about digital matters. I shall respond to this group very briefly, because my noble friend Lord Hunt, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others have very adequately covered the issues: the potential for digital transformation, the need to use patient data, the need for resources and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, just said, enthusiasm and leadership.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, as she always does, brought us practical applications of the reasons why the amendments are necessary, and it brought to my mind that my digital interface with the NHS is a good example of someone who is absolutely at the coalface. I am part of UCLH’s digital patient management system. It does not talk to my GP and it does not talk to the Royal Free, which is where one has one’s tests in the part of London I live in, and I think, “For goodness’ sake, we really ought to be able to do better than this”.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for bringing these amendments for debate before the Committee today.
Once again, we are dealing here with an important set of issues. First, Amendments 26 and 35 would ensure that integrated care boards appointed a director of digital transformation. The Government fully agree with the spirit behind the amendments, ensuring a strong local focus on digital transformation. However, looking at the pros and cons, we must balance the desire to go further—which we all want—with the important principle that I have articulated before: that the provisions in the Bill should not be too prescriptive when it comes to membership requirements. As we have discussed, it is an essential principle of the Bill that there must be local flexibility to design the board in a way most suitable to each area’s unique needs.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is much in agreement with others that the leadership being enthusiastic for progress is important. I understand that nominations have already been made for the various positions that are likely to come up. To what extent has enthusiasm for digital transformation been a criterion in nominating those people? It is vital that the leader really believes in what is to happen if it is to happen at all. Therefore, it would be useful to know to what extent that consideration has applied in the prospective nominations of people for the local positions.
Earl Howe (Con)
Noble Lords will remember that, even 10 years ago, when I was appointed as a Health Minister, there was an acronym, QIPP, which stood for “quality, innovation, productivity and prevention”. While I think the acronym has largely fallen out of use, those four principles remain alive and kicking in the strategic thinking that happens at the top of the health service, and indeed in the department.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his very considered response. We have had a very rich debate, and I thank all the speakers. It has been a privilege to take part in what I think the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, called this “conversation”, because we have heard huge experience and authority, right across the board, about the way we might digitally transform the NHS.
In a sense, I think it is about means, not ends: we are trying to reach the same end but we disagree on how to get to that objective. At the core of that disagreement, and no doubt where we will have considerable debate later on in the Bill, is where the digital transformation aspect fits with data confidentiality and data sharing—all of which is necessary as part of digital transformation. I listened with enormous interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, had to say on that. We have to get this equation right, and we have to build public trust. I say “build” public trust because I do not think it is completely there, post the GP data grab, as it has been called, of last year. We will come on to that on future occasions.
I feel somewhat that the noble Earl, despite his mellifluous approach to these matters, was rather throwing the book of arguments at the need for any form of amendment to the Bill. He always does so with great style, but I was not totally convinced on this occasion. He mentioned the principle that we should not be too prescriptive—in that case, why are we legislating? We are trying to legislate for what the priorities for the health service are in the current circumstances.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Does my noble friend not think there is an interesting contrast in saying that we must not be too prescriptive but, for NHS England, we are going to tell it what to do?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Absolutely. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, talked about a disconnect in another context, but that is probably the word I would use in these circumstances. The Government say that they are going to prioritise good local leadership but do not want to be too prescriptive about who is on the board of the ICB; that they want a clear strategy for digital transformation but do not want to make it a duty; and that a general level of competence and expertise is required but, again, “Oh, no, we don’t want any digital duty; that would be a little bit too prescriptive”.
We need a level of digital maturity, and a regular set of digital maturity assessments. I liked the sound of that, but faced with all the other duties that ICBs will have, which ones are they going to prioritise—the ones that are built into statute, or the ones that are part of a What Good Looks Like programme? The noble Earl quoted exactly the same document that I had access to. It is a splendid document but, without some form of underpinning by legislation, it is very difficult to see ICBs giving priority to that.
Of course, the other argument the noble Earl made was that if we had a separate duty, we would have to have a whole separate planning process. That is not how these things work. When you have a set of duties, you try to do it in a holistic fashion. You do not say that we need one plan for this duty and another for that duty. If you are going to use your resources sensibly and the capabilities within your organisation in the right way, you need to do it in a planned programme, right across the board.
On the whole issue that having a separate statutory duty risks misalignment, I thought that was where somebody had really been creative and woken up with the inspiration that this was the final killer blow in the arguments being made.
I listened with great interest when the noble Earl came to the question of funding. I have not done any calculations in my head, but I bet that £2.85 billion cap ex spending over three years does not equate to 5% of the NHS budget. As my noble friend intimated to me, when you look at the cost of some of the digital developments that have taken place over the last year or two, you will see that they are highly expensive, in both revenue and capital spending. The noble Earl talked about not ring-fencing We all know the problem of distinguishing between capital and revenue in public spending. That is not to say that that is necessarily right.
Finally, on the idea that we must not tie hands—what is legislation designed to do but to set out parameters?
I thought that the aspect of patient engagement was quite interesting, and I will need to re-read what the noble Earl had to say, because it may be that the current set of duties within the Bill provides for that. That may be a glimmer of hope. Indeed, the whole question about the duty to foster a culture of innovation is a kind of fig leaf. What board is going to treat that as an absolute duty that it needs to plan in and set particular duties to its team for? In a sense, it will be an optional extra if we are not careful.
To tell your Lordships the truth, I am not entirely convinced that we are going to be able to—in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—“galvanise” the NHS. I thought that was a splendid word; it has a certain electricity about it. I do not think anything in the current Bill is going to deliver that galvanising impact, and we will be left with the disconnect that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, talked about if we are not careful. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would strengthen minimum clinical representation on Integrated Care Boards by ensuring there are at least two primary care members.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I must declare that I am an elected member of the BMA ethics committee and a past president. The BMA has been particularly concerned about ICB membership. I know we have already debated this, so I expect this group to be quite quick—I am sure the Committee would also hope that.
The Bill sets out a core minimum membership of integrated care boards, but this does not go far enough. We have just discussed not being prescriptive, but there are dangers in that. There is no guarantee of clinical leadership on the board and there is a real danger of undercutting truly representative clinical leadership by failing to retain some of the positive elements of clinical commissioning groups. Clinicians are already demoralised and a failure to give space to their voice and enthusiasm will only worsen this.
ICBs should have clinical representation from primary care and this amendment suggests that there should be two people for this, given the wide area that the boards cover and the very different types of practice within each area. Boards also need a secondary care clinician who is in a front-line, not a management, role and a public health representative. As we have already discussed, without public health representation on the board, there is a real danger that the evidence of health gain and the potential to reduce inequality will not be adequately voiced. The board needs public health input to be able to act as a population health organisation.
Some boards have acknowledged the shortcomings and allocated additional positions for general practice, secondary care and public health within their draft constitutions, but others have not. They appear to be ignoring the voice of the very people who work in front-line healthcare. Unless these voices are heard, along with the voice of public health, there is a real danger that the boards’ decisions will be distant from the reality and that they will become bad decision-makers themselves by losing clinical trust and confidence. I hope that the Government will rethink and ensure that the boards are able to have members who can provide a solely professional view of the whole population for whom the board has responsibility. I know we have already debated much of this, but I want the Government to think again, given the dangers of a further demoralisation in both primary and secondary care. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, it is essential that the board have available to it the skill set that you find in people at the clinical front line. I was interested to see that, putting the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, together, we have three people who are not representing one of the big acute hospitals, and one who is. Given the danger referred to by a number of noble Lords that the big acute hospitals will continue to have more influence in an integrated system than perhaps they should, that is a good element of putting the two amendments together.
As I said, it is important that clinical knowledge and experience be available to the board, but I would like to know that there is a balance and that this does not overwhelm other skill sets which all of us want to see represented; that became clear in the discussions we had last week about who should be on the board. With that caveat—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, might respond to that if she chooses to withdraw her amendment—I offer qualified support to what she is suggesting.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The two amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, add to those we have already discussed about who should serve on the board and what range of experience its members should have. Of course, we all agree that it is important to have clinical experience brought to the board. However, if this is about integration—I may have said something similar to this last week—mental health, social care, primary care and public health need to be part of the planning on these boards. In that respect, I give these amendments my support, but I think we need more discussion about this. At the moment, as far as I can gather—perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten me—the boards are pretty much made up and I do not think they fulfil the criteria of things we will need to bring to bear to have properly integrated planning in the places covered by these ICBs.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for bringing these amendments before the Committee today. I am also grateful to all noble Lords, who have offered me two bits of advice thus far: first, “You can make your life a lot easier if you just accept our amendments”; and secondly, “Don’t worry about the other amendments, just accept mine; that’s who needs to be on the board”. I hope all noble Lords understand the sort of advice I have been given, as I consider my response.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raises an important point and there is clearly understanding and support for ensuring that there is primary care representation on ICBs. This is a topic that we have both discussed and are likely to return to. I am in danger of sounding like a scratched record, for those who remember vinyl—I am told it is making a comeback—but I hope not to, or to labour the point too much, by repeating the arguments we have already discussed at length.
We fully agree that the membership of ICBs should include individuals from a number of places and this is why we have set a requirement that ICBs should have at least one member nominated by the primary medical care providers on the board. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made a couple of very useful points here. The board should have available to it the talent and skill sets that it needs, but there should also be a balance that does not overwhelm any one set of skills. That is one of our concerns as we look at not overprescribing the make-up of the ICBs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is absolutely correct that, given the debates we have had up to now, there will have to be more discussions on the ICBs between this stage and the next. I accept that; we will have meetings and roundtables to discuss this, and I know there might well be more amendments on the membership of the ICBs. Before those discussions, I would just reiterate at this stage that this is a floor, not a ceiling; it is a minimum requirement. ICBs are able to appoint individuals with those skills as they see fit, and we would hope that they would, to make sure that they meet the health requirements and tackle the health challenges of the local areas they cover. As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe said last time we discussed these issues, it is important not to be overprescriptive and close off the opportunities to tailor boards to each local area. The noble Lord spoke very eloquently about his experience of building a board in a particular place, which might have been quite different, had it been in another place.
Turning to Amendment 41B, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised an important point about ensuring there is sufficient representation of clinicians with experience of public health and secondary care. We fully agree that ensuring that sufficient clinical expertise is available to the ICB is critical. We do so through a duty imposed on ICBs to seek advice from persons with a range of professional expertise in, for example, prevention, which noble Lords have said we should focus on, diagnosis or treatment in illness, and the protection or improvement of public health. This applies at every level of the ICB and impacts how it discharges its functions. As a result, I can assure the Committee that the clinical voice will be heard loud and clear at every level—not just at the ICB or ICP level, but in the health and well-being boards.
For the reasons I have discussed, I am afraid that I do not agree at this stage that the best way to ensure this would be by requiring two additional members of the ICB. This would take away the flexibility provided to ICBs and potentially inhibit their ability to respond to their own area’s local needs. Finally, I would not want to risk ICBs believing that their duty to seek clinical advice would be discharged solely by appointing two clinicians to their board—saying, “Okay, we have those two clinicians, that box is ticked”. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made a point about a staff member called Gladys, whose role ticked a box. We have to be very careful that we do not repeat that mistake with two tick boxes. Instead, ICBs should seek appropriate advice from subject matter experts. This may mean seeking advice from different clinicians for different issues and developing different models of seeking advice for different types of decision.
As I said earlier, we will have discussions about the whole ICB composition between this stage and the next. In that spirit, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will be a little reassured and feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to both the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Thornton, for their comments, which I share. In the previous debate, I argued that we should have people from the allied health professions, and I do not dissent from that. This is not to replace them at all. I also completely recognise the Government’s comments that we need talent and a skills set. Having a balanced board means that you have to have the range of skills. Some people may bring several skills to the table, but they do not automatically bring them because they have a label on their head saying where they come from.
The other difficulty that we will face is that boards need to have contemporaneous experience in an area—and people go out of date remarkably quickly in different areas. The pandemic has shown how some areas have changed enormously in a very short space of time. The representations that I have had from the BMA, at a professional level, have been about how we make sure that the ICBs will be up to date with that contemporaneous input coming through all the time. I am glad to hear that the Minister plans to discuss all of this further. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mawson
“(d) one voting member nominated by place-based partnerships to represent their collective views in delivering their strategy.”
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, reminded us last Thursday that we have been talking about the social determinants of health and health inequalities for 40 years. It is now time to act. I want to get practical, and my three amendments are all about the practical detail—the “how” questions—about the transformation of the health culture and about new ways of thinking and working. My focus is on the first small, necessary steps on this journey.
Following my speech at Second Reading, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for agreeing to meet with me and the chairman and CEO of Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in north-west Surrey and allowing us to share with him and his colleagues, in more detail, the work that we have been doing there in recent years. This is set out in Hansard. This work builds on 37 years of work that my colleagues and I have been doing at the Bromley by Bow Centre in east London on the integration and place-making agenda.
The principles of the work in Bromley-by-Bow are now well known and are being shared with communities right across this country, and this work is now starting to have a national reach, through the Well North Enterprises programme, which I lead. I declare my interests. The work in north-west Surrey is one further practical example of what happens when you start to take these principles to scale and apply them to the place and neighbourhood agenda, which I suggest needs to be strengthened in this legislation.
The Minister thought that it might be helpful to the House if I first set out the background to my three amendments, which are focused on the importance of place and the local neighbourhood, before dealing specifically with the first amendment on the Order Paper. What does a modern integrated health service actually look like, and how do we take the first faltering steps towards it? I suggest that the clues are in the micro: in the place and the local neighbourhood.
The NHS is in some difficulty, and much of the narrative that underpins it is from the last century and now well out of date. The chairman of Ashford and St Peter’s hospital describes it as a “financially unsustainable illness service”, not a health service. Science and modern understanding of the integrated nature of life and health have, in recent years, taught us a great deal about the social determinants of health. Ironically, the pandemic has forced all of us—the nation, if not the world—to return to the simple question: what is health? Nowadays, we all know that health is no longer simply a biomedical matter for doctors and hospitals—indeed, it never has been. The Peckham experiment on the social determinants of health was telling us all this early in the last century, but the NHS in 1948 thought that it knew better and chose not to continue with this approach.
Health is everybody’s business. It is not just the domain of health professionals, hospitals and just one government department. If 70% of the determinants of health are social, and if our present business model for the health service is unsustainable, we desperately need to return to the central question: what is health? What changes to the narrative on services and provisions does the state now need to make to respond to this modern understanding of what health is all about? We need to get upstream towards prevention and early intervention. For this modern generation, which takes integration for granted, the siloed approach of the state will no longer cut it.
Over the last 37 years, my colleagues and I have built practical working pathfinder projects in real neighbourhoods with local people. Others may well refer to these in this debate, so I will not waste the Committee’s time now. The Bromley by Bow Centre is in London’s East End and is well known nationally and internationally, but we have been involved in other projects. Today, the Bromley by Bow Centre is responsible for 43,000 patients on four sites in Poplar. Working with local partners, we have built the first independent housing company, which is resident controlled and has connected health, housing, education and jobs and business skills. Today, it brings together people from many nations of the world who live there, around practical place-making, health and social projects. This housing company now owns 10,000 properties, owns 34% of the land in Poplar and has in play a regeneration programme worth many millions of pounds.
Today, the Bromley by Bow centre is visited by over 2,000 people from the public sector and across the world, who we find are desperately asking the same questions as us. These are the practical questions—“how” questions—about how we bring together the health services, local authorities and voluntary and business sectors and generate a 360 degree response to people’s health needs and lives and the opportunities in local communities. This is not a simple matter, but I suggest that the place to start is not in the macro but in the micro: in local communities and neighbourhoods, where lots of talent and opportunity lie that are not being tapped and never will be if you do not join them up and develop a very different approach.
In 2015, Duncan Selbie, who at the time was CEO of Public Health England, asked me to take this place-making work and the working principles of the Bromley by Bow Centre into towns and cities in challenging communities across the country. In partnership with the NHS, local authorities and business and voluntary sector partners, we created 10 innovation platforms in Bradford, Rotherham, Skelmersdale, Doncaster et cetera. We did not write policy papers or research documents, which, in my experience, often few read; we created practical learning-by-doing environments. The clues that we have found are local—in people and relationships—and not necessarily national.
My three amendments seek to use this legislation to tap into this local talent to take the first steps on the road to integration, with a necessary focus on the local, the place, the neighbourhood and the community. Health is a social matter: it is not just about private individuals, and we now desperately need to get upstream on the health agenda in this country and move forward.
This legislation, and the integration White Paper that is soon to follow, can help us all take the first steps in this century in the transformation of the NHS. I suggest that the micro is the way into the macro; it is not the other way around. In local neighbourhoods across the country, at a human level, we now need to create innovation platforms in local places and neighbourhoods, with public sector leaders and local people willing to support and generate new integrated approaches to health, and learn from them. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
As we expand our work across the country through practical engagement, we are finding that lots of people already get all of this. Many of them are in the public sector and the NHS and are desperately frustrated with the present state of affairs. They want to be health creators, but the system is not harnessing their creativity and energy—so, often unintentionally, it is pouring treacle into their projects and disempowering them, creating an ill organisation.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments and I especially support the noble Lord, Lord Mawson. It was typical of him that he started our thinking about what health is; I am sure there are many answers, but I think one of them might be integration—not just integration on the biggest scale but in terms of neighbourhoods, communities and what we now call place. That is so important. Those are the building blocks of all we are trying to do in the hierarchy of the National Health Service.
I am inspired by the noble Lord. He is a man of infinite resource and sagacity, an entrepreneur and, above all, a great achiever, based on solid principles which he believes in and, like a man of the cloth, is anxious to spread to others. He does so with really good effect.
It is no accident that I entitled my first report to the Government, many years ago when I was Mrs Cumberlege, Neighbourhood Nursing: A Focus for Care, as I believe the neighbourhood—or, in today’s parlance, the place—is all-important. This is what colours how people think, behave, succeed and, sometimes, fail. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has shown how even the most deprived areas can be rejuvenated and thrive with strong leadership, purpose and commitment. The noble Lord’s deep unshakeable philosophy is that patients, people and the local community should be the movers and shakers and be in control.
I want to mention Bromley by Bow, because it was a really innovative and new way of thinking about things. I remember visiting it years ago, not quite when it first started but when it was beginning to really thrive. Bromley by Bow was the first health centre in the country to be owned by the patients. Founded in 1984, it began with just 12 elderly patients, a rundown church, and just £400 in the bank. Today, by applying entrepreneurial principles to challenge social and health issues, it now has more than 250 staff. It is responsible for 43,000 patients, as the noble Lord said, and four health centre sites across Poplar. It operates on 30 sites even more widely across east London. It has supported local entrepreneurs. What is really interesting is that it has built 93 small and medium-sized enterprises. This is people helping themselves and ensuring that there is employment through a charitable structure, a housing company, which is controlled by the residents and now owns 10,000 properties and 34% of the land in Poplar.
This is a remarkable achievement in a very poor part of London. It is effective because it recognises that health and wealth are profoundly connected—not in huge municipal buildings and ivory towers remote from their populations but by the people who live and work in that area. The schemes are intertwined with the population. They are neighbourhood schemes and recognised as such. They are valued by being part of the destiny of a place in which local people live and work.
I visited Bromley by Bow in the early days, as I said, and I am really disappointed by my GP practice in the village in which I live and grew up. My father, one of two GPs, knew his patients literally inside and out. He knew who was getting off with whom. As his children, the first thing we learned was confidentiality and how to respect it, because we heard all sorts of things. He managed to get a health centre built. It is called that: above the entrance to the building it says, “The Health Centre”, but today it has been renamed the medical centre. It is a service that is not about health but about transacting to patients what the doctors think they need. The practice even shuns social prescribing, which is prevalent in many areas. It is also very careful not to involve the community. The friends of the health service have become disillusioned. They were established about 20 years ago and they are fed up with what is going on. Two weeks ago, they closed that organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, in his Amendment 41A seeks to use the new world of integrated care boards to ensure that local representation is guaranteed. We have had a lot of debate in this Committee about who should be on what board and so on, but in listening to those debates—there was a big one last Tuesday—I was very struck by people talking about the big battalions. I could see that people were trying to ensure places on the integrated care boards that were represented by the big battalions. That is understandable. They are the component parts of the NHS. There are parliamentarians who see this as the only way forward.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Might I have some clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson? He and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, have referred to three amendments and I can see only one. I would be grateful if he could enlighten me on which the other two amendments are that we might be addressing in this debate.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, there is just one amendment in this debate. My other two come further on.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a huge pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I have signed and strongly support all the amendments tabled by the noble Lord to ensure that integrated care boards are closely connected to local communities. We have riches yet to come: the noble Lord’s later amendments ensure that local solutions are prioritised, and that procurement is firmly rooted in local communities, but I will speak only to Amendment 41A.
I will give an example of when the noble Lord and I have been involved in another project, beyond the very important Bromley-by-Bow project that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, talked about; namely, the St Paul’s Way Transformation Project, the health, education, jobs and skills, and community campus which started in 2006. It is a great example of a response to the local challenges faced in an east London neighbourhood very close to Bromley-by-Bow, with failing health and education services and community relationships. This transformation project was focused on integration from day one and has been a huge success.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, talked about the extraordinary track record of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, as a social entrepreneur. He launched this project in partnership with the NHS and Tower Hamlets Council, and brought together the local authority, the local school, the GP network, the local housing association, Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association, and the diocese of London, to bring about transformational change in and around St Paul’s Way, a main street running through Poplar. Together they built a new secondary school, new primary school, new health centre, new mosque, new community centre and restaurant, new park, new street scene and 595 new homes. In parallel with this, the quality of the local leadership, and hence of local service provision, was transformed. The failing secondary school moved to Ofsted outstanding, the failed GP practice was replaced and its successor became CQC outstanding, and the independently monitored residents’ satisfaction level is currently 85%.
The St Paul’s Way project has been a great success story of local partnership with other local actors. For example, near neighbour Queen Mary University of London, the governing body of which I chair, with two campuses in Tower Hamlets, and which is intimately involved in the governance of St Paul’s Way Trust School, helped design and develop the school’s new science labs. They are in the health building, which the school uses and where we have taken space for our school of dentistry and DNA research.
Partners in the local schools, the GP practice and the housing association have played an important role in recent years, as they have shared their work and experience with communities in towns and cities across the north of England and now beyond. However, the project faces major challenges, as outdated NHS procurement systems are now in danger of undermining the good work that it has been doing for over a decade. Amid this project being put together, the PCT procured a primary healthcare provider with no London experience, let alone any local experience. After two years, it surrendered the contract because it had not understood that primary healthcare is very different and costs a lot more to deliver in Poplar than in affluent suburbs. This experience is an illustration of the importance of there being a neighbourhood voice in the making of decisions by the NHS, which, if they are got wrong, can damage the ability of local integrated partnerships to function and develop effectively at the neighbourhood level. There is an opportunity to address this in legislation.
In this light, how can the Government make integration a reality? This is a clear example of disconnects that will be replicated on other streets across the country, and a demonstration of what happens when the NHS procurement systems and policy do not take place and neighbourhood seriously. Health is about bringing people and communities together, not undermining them. The solutions are often local and not in large outdated systems and processes. This local approach must be embraced. It is at the 50,000-person neighbourhood level, not an enormous eight-borough ICS where integration aimed at innovation in prevention and recovery can be most effective. Neighbourhood must be understood, valued, and given leverage in the system and flexible use of budgets. It is at this level that the actual practical interventions can happen. It is here that schools, housing, job opportunities and community action can happen. Neighbourhoods can act with speed and agility.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, suggested that the Ministers visit Bromley-by-Bow; equally, I suggest a visit to the St Paul’s Way transformation project. This amendment is as much about creating the right culture as the right representative structure. I hope that the Government accept this important amendment and the other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on this subject.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I too was very happy to sign this amendment. I will speak only to it. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on her very moving speech, and the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on a very comprehensive speech. I will be brief. In view of the logic of everything that I have heard in debates on previous amendments this afternoon, this amendment is even more important than I thought. When the Committee is discussing how to make the ICBs as effective, powerful, salient and comprehensive as possible for the people that they are bound to serve, all these factors must be taken into consideration, but the power of place itself and the opportunity that the ICB creates to make this manifest, just as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has made manifest in Bow, is a unique and highly innovative opportunity, and one which may not come again.
What the noble Lord proposes is extremely modest. It is to give just one person from the partnership voting power. However, it is essential, and it is in the spirit and the logic of what place-based partnerships are intended to do. It means that on the ICB there will be people who can bring nearsight, access and reach into the community to the decisions of the ICBs. They can help to inform those decisions, to bring that knowledge and sensitivity of the lives that people live, what they are faced with, and their specific choices. They are one of the most optimistic partnerships and ideas that we have had in this House for some years.
I have spoken many times in this House on the power of place, what it can achieve and how it affects people’s lives, particularly their health. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I published quite a useful report on building better places when we were on the same committee a few years ago. We diagnosed the relationship between good design, good buildings, good environments and good health. Maybe it is time to get that back off the shelf.
What is also useful is that the partnership principle is alive and well and is generating good practice. There is increasing evidence that it works and that there is an increasing exchange of ideas and skills, and we are learning all the time about what is possible. There is nothing to be said against this.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to Well North Enterprises, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson. I congratulate him, and other noble Lords from different parts of the House who have spoken on this amendment, on making the whole issue extremely clear.
I will make a few very specific points. First, we have heard about great big projects making a massive different. Everyone in your Lordships’ House, I am sure, knows of smaller examples that are making a real difference, as well as the larger examples, and how the small examples are important and add up.
Secondly, this is about change happening locally, but it is also about what is happening globally. I have previously quoted, in this House, a saying by a friend of mine, who used to run the Ugandan health service, that “Health is made at home, hospitals are for repairs”. It is a powerful expression, and one might say that health is made at home and in the community, and in the workplace and in the school. It also contains the notion that health can be created; it is not just about preventing disease.
Noble Lords may like to know that, more recently, globally, the WHO published the Geneva Charter for Well-being at the end of December, which explicitly talks about the creation of a “well-being society”. So this is a global movement we are talking about, not just a local one—although, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has continually emphasised, this is about the importance of practical changes at the local level.
I will make two final points. The big one is that when we think about the membership of the ICBs, it is important we have the insiders there—the clinicians and the people who know how the systems work—but we also need some outsiders there. Referring to the debate on the last group, this is not just about different skill sets; it is about different behaviours and doing different things in different ways. Those of us who have worked within the system are bound by the system and think in terms of the system and its regularities.
The sort of people the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, is talking about do not start by thinking about the system; they start by basing things on relationships and learning by doing—a point that he emphasised. So there are different ways of doing things, and it is important that, as these boards are constructed, they bring in people with that different approach, alongside the great knowledge and skill that NHS and other clinicians bring to this. I know that we will really achieve success by bringing together insiders and outsiders, and getting people working together and understanding how to do things.
My final point is that this amendment proposes having a person representing or drawn from these groups on the ICB. I recognise the debate that has been going on about tying the hands of local people about what is happening on these ICBs. I understand that as these things get larger not only are you including more voices but also, implicitly, you are including more vetoes. The health service has, over the years, suffered from having too many people with too many vetoes in terms of making change happen.
I understand the complexity and difficulty here, but the final part of my point is to ask the Minister a question. I asked him a question earlier, because—I do not know whether I am alone here—I am not sure that I understand how, in reality, all these bits will fit together and work together in this new structure. I know he committed, in an earlier part of the debate on the Bill, to providing us with a diagram and perhaps more of an explanation of how it will all work. I can see how the complexities of everything we are talking about here can be difficult.
The single point I want to reinforce is the importance of not just having insiders in the decision-making process, but also having more disruptive influences. It is not just about skill sets; it is about different ways of thinking and behaving, and a focus on relationships, not just on systems.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I also rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, in his amendment, and congratulate him and his colleagues on the extraordinary work they have done.
I support the Bill precisely because integration will be key to delivering the health outcomes that we all seek. But I worry that, if the Bill is just rearranging the organisational deckchairs, with exactly the same people in different organisations with different three-letter acronyms, we will not change anything at all.
I think that, over the course of the nearly three days we have spent in Committee and on Second Reading, there is cross-party agreement on the nature of the problem we are trying to solve. In each debate we have had over the last two and a half days, whether on health inequalities, mental health, the social determinants of health, or person-centred digitally enabled care, there has been extraordinary cross-party agreement on the nature of the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we are debating and disagreeing more on the means to the ends than anything else.
One of the means to the ends is local—genuine local ownership and leadership. Like many in your Lordships’ House, I have made the pilgrimage to Bromley by Bow and I have also been to St Paul’s Way. When I first joined the NHS, about five years ago, I was told to go to Bromley by Bow, and I was told by a number of NHS insiders how brilliant it was, but how impossible it was to replicate anywhere else. “Go and have a look at it, Dido,” they said, “because you’ll be amazed and impressed, but no one’s worked out how to spread it”.
What I have actually discovered, as we have heard today from people with far more experience of place-based leadership than I have, is that brilliant though Bromley by Bow is, it is not alone. There are fantastic place-based leaders in communities across the country. It is those local groups and leaders who we owe the exit from Covid to more than anyone else, I suspect.
I have had the privilege of working alongside them. I have been to north-west Surrey with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, but also to Wolverhampton, to the Guru Nanak Sikh gurdwara, one of the first local testing sites for NHS Test and Trace. I have been to Gloucester and spent time with Gloucester FM, a local community radio station that for the first time in its existence got funding to run an advertising campaign to encourage people to come and get vaccinated in the local community. That was the first time it had succeeded in working collaboratively with the local NHS.
I have been across the country in the last two years talking to people from groups who feel excluded. Whether it is the Roma Gypsy community, Travellers, refugees, taxi drivers or faith leaders from a whole host of communities, all have told me—in both my previous role as chair of NHS Improvement and as executive chair of NHS Test and Trace—how in different ways they felt excluded not just from the NHS but from society in general. They also said, generally to a man and a woman, how hard the NHS is to work with when you are from a small, outside local group, as those of us who have worked in the NHS know.
It is with that knowledge base that I wholeheartedly endorse the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson—but with a “but”. I have been consistent in the last two and a half days of Committee in being nervous about adding specific roles and experiences to what is now a growing list of characteristics and past experience we would all like to see in this new three-letter acronym NHS entity, the integrated care board.
I would like to post a question to the Minister. It is clear that we need these local voices—the grit in the oyster, as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege described it; the difference that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is referencing; people from outside the system—if this new reorganisation is going to be anything more than a rearranging of the deck chairs. How will we ensure that those local voices are genuinely heard in an integrated care board?
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Mawson and others, and in so doing congratulate him on his thoughtful introduction. It is clear that one of the most important aspects, and the purpose, of this Bill is to ensure integration at a local level. But the purpose of that integration must surely be—as has been confirmed by the Minister—to improve health outcomes for the entire population. It is well recognised that that can happen only if the social determinants of health in local communities are addressed appropriately and effectively, in a way that our health system has not been able to do to date.
If we accept that to be the purpose, then local integration—that focus on and understanding of the social determinants of health—and responding to local needs must be secured in the organisation of the integrated care systems and their boards. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and others, to achieve that, one must not only understand, appreciate and hear the local voice, but be clear that the culture that is established in these systems is responsive to those voices and is determined to act on them and the understanding of the local situation—particularly those social determinants that extend far beyond what has been and can be delivered through healthcare alone—and focus on other issues such as housing, education and employment. It would be most helpful if the Minister, in answering this debate, could explain how that is going to be achieved in the proposed construction of the integrated care boards.
Of course, one recognises that Her Majesty’s Government are deeply committed to this agenda. But it is clear that if these boards are not constructed in such a way that they can change the culture and drive, in an effective and determined fashion, a recognition of those social determinants and create opportunities at a local level to address them, much of the purpose of this well meant and well accepted proposal for greater integrated care at a local level will fail.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I did not originally intend to contribute to this debate. However, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for his Amendment 41A, which, although modest in scope, has initiated an extremely useful debate and raised a lot of important issues. I do not want to add a lot of material to the debate, but I want to focus on the questions that have emerged from it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for what has been a very interesting and important debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for his amendment, and I look forward to further development of the thought process that he has put before the Committee. Of course, it is not new. I started my working life working for Michael Young, the great sociologist in Bethnal Green, and we talked about ethnographic research in our neighbourhoods and places. It was about giving people who lived in those places power and developing their own leadership of what they wanted to happen. Of course, in those days, when he started doing his work, it was about regenerating inner London—the bomb-strewn East End. I had the great privilege of running the Young Foundation: a few years ago, I took a couple of years off from this job here to go and run it, and we were doing exactly the place-based work that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, talked about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, is completely right: there are many Bromley by Bow-type programmes across the country—and thank goodness for that. If the Minister decides to go on trips to places, Bromley by Bow is of course important. I went there when it started out, when I was the founding chair of Social Enterprise UK, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is quite right: it is brilliant, it is wonderful, it does great work —but why has it not been replicated? That is a question I have discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on and off over many years. But there are many other types, and I suggest that the Minister might go to Manchester, Bradford or Nottingham, where there are some brilliant programmes where this place-based delivery of healthcare and other care is thriving.
The consensus breaking out between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is of course that this Bill is an opportunity: how and where in the Bill can that place-based initiative be expressed? Where is it and how can it be encouraged? The King’s Fund did a piece of work developing place-based partnerships as part of the process leading up to the Bill, which was published last year. It has some interesting and useful things which express the sorts of sentiments—but in NHS-speak—that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, talked about today: the importance of connecting communities, jointly planning and co-ordinating services, making the best of financial resources, supporting the local workforce, and driving improvements through local oversight and quality provision. There are certain elements of this which need to be there and need somehow to be built into the Bill, possibly in enabling form, because they mean building multiagency partnerships which involve local government, NHS organisations, voluntary service organisations, social enterprises and the communities themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, rightly asks in his amendment for one voting ICB board member to be nominated by place-based partnerships. That may or may not be a good way forward, but we are trying to do systems change and, whether or not putting one person on a board is the way to do that, it is a very good place to start. So we on these Benches are very interested in how this develops and want to be part of the discussions across the House about how we do that.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, no one is better placed, whether inside or outside your Lordships’ House, to advocate place-based partnerships than the noble Lord, Lord Mawson. I know he will remember that one of my first visits as a Health Minister in 2010, at his invitation, was to Bromley by Bow. What I learned that day made a deep impression on me, so I, like many noble Lords, need no convincing of the case that he and other speakers have made today.
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has tabled Amendment 165 on place-based arrangements, to be debated by this Committee later in our proceedings, so no doubt we will cover the issues in more detail then. For now, I say that the Government absolutely agree with the importance of having strong place-based elements in ICBs. Place-based structures will play an important role in delivering healthcare services for their population groups and we expect there to be open and clear lines of communication between the board of the ICB and place-based structures.
How is a sense of place given—as it were—tangible substance and meaning? I would argue that we do not necessarily need the Bill to articulate the reality. At a very basic level, an ICB will cover a geographic area. We would expect ICBs to be closely linked to their places via bodies such as health and well-being boards, where they will sit as the successor bodies to CCGs, and local authorities. ICBs will sit on the integrated care partnership as well as the health and well-being boards. Both bodies are vital in bringing together health, social care, public health and, potentially, wider views as well. That will be part and parcel of delivering their duty to involve patients, carers and the public when discharging their functions.
We expect ICBs to have place-based structures in place, but we do not want to prescribe what those structures are. As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said himself, we do not want ICBs to think that place-based partnerships are achievable via a central blueprint, or that a set of instructions from above is likely to be a substitute for learning by doing and local relationships. What we shall insist on is that an ICB sets out the arrangements for the exercise of its functions clearly in its constitution. Different areas have different needs, and I hope it is a point of agreement across the Committee that a one-size-fits-all model would not be appropriate.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for those thoughts and comments. I also thank noble Lords who have supported this amendment and this very encouraging debate. The purpose of today was to open up a discussion about these issues. They have been very well aired and I think the discussion needs to go further. Certainly, I would like to take further with the Minister and his colleague the discussion around the implications. My concern is to ensure that the significance of place and neighbourhood and that the role of the micro is absolutely clear at an ICB level. Senior colleagues in the NHS where I am working warn me to be very careful about this. The danger is that fine words will be used, but as others have said, this is not about words; this is about understanding the actions that now need to take place to really transform the health service. The micro and the macro need to learn to dance together, and that will not happen unless there is greater clarity on it. It has been a helpful conversation and one that I hope will be taken further.
I have a few final thoughts. It has been good to have colleagues from different parties and very different backgrounds in this discussion, which I have found very helpful. This is not a party-political matter; this is about the next 20 or 30 years of the National Health Service. There are likely to be different Governments and different parties with responsibility, but laying the foundation stones correctly and getting the detail right—it is all about the devil in the detail, in my view—is really important.
It was very interesting to hear bits of the history. It was Lord Michael Young who came to see me, many years ago, in Bromley by Bow, precisely because he got very interested in what we were doing. It was not just that he joined us as a community and became our patron—we have had patrons from different parties; Lord Peyton from the Conservative Party was a patron for many years, as was Lord Ennals from the Labour Party. Lord Young ended up asking me to marry him and his new wife. I had to do the marriage, and eventually the baptism of his child, so there is a long history. Allison Trimble, my former chief executive, was called to work in the King’s Fund precisely to help it understand the devil in the detail of what we were discovering, so this debate brought back many memories for me.
One of the last few things to say is that it is important in this journey that we create a learning-by-doing culture. This culture is very well known to science. In part of my life, I work with Professor Brian Cox, who knows a thing or two about science. I think the reason we get on is that we both understand that science and entrepreneurship are profoundly connected. It is not just the health service, in my view, but the whole public sector that needs now to embrace a learning-by-doing culture that moves beyond strategy and process into learning from the practical things it does and does not do.
Finally, I thank Suzanne Rankin, the chief executive of Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals, and the chairman, Andy Field—Suzanne is a brilliant chief exec and Andy is a rather excellent chairman—for joining in this conversation with the Minister. I also thank colleagues from the hospital, who I think we would agree have been very brave, and who have now, with four local authorities, set out on a journey to lead the way in Surrey on what this might mean when you start to move it to scale. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We come to Amendment 42, where the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, will be taking part remotely.
Amendment 42
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(7) The constitution must provide for one non-voting member to be appointed by the local healthwatch organisations whose areas fall wholly or partly within the area of the integrated care board.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment provides for local healthwatch organisations to be represented on integrated care boards in a non-voting capacity.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group concerning Healthwatch and, although it is important, I shall attempt to be brief.
We debated this, of course, in the Health and Social Care Bill 2012. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Patel, led a debate in which he called for the national Healthwatch to be made independent. He said then that embedding Healthwatch in England in the CQC was a mistake. I agreed with him then and I agree with him now. I would argue to the Government that there would be a big advantage in making Healthwatch fully independent. Of course, I am also concerned about local Healthwatch, to make sure it has enough influence in the new system as well.
It is right to pay tribute to the work of Healthwatch. I think it has done a good job since it has been established. Recent reports of national Healthwatch have been about access to dental care, on which I have an Oral Question in a week or two’s time. It undertook a very interesting analysis of the Government’s social care plans compared with proposals, and compared that with what people had told Healthwatch would make social care better.
Locally, my own Healthwatch in Birmingham has done some excellent work. I particularly mention a recent report on digital exclusion during the pandemic, when there was a sudden shift—like everywhere—towards remote access to care. Birmingham Healthwatch identified five principles for post-Covid-19 care, to ensure that everyone has access to the appointments they needed. This included a commitment to digital inclusion by treating the internet as a universal right. I believe its work has contributed more generally to the way in which this is being taken forward in the system. I think that, under the circumstances it has been operating in—not without difficulty and not without some tensions with local authorities—it has made a good start.
I want to just push Healthwatch on a little further and I want the Government to help. First, I am absolutely convinced that national Healthwatch should be an independent body. I have never understood the thinking that it should be a statutory committee within the CQC. I assume it is because, at the time, the Government were going through one of those wearying bonfire of the quangos that all Governments go through before they set up new quangos, to then have another bonfire a few years later. It just makes no sense. Clearly, they have complementary roles, and I am sure that the CQC takes note of what Healthwatch says, but they are different roles: one is the statutory regulator; the other has a responsibility for raising issues on behalf of the public who use the health services.
The question then arises of how we can strengthen Healthwatch at the local level. Will the systems, the integrated care partnerships and integrated care boards, listen to what Healthwatch has to say? A recent survey of ICS leaders—all there, in position—for Healthwatch England and NHS England shows that 80% would support Healthwatch having a formal seat at the table of the ICB if it were set out in legislation or guidance. What about the other 20%? Should it really be down to the vagaries of local leadership to exclude Healthwatch from those local bodies? I really do not think so.
I do not know if the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in answering, is going to be of a centralist or localist philosophy, or both, but it is always interesting to discuss. He and I have been discussing NHS structure for some 25 years now, and somehow the arguments tend to go on. It would be a real advantage for boards and partnerships to have Healthwatch around the table. It need not have voting members—indeed, I do not think it should. It is doing incredibly good work and has not been given enough publicity or recognition by people in the NHS. This surely is a way in which we can do this.
The Government also need to look at the budgets of Healthwatch England, which is going to have to support extra work and will need to be given more resources. Through local authorities, we need to make sure local Healthwatch has enough resources to deal with the pressing issues and challenges it is going to face. Having said that, our job today is just to encourage national and local Healthwatch to build on what they have done. I hope we can do this in as positive a way as possible. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is now able to speak and I invite her to do so.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is taking part today. He has been involved in a family emergency, which shows how important grandparents are in the care of children.
I have added my name to some of the amendments in this group but support them all. The Bill will be improved if the patient voice is included in both the integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships by Healthwatch, which could collect data from different sources representing patients. There should be co-operation and working together throughout the NHS, co-operation with the CQC and better integration throughout so that standards are kept high across the country.
The recent report, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, First Do No Harm, also demonstrates how important the patient’s voice is. As Healthwatch is spread so thinly at the moment across England, it will have to be bolstered so that it can do the job. The Bill should set clearer expectations for local systems on the need to use the views and experiences of their local communities to inform decisions. The aim is to establish Healthwatch as an independent body rather than a sub-committee of the CQC. The voice of patients will provide so much first-hand experience, and public involvement is so important to help improve standards throughout the country.
Patients can highlight good experiences and services that need improving. Often, communication needs improving, as does hospital food, which differs across the health service, waiting times, late diagnosis, ambulance provision and many other concerns. Many patients want to give something back to the health service when they have had to use it. Being a dedicated member of Healthwatch could be a solution. I hope the Government will appreciate the benefit of the public working with them rather than against them.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his place. I welcome him back and am pleased to hear that things are good with his family. As he mentioned, in 2012 I led on the amendment arguing for Healthwatch to be made independent. I did not succeed—it was defeated by 22 votes—but we had a coalition Government at the time, so I did not stand much chance anyway. I will try again today.
My name is attached to all the amendments in this group. They are the key amendments relating to local and national Healthwatch, and they address public and patient involvement in the Bill. The Bill says a lot about how patients will be centre stage in the whole reorganisation, so it is important that the patient voice be heard. How will we do that?
Amendment 220 is about the independence of Healthwatch England in statute and its ability to get the information about health services it will need to do its job. The Government’s genuine aspiration to establish an effective system of public involvement requires that Healthwatch England be strengthened by making it truly independent. In fact it deserves it; it has grown into its role and proved its worth. Healthwatch England should provide a national vehicle to drive standards of health and social care and identify areas of poor practice. It has a very special mission that is quite different from that of the regulator, the CQC, of which the Government want Healthwatch England to be a committee. Healthwatch England should be the voice of the people, the voice to which the Secretary of State listens, working in close collaboration with the CQC but also able to hold it to account.
Healthwatch England should be the voice of the abused patient—of the forgotten person with dementia on the second floor of a nursing home, of the child with a learning disability who is getting poor care on a children’s ward, of the people waiting for excessive periods for emergency care in an A&E department. When a local Healthwatch or member of the public raises their voice because of a persistent local problem, as occurred in Mid Staffordshire, Healthwatch England must hear it and respond immediately. To do so, it needs to be independent.
Embedding Healthwatch England in the CQC is a fundamental error, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said. Calling it “a committee” is a fundamental error: it diminishes its power and influence. The only people who think a committee is important are the people who sit on it. Having sat on so many of them, I might agree. It has been argued that locating Healthwatch England within the CQC puts it at the centre of regulation, where it can have real power and influence. However, it cannot have power and influence if it is a committee of the regulator. To have power and influence it needs independence and the ability to challenge the regulator, and to have influence with every local authority in England. It must be seen to be independent, not just called independent. Being independent and being seen to be so requires Healthwatch England to be run by a board that has public trust and confidence, meets in public and speaks to the public, not the board of the CQC.
With the development of the ICS, it is even more important that Healthwatch England is an independent voice of patients and the public. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. My name is attached to Amendment 149, but I want to talk more generally about this group. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am very supportive of the work of Healthwatch, at both national and local level. It provides very helpful and important insights about what it is like to be at the receiving end of our healthcare system. We sometimes do not hear quite enough about that. The national-local structure is helpful, ensuring that local bottom-up insights are then reflected in national-level reports.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I have found some of the reports produced by Healthwatch recently, and during the pandemic, extremely helpful. I am thinking of its work on mental health—particularly, children’s mental health. It has also done a series of projects on social care that are very relevant to the current situation. One project particularly dear to my heart involved engaging with care home residents and their loved ones, and feeding insights into the development of national visiting guidance—very practical, important work. Another recent report, which I have already quoted in your Lordships’ House, looked at vaccine confidence and, particularly, what might need to be done to help support those communities with a higher degree of vaccine hesitancy; again, Healthwatch does some really important work.
I turn now to the amendments more specifically. In the recent survey of ICS leaders for Healthwatch England and NHS England, 80% of respondents said that they would support Healthwatch having a formal seat on the ICB if this was set out in legislation or guidance. We have already heard the question: what about the other 20%? Should noble Lords have the time, I recommend a quick look at the Healthwatch document and the survey, mapping the relationship between local Healthwatch and integrated care systems. There is a lot of important information in it. I particularly noted in the survey that 100% of ICS respondents said that they would support a mandated seat for Healthwatch on the integrated care partnership. That was one of the main reasons that I wanted to add my name to Amendment 149.
Fundamentally, why I think this so important is that I am not convinced that, in all our important deliberations so far, sufficient weight has been given to what we might call the service user voice or the individual patient voice more generally. These deliberations have, understandably, been very much about structures and how these new integrated care systems will work. I feel that there is scope for the Bill to set out some minimum requirements to ensure that the patient voice is heard at the decision-making table. It is fine to have lots of other sentiments about patient voices but, are they there, and are they heard at that table?
The principle is really quite simple. Patient choice at an individual level—that is, in relation to the patient’s own healthcare—has changed radically. We have moved from a situation where the doctor knows best and will tell you what is happening to the doctor setting out the options and you making a decision with the doctor—almost a co-produced decision. We need to think more about that approach, at the community level, the local level and then the integrated care system level. This will be particularly important in relation to tackling health inequalities because, frankly, if people are not involved in the decision-making or feel that their voice is not being heard, they often do not trust the outcome.
A recurrent theme in our discussions so far has been who should be on what body. We have had those big debates about whether there should be public health and mental health representatives and so on, which are very important, and those conversations still have some way to go, and we have just had this very interesting debate about place-based partnerships and “insiders” and “outsiders”. Again, that has quite a long way to go, but it would be ridiculous if the patient was seen as the outsider; patients need to be front and centre of all this and the reason we are undertaking a restructuring in the first place.
My main plea is that in all our discussions we consider the user voice and how it can be heard. I think that Healthwatch is an obvious way of doing it; it has the existing infrastructure. There may well be other ways of doing it, but that was the reason I was keen to support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my health interests as declared in the register; in particular, I chair the General Dental Council, but I should make it clear that I am not speaking on its behalf in Committee.
Almost exactly 35 years ago, I became director of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, which was then the national statutory body representing the interests of the patients and the public in the NHS. Since then, both local and national representation of patients has gone through a series of iterations—indeed, the number of occasions on which I have been sitting on the opposite side of the Chamber from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talking about patient representation seems too many to recount. After community health councils, we went through a series of iterations of which local Healthwatch is the latest version. I admit that when we had the debate which my noble friend Lord Hunt began by referring to, I was extremely dubious about whether local Healthwatch would be able to flourish and the national body be effective. I have to say that my worst fears have not been founded, but it has to be recognised that the way in which it was structured, in particular the late changes introduced by the Government during that legislation, made it much more difficult for Healthwatch, both at local and at national level, to be as effective as it might be.
The context of this debate is the centrality of patients and service users in delivery. Every time the NHS is reorganised, whether it was the reorganisation of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, or the reorganisations we have every three years or so, there is always a grand White Paper which says, “Patients will be at the centre of this new structure”, but it is never quite like that. In the new arrangements being brought forward, the Government need to make sure that the local patient voice is represented and articulated and that, at national level, those voices can be aggregated and put forward. That is why this group of amendments is so important.
We have just had a debate which ended up revolving around how many separate interests should be represented on the various bodies that we are creating. I can see the problems if we add and add, and how difficult that is going to be. However, what I hope the Government will take away from the consideration of this amendment and look at before Report is how they can make the patient representative structure within the future arrangements better and more effective. I think that a number of things could be done.
The first is about the budgets. The budgets for local Healthwatch go through a complicated, notional process. It is very difficult to define why the allocations are what they are. It would be far better if it was clear what the expectations were to run a local Healthwatch and to deliver what is needed.
The second thing that can be done concerns the degrees of independence: from the local authority, health providers and health commissioners, at the local level, and from the CQC at the national level. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, talked about the problems of Healthwatch England being a sub-committee of the CQC. I understand that the relationship has actually worked quite well, but that is probably because of the good will of all concerned. It might be that, in the future, Healthwatch England has serious criticisms of the regulator. How can it do that, as a sub-committee of that body? Whether formally or informally, you can see the difficulties.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support that. It seems to me that the National Health Service is devoted to looking after patients. Therefore, it is very strange that there is no national voice for patients to speak to it. In a way, Healthwatch England fulfils that—but in a very awkward position.
I do not know exactly the relationship within the constitution of the committee and the CQC. For example, it may be important that knowledge that Healthwatch has goes to the CQC, but it must be much better for it to be independent at every level, national and local, and to not take part in any of the particular arrangements but rather independently give the pure voice of the patients, which it has received, as it were, from the people who have been served by the National Health Service, whether that is complimentary or otherwise, according to what has actually happened. That seems to me to be essential. I cannot think that it is effective to have a National Health Service with no voice to be heard at the centre from the patients.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I quite often buy things online and, a few days after the product has arrived, I often get an email saying, “How did we do? Give us one, two, three, four or five stars.” That can be very irritating, and I suspect that, on the whole, people do not respond, unless the service has either been dreadful or brilliant—that is certainly so in my case. The voice of the patient is far more important than that and, if we are to assess the performance of different ICSs, the voice of the patient is absolutely fundamental to gathering the evidence, using which we can compare their performance.
A few years ago, I had to be in hospital, just for a few days. At the end of my treatment, when I was about to go home, I was handed a little slip of paper. I do not know if they still do this, but it had some kind of snappy title like, “Tell us how we did”. I thought it was totally inadequate, because here was I, as a patient, having had a general anaesthetic, feeling a bit wobbly, but crucially, having had only the experience of that particular treatment in that particular hospital. The beauty of Healthwatch is that it can compare the experience of patients, heard directly from those patients, of a lot of different treatments in different settings. It can bring together the voice of the patient and—absolutely crucially—it has the ear of the people who deliver those services and can authoritatively explain to them where they are doing well and where they are doing badly.
In this group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others have got it right in their suggestions about the level at which Healthwatch should have a voice: non-voting membership of the ICB, voting membership of the ICP and, crucially, independence from the CQC. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, put it very well: how on earth could Healthwatch criticise the CQC as the regulator if it is part of it? It is a little bit like asking a civil servant to criticise the Prime Minister, is it not? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others who have spoken have got the level right at which Healthwatch should play its part in this great new world of integrated services. The view of the patient of the experience that they received at the hands of all the health and care services is absolutely crucial to being able to compare the performance of these bodies that we are setting up.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords in their quest in this suite of amendments to underline the important and crucial role played by Healthwatch, particularly at local level, and to ensure that the new NHS structures and processes in the Bill fully recognise this.
Under the 2012 Bill, the noble Lord and others who have put their names to the amendment and who have spoken in today’s debate were all strong advocates of Healthwatch, and clearly remain so today. The concerns deeply expressed then of the Government’s decision to make national Healthwatch a sub-committee of the CQC, and not the independent organisation that it needed to be, have again come to the fore. Amendment 220 would add a new clause after Clause 80, seeking to establish Healthwatch England as a body corporate that provides an annual report of its activities to Parliament; it has the full support of these Benches. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has strongly emphasised, failing to provide for the independence of Healthwatch was a fundamental error that needs to be put right. He set out a particularly strong case, as have other noble Lords this time around.
Amendment 42 to Schedule 2 seeks to ensure that Healthwatch is a non-voting member of the ICB, so that there can be a genuine championing of patients’ voices and views, which many noble Lords have spoken so strongly about today. These are views fed back from evidence and surveys conducted by both national and local Healthwatch organisations. At the very least, it is crucial to seek to ensure—as set out in Amendment 103 to Clause 20—that the ICB is obliged to fully consider Healthwatch reports and that that body leads any local consultations proposed in the ICB forward plans.
Amendment 149 to Clause 21, seeking to ensure that ICPs have a Healthwatch nominee in membership, is also important, given the local Healthwatch links to both the NHS and local authority bodies, patients and clients.
Key questions on how Healthwatch, both at national and system level, is to be funded were raised by my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Harris, particularly about the whole process of allocating funds. This is important in view of the increased role of Healthwatch in the additional 42 ICSs. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Finally, I also endorse noble Lords’ comments on the excellence of the reports produced by national and local Healthwatch organisations. Their guidance on access to social care, mentioned by several noble Lords, and comments on the detailed proposals later in the Bill on the care cap and the recent White Paper, are clear and accessible to service users, and closely examine the impact for them, and for the thousands of people currently waiting for assessment and access to key services. However, those are issues for another day. I hope that the Minister has listened to the debate.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, these amendments deal, in their several ways, with the role of Healthwatch both locally and nationally. I begin with Amendment 42, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. This amendment would require ICBs to make provision in their constitutions for a non-voting member to be appointed from local Healthwatch branches.
I lay great importance, as do other noble Lords, on Healthwatch’s work on patient advocacy. However, as I said in relation to other amendments on the membership of ICBs—I know this is turning into something of a mantra—we want to avoid the Bill’s provisions being too prescriptive. It is essential that we provide local leaders the flexibility to design the board in a way that best suits each area’s unique needs. Even a non-voting member risks making the boards less nimble, undermining their ability to make important decisions efficiently. As I am sure the Committee is already aware, the ICB can appoint more members, including a Healthwatch representative, if it wishes, and I am sure many of them will. What is key is that local boards should be able to decide for themselves to appoint individuals with the necessary expertise to address local needs, and we want to allow them as much scope as possible to do so by not prescribing who all those members should be.
That said, I recognise that the growing complexity of health and care demands that we listen to the voice of patients, carers and the public. We want to ensure that they are heard throughout the system. I contend that there is adequate provision in the Bill to ensure that patients and the public are appropriately consulted and involved in decisions made by the ICB. I draw noble Lords’ attention to new Section 14Z36, regarding the duty to promote the involvement of each patient, and new Section 14Z44, regarding public involvement and consultation by ICBs.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, as I always do, about the particular need for adequate and appropriate funding of local Healthwatch. If I may, I shall take away the points he made on that issue and others and write to him about them. We would expect Healthwatch to be closely involved with ICBs in carrying out their engagement and involvement duties. On what do we base that expectation? Many systems already have some system-level arrangements in place with Healthwatch. Indeed, NHS England has published guidance, which would apply to ICBs, on working with people and communities that encourages working closely with Healthwatch. Therefore, given that ICBs will already be required to engage patients closely in their decision-making process, and that we expect Healthwatch will be closely involved in that, we consider it unnecessary to require in legislation a member drawn from Healthwatch.
Amendment 103 would alter ICBs’ duties in relation to public involvement to require them to make adequate arrangements for the receipt and consideration of any relevant Healthwatch reports. As I said, the existing ICBs’ duties in relation to patient involvement are already comprehensive, and the amendment could unintentionally limit ICBs’ ability to form relationships with Healthwatch and other organisations appropriate for their area. As was the case for CCGs, ICBs will be required to make arrangements to involve patients in the planning of commissioning arrangements in areas that may impact the manner in which services are delivered, or the range of services available. This will ensure that patients receive appropriate representation where decisions are being made that could affect them.
I previously mentioned that NHS England, in its guidance to ICBs, has encouraged close working with Healthwatch. This guidance comes with the acknowledgement that what an appropriate relationship with Healthwatch looks like will vary from system to system. For this reason, we are seeking to establish comprehensive duties and requirements in the legislation while leaving the specifics of local relationships with organisations such as Healthwatch for ICBs to determine for themselves.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and all noble Lords who have taken part and been supportive of this group of amendments. I very much take what the noble Earl said about the general recognition of the importance of the work of Healthwatch, both nationally and locally, and the way it has gone about doing it. With Sir Robert Francis as the current chair of Healthwatch England, we have someone who commands a great deal of respect and gives the leadership one would expect from a person of that calibre and experience.
What we are looking for, though, is a visible sign of the Government’s intent on the importance of Healthwatch, both nationally and locally. Frankly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested in his very helpful intervention, having the status of being a committee of a regulator does not give the right appearance of the importance and independence of this body. My noble friend Lord Harris is absolutely right that there could be circumstances in which Healthwatch criticised the work of the CQC. Indeed, the more the CQC takes on system responsibilities, the more likely that is.
In relation to ICPs, the Government “expect”. It is a very short journey between the Government expecting something and putting it in legislation—I hope they will give that some thought.
On the noble Earl’s concern about the size of ICBs, given what he said about conflict of interest issues earlier today, he must recognise that the seats will be empty most of the time, as NHS trusts and local authorities will clearly have to excuse themselves from most of the current debates within ICBs, because the boards will be talking about resources, commissioning, the development of services and the forward plan, all of which those organisations will have a direct interest in. That is why the whole structure of ICBs needs looking at again.
I am very grateful to the noble Earl for taking back the issue my noble friend raised about resources and the way the money flows down to Healthwatch. There is a suspicion here; I think the money goes nationally to local government and then you depend on local authorities to decide how much they will give to each local Healthwatch. I am afraid we know, as we have seen in other services, that some of that resource tends to get—how shall I put it?—diverted into other areas. I never understood why the Government thought that this was a good way to fund Healthwatch. If you set it up nationally as an independent body, the obvious thing to do is give the resource straight to national Healthwatch to allocate locally. I suggest the Government give that serious consideration.
This is one issue that we will want to bring back on Report, as it is important that Parliament gives a very visible indication to the NHS that we think Healthwatch is doing a great job but we want to see it have more influence in future. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with the new Clauses before Clause 35 in the name of Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, restores the duty on the Secretary of State to provide or secure the provision of services to that in the National Health Service Act 2006.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 46, I will speak also to Amendments 168 and 169 in my name. In an earlier group this morning we were talking about democratic accountability at the local or ICB level, particularly in relation to Amendment 23 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. We were also, through the agency of Amendment 45 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, looking at the risk that people in England could be left without NHS cover. Those amendments were about the ways in which this Bill could go horribly wrong—certainly, I have no doubt, in terms of what the public want, if not necessarily in the unintended consequences of where the Health Secretary and the Chancellor are apparently thinking of taking our NHS.
A couple of hours ago, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, talked about how the Government are centralising power, with ICBs having to look upwards to the hierarchies above them. He used the phrase that they will be “beaten up by the centre”. As he was saying that, I was struck that a briefing arrived in my inbox at that moment from the NHS Confederation, NHS Providers and the King’s Fund, which very much focused on that concern about the Secretary of State’s power to direct. It is clear that the Bill will give the Secretary of State enormous power potentially to interfere in the most minute aspects of healthcare locally. That concerns a great many people. I think it is already clear that your Lordships’ House will keep talking about this and, very likely, try to change it in future, but we know we are unlikely to be able to entirely transform this Bill and the relationships between the centre and the local.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, and I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, starting with Amendment 46. After many helpful discussions both today and earlier on in Committee looking at membership, structures and representations of ICBs, these amendments take us back to the first principles and ask your Lordships’ House to look at what should be in scope for the provision of NHS services. This is a really valid question.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to maternity services, but if I were to pick one of the services listed in Amendment 169, it would be dental services. There are millions of people in the country who cannot access an NHS dentist. The result is a worsening of dental health, which is especially worrying for children and young people. I am sorry to say that, over the years, Ministers have ignored the wider needs of the public regarding dental services. I think the point about specifying the provision of services such as this puts a very particular duty on the Secretary of State to force Ministers to make sure that they are also holding other parts of the health service to account.
The amendments turn our focus on to whether we still have an NHS that is a public health system or one that perhaps is paid for mainly by the public but run by a disparate number of bodies, including unaccountable private companies increasingly not based in the UK. They are particularly important in light of the report today in the press that the Secretary of State is planning to create the equivalent of school academies for failing hospitals and says that there will be a White Paper in due course. Just as an aside, do we need yet more reforms? Surely it would have been better to have a full range of Green Papers with an overarching vision of what the NHS in the 21st century should look like and how the structures should work. We are now waiting for two White Papers, while the passage of this Bill is irrevocably changing the structures of our NHS system.
Today’s announcement rings a number of alarm bells because there is an analogy with the education sector that is quite helpful. I remember that, in the 1990s, academies were going to be free from local authority control and that that, on its own, would inevitably make them improve—but that has not been the case. Various reports over the last 20 years have shown that a number of failing schools taken into multi-academy trusts and free schools have remained low performing. Structures on their own do not necessarily resolve this. Indeed, some multi-academy trusts have failed in their entirety, and one of their issues is the lack of public accountability—because Ministers have direct responsibility in the public realm for academies, and I worry that the Secretary of State may be proposing the same. If I was a senior leader in NHS England, I would be very concerned about that.
I am grateful for the earlier comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the need for Ministers to have the ability to appoint and, presumably, remove senior personnel on ICBs. But would the Secretary of State have responsibility for these academy equivalents and give them the right to access separate funding for capital expenditure and special projects? I raise this because part of the problem that we have at the moment is a diversity of funding mechanisms, structures and strands, which often take the eye of a leader—whether a Minister or one in the NHS—away from the provision of services.
The foundation of a public system was essentially removed by the 2012 Act, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, the Constitution Committee suggested that there needed to be an interim remedy. It is important that we have reassurance that this Bill will not weaken it any further at all. I hope that the Minister can reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government want to protect the provision of NHS services, as part of a truly public health service.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for moving her amendment and other noble Lords for their contributions, particularly on the specific points about particular services, such as dentistry. All three amendments look back to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the National Health Service Act 2006 on the powers and duties of the Secretary of State in relation to the NHS and the services that it provides, restoring certain provisions in the 2006 Act.
Under the Bill, the ICBs and NHS England will have the duties to secure the provision of the services that make up the comprehensive NHS. There are probably noble Lords here today who were Members of your Lordships’ House in 2006. I came in in 2010, just as the equally marathon Health and Social Care Act from the coalition Government got under way, when the whole issue of the Secretary of State’s powers and duties came to the fore. As explained at the time, the aim was to separate the political from the operational responsibility and to better align the language to the reality of the purpose of the NHS, in “securing the provision of services”.
The arguments in 2010 and 2011 were fierce and passionate, centred around the subtle changes in the way that the duties were defined, as compared to the words in Sections 1 and 3 of the 2006 Act. They caused suspicion, confusion and fears that the NHS would be changed forever. These arguments remain a bit of a blur in my memory, but I recall the overwhelming view among leading experts on NHS law that the changes were technical and did not involve any substantial change in practice. We know that, in respect of this role, no change has happened.
I also recall the 2012 consideration of the issue by our Constitution Committee and the compromise recommendation subsequently adopted in the 2012 Bill of what became Section 1(3) of the 2006 Act, as amended:
“The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England.”
No matter what is in any Act, this is and will always be the political reality.
Currently, the law places the duty on the Secretary of State to
“continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement … in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and … in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness”—
very much in the spirit of the NHS’s founding 1946 Act.
Amendments 46 and 168 seek to continue the 2006/2012 debate. It was claimed about the 2012 Act, and now about this Bill, that the change in wording implies that people will be denied access to treatment from the NHS because, for example, a particular ICB decides to exclude a service and because there is no duty on the Secretary of State to prevent this happening. However, there is no evidence that anyone has ever been denied access to an NHS service or that any service has been refused in general simply because of the change in the wording of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. Amendment 169 returns to the same point, seeking to place a duty on the Secretary of State to “provide” a list of services, with some general headings such as ambulance services. But the reality is that this is not how the NHS functions or indeed ever has.
I endorse many of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about today’s announcement of yet another restructuring on the academy front, but, again, that is a debate for another day.
We could go back on the Secretary of State issue to the 2012 arguments and spend a lot of time on it. While we fully understand the concerns and fears that the current wording could engender among those who suspect a deeper reason for the changes in language, continuing to argue over this issue would not be very productive or get us anywhere. We need to get on with scrutinising the sweeping delegated and Henry VIII powers later in the Bill that our current Constitution Committee and Delegated Powers Committees have expressed such deep concern about.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing forward this group of amendments. As many of the Committee will remember vividly, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, has reminded us, accountability for the health service was a topic of considerable debate at the time of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 as it went through Parliament. The constitutional position of the Secretary of State was closely scrutinised and the current wording in the Act is very much the product of those discussions. I remind the Committee especially of the hard work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, who was at that time chair of the Constitution Committee, her colleagues on the committee and many others, including my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who did so much to develop the current wording of the clause. The coalition Government accepted the Constitution Committee’s recommendations in full.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness’s characterisation of the reasons why it was thought appropriate to modify the wording that described the Secretary of State’s responsibility for the health service. As noble Lords will be aware, the idea that the Secretary of State himself provides services has not for many years reflected the real world. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, rightly said, and as the Committee will remember, it was decided in 2012 that it was better that the law reflected the reality of the modern NHS rather than retaining outdated language. I do not think that the last 10 years have proved that proposition wrong. The current legislative framework allows some of the health services in England to be provided by entities, such as NHS foundation trusts, that are legally distinct from the Secretary of State. That will continue to be the case and should be recognised in the law.
I understand the concerns that Ministers might somehow avoid being responsible for ensuring the continuation of a comprehensive health service. However, there have been many vigorous debates in Parliament about the NHS in the years since those changes in 2012, and they have demonstrated that there has, quite rightly, been no loss in the strong sense of governmental accountability for the NHS felt by both government and Parliament. Indeed, the House amended the Act in 2012 to put beyond doubt that:
“The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England.”
That has not changed in this Bill; the wording will remain set in statute.
I would gently caution against recreating the fiction that the Secretary of State provides services directly. It is much better to be clear that the role of the Secretary of State is to set strategic direction, oversee and hold to account NHS England and the other national bodies of the NHS and, occasionally, to intervene—as the noble Lord is doing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Given what he has said—and I know that we will debate this later—I point out that it is curious that the Government wish to take on a power of direction over NHS England, if that is so. I guarantee that that power will never be used because the Secretary of State’s power of direction never has to be used. Once this is passed, that changes the relationship; NHS England will know that the Secretary of State has that power of direction. Although I have tabled some amendments to try to modify it, I have no objections to the general principle, since I do not think that a quango such as NHS England should be freely floating. But we need to recognise that it is a fundamental change in the relationship to impose that power of direction again.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as I was about to say, the 2012 Act does provide for the ability of the Secretary of State to intervene when that is necessary for the smooth and effective running of the system. Furthermore, we should not exaggerate the extent to which this Bill modifies the 2012 provisions. As the noble Lord said, we will debate the powers of direction on a future occasion but, when we come to do so, my colleagues and I on the Government Benches will contend that the powers of direction, such as they are, are very narrow and specific in their scope. They have been deliberately framed in that way to reflect experience over recent years. I would not be in favour of reopening this piece of drafting, given its history and the effort that noble Lords from all sides of the House made to build an effective consensus in respect of the 2012 Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about dental access. The department is working closely with NHS England to increase levels of service as quickly as possible. Practices are continuing to prioritise patients based on clinical need. Dental practices are now being asked by NHS England and NHS Improvement to deliver at least 85% of contracted units of dental activity—UDAs—between January and March 2022 to provide improved access for patients. These updated figures are based on what many practices have been able to deliver to date. They take into account adherence to the latest infection prevention and control guidance. I hope that this is helpful to the noble Baroness.
I hope also that I have explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, why I cannot entertain her amendments, but also that I have reassured her that the accountability chain between health services, Ministers and Parliament, which lies at the centre of her concerns, remains intact.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her support. She stressed how this is very much about restoring a public health system with full public accountability.
I was a little surprised, not so much by the direction as by the emphatic nature of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, given that it was members of her party who moved the amendments in the other place. To address the Minister’s comments—this also picks up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—we are talking about a significant change in relation to power of direction; a power that we will be discussing further, at great length, and about which we have seen considerable expressions of concern. I come back to the way I framed my speech: if you have more powers, you have more responsibility. If you say, “We covered all this in the 2012 Act—it’s all fine”, once could argue that the 2012 Act did not work out fine, but we are in a new situation, creating very new structures.
Thinking about the success or otherwise of accountability, some issues where we have failed in terms of accountability—and we will see amendments on these later—are workforce planning and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, highlighted, dental provision.
This is about ensuring that people have faith, know who to look to and cannot be fobbed off, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, by this terrible, complex diversity of funding and arrangement structures. Like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I took part in the public debate in 2012, not in this place but in the public domain, and I have given many speeches on this issue. The complexity must not be allowed to cover over the fact that what people want to know is that the healthcare is there when they need it, and if it is not that they know who to point to.
I will of course withdraw the amendment at this point, but I reserve the right to consider this and come back to it at a future point.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I suggest that we adjourn the House for four minutes, until 7.30 pm.
Ukraine
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this new and sensible procedure of not reading out the Statement because we have all read it leaves me with the problem of how to open one’s speech. I will compromise by thanking the Minister for coming to answer our questions.
I do not really have anything new to say. To emphasise that, I am going to read out the first paragraph of the shadow Secretary of State’s reply to the Statement in the other place, because my position will not deviate from it. He said:
“I welcome its contents and make clear Labour’s full backing for the steps the Government have been taking on international diplomatic efforts to de-escalate threats, on defensive support for the Ukraine military, on necessary institutional reforms within the country, and on tough economic and financial sanctions in response to any fresh Russian invasion into Ukraine.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/22; col. 63.]
So I do not believe that we differ in any significant way from the Government. However, I have some questions.
I understand that 13,000 Ukrainian citizens have been killed in the conflict so far, and many must have been killed on what I will loosely call the Russian side. The first objective must surely therefore be to stop the killing. Moving into the area of objectives, could the Minister set out what our policy is, first, on direct military engagement and, secondly, on recognising any of the Russian concerns? I hope she will reaffirm that we are overwhelmingly committed to a diplomatic solution; those diplomatic solutions do not look very optimistic but I hope she can flesh out some strands of optimism.
In 1994—I may get these things slightly wrong—the Budapest agreement was signed and Britain is the guarantor of that agreement. As I understand it, although I cannot claim to have read it, it was a comprehensive agreement that settled the future of Ukraine. It settled its boundaries and did a brilliant job of denuclearising the country, and we would all have hoped that that was how it would settle down. The agreement sought to answer all the questions. Now I have to ask the Minister whether it has any relevance today at all.
In 2014 the Normandy format was created—in Normandy, I believe, because it had its essence at the Normandy celebrations. It is a format of four countries: France, Germany, the US and Russia. On 6 January this year, it met. As far as one can tell, there was little progress, but, hopefully, we have some way of getting to the essence of what those conversations were. My simple question is: was there any progress?
A second institution is the NATO-Russia Council, which has been meeting somewhat infrequently. However, it met on 12 January. Reports from the Secretary-General of NATO seemed a bit downbeat, but does the Minister have any more positive interpretation of what happened? Are there any areas for optimism?
Like any Opposition, even when we agree with the Government, we inevitably end up saying, “You should try harder”, and I shall say that they should try harder. Should there be more diplomatic effort? I am not saying that the Government do not grasp this, but the news, for want of a better barometer, does not seem to grasp just how serious the situation is. There have been a number of efforts by UK diplomats and politicians to meet the Ukrainian Government, but should there be more? Should the Foreign Secretary visit Ukraine? Should there be something as innovatory as the Defence Secretary going to Moscow?
My experience of negotiation is somewhat depressing. One of the things that is depressing about negotiation is the success of negotiation by attrition. What I mean is, if you spend enough time talking in concert with your allies and you talk and listen to the other side of a debate, you get closer by sheer volume. Therefore, I encourage the Government to see where more face-to-face contact can take place and where there can be more conversations between different people, or different nuances. I seek an assurance that we are using our best skills to try to understand the Russian position. There must be people in Russia who recognise just how serious and dangerous this is. We have to try to find some common ground and we have to ask ourselves—I know a lot of people are concerned about it—whether we retain sufficient diplomatic capability in the Russian area. Do we have adequate Russia skills?
Our military support was clearly welcomed by Ukraine, but I do not know what it consisted of. Perhaps the noble Baroness could flesh that out. How many UK personnel were involved? How many are still in Ukraine and are they at risk? There is an interesting phrase in the Statement that I hope the noble Baroness can flesh out. It says that we are supplying Ukraine with anti-armour defensive weapons systems. I guess if you are in a tank with a missile coming towards you, it is a bit difficult to interpret why this is only a defensive system. How does one signal to the enemy that what we are providing to Ukraine is a weapon that is really only usable in a defensive situation? How many personnel are involved in the training to use this weapon? Are any left in Ukraine?
Ukraine recently suffered a major cyberattack. It is not mentioned in the Statement, but I understand that a new cyber co-operation agreement has been concluded between NATO and Ukraine. What role will Ukraine play in this? Is it already active?
Finally, on the reference yesterday to the Indo-Pacific tilt, can the Minister confirm that resources must be centred on Europe and NATO? AUKUS is a great concept, but it must not draw resources from where the threat is greatest.
As I said at the beginning, we have no fundamental criticism of the Government. We face a very grave situation. History teaches us that wars are much easier to get into than to get out of. If war breaks out in eastern Ukraine, many people will die. All efforts must centre on securing peace.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I take no issue with the terms of the Statement, nor with the remarks of the noble Lord who has just spoken, but I think it is helpful if we try to put into context the political objectives of Mr Putin. Put baldly, they are these: to break Ukraine and to intimidate NATO. Mr Putin sees a client Ukraine as essential to Russia’s interests and believes—I believe, falsely—that western capitals will back down in the face of his aggression. The overarching purpose is to create a sphere of Russian interest in eastern Europe—an objective for which, I may say, he was given some encouragement by the sometimes lukewarm support given to NATO by President Trump.
It is clear, in my judgment, that any accession to Mr Putin’s demands would break both Ukraine and NATO itself. The truth is that NATO poses no threat to Russia. If we consider the enhanced forward presence with which the United Kingdom is most closely associated, the deployment of the battle group to Estonia, it consists of some 900 men. That will hardly challenge the substance of the Russian state.
We should not forget, though, that the people of Ukraine have been under considerable stress and strain. They have been under cyberattack in a particularly personal way, and we know now that there is the threat of false flag diversions. However, I am clear in my mind that we are right to support the Government of Ukraine politically and to provide them with defensive weapons. I am clear in my mind that we are right to make it clear that the United Kingdom will be part of severe economic measures against Russia if military action is commenced. The people of Ukraine continue to show their courage and resilience in the face of provocation and imminent threat, but, increasingly, they show that they wish a future in the Euro-Atlantic community, which is their sovereign right, and one that we should be willing to defend.
I have but two questions for the Minister. What discussions have the United Kingdom Government had with other members of NATO and the European Union to ensure unity of purpose in both those organisations? In particular, why was it that RAF aircraft, two C17s, taking defensive weapons to Ukraine, chose not to fly over Germany? Was there a political reason behind that decision?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, for their very helpful comments and constructive approach. On behalf of the Government, I express my appreciation of that. In different ways, both noble Lords analysed the issue in a manner from which I could not diverge, and I am grateful to them both for that contribution.
I will try to deal with the points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is absolutely right that, clearly, there is a shadow hanging over Ukraine. If you look at the history and, as he rightly said, reflect on Ukrainian casualties, you see that this is, quite simply, a situation that no one wants to see proceed to aggressive incursion—hence the concerted effort by different countries in different groupings to try to prevail upon Mr Putin to de-escalate the tension and agree to sit down and discuss things by way of dialogue. On de-escalation, I say to the noble Lord that the recent initiative by the UK is not engaging in any aggressive action against Russia; it is simply supporting Ukraine as a sovereign nation to defend itself against threat.
The noble Lord asked about the UK objectives. The UK, of course, respects the people, history and culture of Russia, but the current relationship with the Russian Government is certainly not one that we want. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, alluded to, Russian state threats, such as cyberattacks, disinformation, proxies and electoral interference, are quite simply evidence of ongoing malign behaviour, and they are unacceptable. The objectives of the UK are twofold: to work with our partners in NATO to try to contribute to a de-escalation of this situation, and to also work on a bilateral front with Ukraine, which is a good friend and a bilateral defence partner, to reassure it that we stand with Ukraine and will do everything we can to support it.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred to the Budapest memorandum, which is indeed still relevant. We believe that both the UK and the US should insist that Russia stand by the international agreements it has signed up to. That includes the commitment it made in 1994 to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Indeed, the Political, Free Trade and Strategic Partnership Agreement signed with Ukraine on 8 October 2020 reaffirms the UK’s commitment to the security assurances enshrined in the Budapest memorandum of 5 December 1994.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the role of NATO and its objectives. I simply repeat what the dual-track approach of NATO has been: a combined deterrence, defence and dialogue approach, where allies speak with one voice. That was delivered at the meeting of the NATO-Russia Council last week. The message was clear: Russia must de-escalate and respect its international commitments, to which we have all freely agreed. To reassure the noble Lord, NATO stands ready to engage in constructive dialogue with Russia to discuss mutual security concerns and has invited Russia for further sessions with the NATO-Russia Council to discuss arms control, risk reduction and transparency measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, exhorted the Government to try harder. I accept that challenge; I do not think anyone pretends to have the monopoly of knowledge or wisdom in this situation. I reassure your Lordships that the Government will strenuously do everything they can to promote dialogue and discussion. Indeed, the Defence Secretary in the other place confirmed that he had invited his opposite number in Russia to come to London for discussions.
I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on his reference to dialogue. He is absolutely right: it is essential that, whatever else may be going on, we try to keep channels of communication open. I reassure him that, certainly, that is what we are striving to do within defence. He is absolutely correct that the only way to achieve these objectives of de-escalation and a move to a more constructive, intelligent conversation about Russia and how these issues might be addressed in a peaceful manner is by such dialogue.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the UK military support to Ukraine. As he will know, since 2015, we have been engaged in Operation Orbital. That is all about helping Ukraine to build resilience within its armed forces, and it includes, importantly, the Ukrainian Naval Capabilities Enhancement Programme, which was signed in June of last year. That was a significant agreement because it affirmed that the UK was open to supplying Ukraine with defensive weapon systems as well as training. That principle remains.
The noble Lord asked specifically whether the weapons that have been delivered are usable only in a defence situation. I wish to reassure him that the answer is yes. They are not for use by either the UK or Ukraine in an aggressive capacity. They are simply there to support Ukraine in self-defence if that need arises. In response to the noble Lord’s concern—we had an interesting discussion yesterday about AUKUS, which was positive and well-informed—I say to him that NATO is regarded as a cornerstone of the UK MoD’s approach to defence and to our capability.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, gave a very accurate analysis of where we have got to, and how he imputes to the Russian Government certain motives and intentions. No one is going to disagree with that analysis. In particular, in relation to sanctions, I reassure the noble Lord that the UK is looking at a package of broad and high-impact sanctions to raise the cost of any further aggressive actions. He is probably aware that we already have in place sanctions in respect of Crimea and the wider activities by Russia in relation to Ukraine. My understanding is that we currently have sanctions on 180 individuals in Russia and 48 entities for the destabilisation of Crimea and Sebastopol and eastern Ukraine. Those economic measures include restrictions on parts of Russia’s finance, energy and defence sectors and trade and investment measures in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, also raised the position of Ukraine in respect of the Euro-Atlantic community and its legitimate right to seek to be part of that. That simply reaffirms what was agreed back in Bucharest, that NATO understood that both Ukraine and Georgia, as sovereign states, should have the right to determine what relationships they seek, and that is absolutely correct. He sought reassurance about unity of purpose within NATO. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, particularly with reference to the recent NATO-Russia Council meeting, that unity of purpose is there.
In relation to the EU, yes, we support the Minsk agreements and the efforts by Germany, France and the Normandy Format to try to take matters forward. That has proved challenging, because Russia is declining to play its part in that. Indeed, one of the difficulties is that France and Germany have a role as mediators, and Ukraine and Russia have roles as parties to the conflict, but Russia refuses to accept that. That is proving to be a roadblock in the process. Indeed, I understand that, very recently, the European Council extended its EU restrictions on Russia. That suggests that the EU has a concern about the continuing situation.
In conclusion, as the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, have recognised, there is concerted effort by not just the United Kingdom but the United States, NATO, France, Germany and the EU to assist in the de-escalation of this tension, but there is a united desire to support the absolute, fundamental right of Ukraine to be treated with respect and correctly under international law as a sovereign state and not to find itself subject to threat and illegal incursions. That is something that the international community regards as fundamentally important, and it is why we will all work in unison to do our very best to support Ukraine.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, outlined very clearly President Putin’s intent. I also commend my right honourable friend Ben Wallace’s article yesterday in the Times. Like all bullies, President Putin responds to only one thing, strength, and so I welcome yesterday’s Statement. Equally, as NATO, we must not be seen to provoke Russia—let us be clear, President Putin will go a long way to be provoked—but nor is it our right to somehow negotiate away Ukraine’s right to join NATO if it wishes to do so. If we have yet more requests from Ukraine for, potentially, weapons with which to defend itself or other training, will we maintain an open mind and support our ally in its time of need?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Yes, I reassure my noble friend that we will do everything we can to support Ukraine. As I said earlier, Ukraine is a friend and an important bilateral defence partner. In terms of the agreements it has reached in its own right, and legitimately so, with the international community and NATO, it has positions which should be respected. Like NATO, the UK will continue to review, assess and monitor, and we shall continue to respond, in conjunction with our allies, in the best way we can.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and particularly that, of its three pages, one is devoted to dialogue, which is the only way in which the dreadful current set of circumstances will be resolved. However, I am disappointed that, despite the fact that the paragraphs on dialogue begin with the sentence
“I must stress that no one wants conflict”,
there is no recognition that there is existing conflict. There is conflict going on in the eastern part of Ukraine and, despite the refreshment of a ceasefire on 22 December, violations of that ceasefire continue. In fact, the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine’s daily report for today says that it recorded, in the last 24 hours, 113 ceasefire violations in the Donetsk region. In the Luhansk region,
“the Mission recorded two ceasefire violations, including one explosion”
and 144 violations in the previous 24 hours. There is existing conflict going on and people are suffering. There are missing persons and all the aspects of violence that we have come to know in many countries across the world recently. My question for the Ministry of Defence, the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Government is: what are we doing to try to lessen or cease that violence for the people who are living with it daily? It is so bad that that amazing mine-clearance organisation, the HALO Trust, has had to suspend its work in the region at the moment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. He is right that we should remember that a considerable part of Ukraine continues to be illegally occupied, with the negative and unwelcome consequences to which he referred.
The United Kingdom, as the noble Lord will be aware, has supported Ukraine for over 30 years since it became a sovereign state in its own right. Since 2015, through Operation Orbital the UK has done what it can to help build what I described earlier as the resilience of the Ukrainian armed forces. We have provided defensive training to over 22,000 Ukrainian troops since 2015. That includes the maritime training initiative, to which I referred, to help the Ukrainian navy rebuild its capacity.
In June last year we entered into an agreement with Ukraine through a memorandum of implementation, which affirmed the UK as open to supply Ukraine with defensive weapons systems as well as training. That principle remains. The noble Lord will possibly be aware that we signed a UK export finance treaty last November to finance the Ukraine naval capabilities enhancement project. That treaty amounts to £1.7 billion of assistance.
That is meaningful help and it might assist your Lordships to understand that this is not just empty rhetoric. The proposal is that there will be missile sale and integration on new and in-service Ukrainian navy patrol and airborne platforms, including a training and engineering support package. There is a going to be development and joint production of eight fast-missile warships with modern defensive armaments. We will also assist with the creation of a new naval base in the Black Sea as a primary fleet for Ukraine and a new base in the Sea of Azov.
What the UK is trying to do in a holistic manner is to come to Ukraine’s aid in helping it to be more ready to defend itself. I think the UK can be satisfied with, and justly admired for, the help it has been giving. It has not been doing that alone, of course. As the noble Lord will be aware, the United States has been assisting as well.
The United Kingdom is very conscious of the extremely sensitive position in which Ukraine finds itself, not least because of the issues to which the noble Lord referred, but we are doing a number of very substantive things to assist it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
The Minister was right to emphasise the importance of respecting the sovereignty of Ukraine. In 1989, I was privileged to be in Lviv in Ukraine at the time of the pro-democracy rallies there, when they were trying to throw off the hegemony of the Kremlin. Does the Minister agree that part of the Putin narrative is the recreation of the Soviet Union and that his regime is pushing in every direction it can to try to achieve that?
I particularly welcome what the Secretary of State for Defence said yesterday in pointing to Vladimir Putin’s 7,000-word essay, which has ethnonationalism at its heart. Only one paragraph mentions what the Secretary of State calls
“the straw man of NATO”;
in other words, this is an excuse to talk about NATO when there is a whistle blowing from the Kremlin, trying to whip up ancient hatreds.
Are we western nations not in danger of falling into the Byzantine trap? The Byzantines, when they had the enemy at the gates, were arguing about the gender of angels. Is it not important that, despite the vested interests the West has in gas, oil and the rest, we stand together and recognise what the people of Ukraine fought for in 1989 in seeking their independence and stand with them at this terrible time of trial?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I think very few people would disagree with the noble Lord’s sentiments and I thank him for his reference to the comments by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I think an earlier contributor mentioned his article in the Times yesterday. I thought it was an extremely helpful analysis and a very clear illustration that in the West we totally understand what is happening and see through it. I think there is a need for that candour and that rigour.
I feel that in the current situation there is a need to be absolutely focused on where the immediate threat lies. As we speak, something like 100,000 Russian military are amassed on the borders of Ukraine. That is the actual threat and that is why we have to address our thoughts to how best we support Ukraine with a variety of measures, whether that is what we were doing in supplying from the UK these weapons that can be used in a defensive capacity, whether it is that we propose to apply sanctions if anything unacceptable happens, or whether it is that NATO and the EU are united as to a response against anything that President Putin may be minded to do which, quite simply, is unacceptable, contravenes international law and is an affront to the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, just over 100 years ago, Europe descended into war when no one wanted that sort of escalation. On that or any similar analogy, how can you ever get into a mode of de-escalation, which the Minister referred to? I do not disagree with anything that has been said this evening, but I press her on the point that I am raising, which has not been addressed: how do the Government think that de-escalation can come about in any way, given the pride all around? In 1,000 years of Russian history, Ukraine was always part of the Kievan Rus, and Kiev is in Ukraine. There was also the Battle of Balaclava and War and Peace, which every Russian child has read. In this country, where I live, all the roads are named after Balaclava or somewhere else in the Crimean War.
Consistent with not playing chicken or being the one that looks scared, how can we get to practical de-escalation? That is a simple question, and I would like to hear a little more from the Minister on how we get to a scenario with a degree of de-escalation—or is that just a pipe dream?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It need not be a pipe dream, but it requires both a recognition by President Putin that he seems determined to pursue a provocative and dangerous route and an understanding by him that little—nothing—positive is to be gained by that and that he has to play his part as an international leader, which one assumes he wishes to be recognised as, and agree to enter into what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, wisely alluded to: dialogue. I totally agree with the noble Lord that dialogue is the only way to address de-escalation. We require President Putin to play his part.
It is important to say that our divergence, as the United Kingdom, is with the Russian Government, not the Russian people. We have had a very happy history of sharing many things in common with them, but we certainly do not welcome the current relationship that has emerged in relation to the Russian Government, induced by the aggressive and provocative actions of President Putin. So I say to the noble Lord: it is difficult.
Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in the other place that there is a “gap”. It need not be unbridgeable. To echo what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, we all have to use every ounce of energy we possess to keep trying harder to keep doors open and to persuade President Putin to understand that this route will not enhance Russia or be positive for him—and to understand that he should consider the legitimate position of Ukraine and agree to come to the international fora and discuss his concerns. That is what we are determined to try to encourage.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the Government are drawing up a much tougher list of sanctions and asset freezes for anyone connected with Putin and his dictatorship—people in the Russian Government and parliament—including excluding Russia from the SWIFT banking system? Can she assure us that reports from the last few days that that is off the table are not true and that the international community will exclude Russia from the SWIFT banking system?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I said earlier, the UK is looking at a package of broad and high-impact sanctions to raise the cost of any further aggressive actions by President Putin. I cannot comment on the detail of what these proposals are, but we are ready to act—and, as my right honourable friend in the other place indicated yesterday, we are not alone. A range of sanctions is available that are going to be enacted if there is any deterioration in the situation.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
There are terrible things going on in Belarus, between Belarus and Poland. I have some friends in the Baltic states who are reporting similar troop build-ups along the frontiers with Russia there. I suspect similar things are happening towards the south, east of the Black Sea. Are the Government aware of Mr Putin’s attempts, shall we say, to recreate the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and what are we doing about it? Are we just going to wait till it gets worse?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The activities of NATO in recent years have included a much more forward presence in the Baltic area, in which the United Kingdom plays an important part. We are alert, as is NATO, to anything which may compromise Euro-Atlantic security. If we are aware of any proposal which would compromise that security, we will, in conjunction with our allies and partners in NATO, consider how best to respond to that.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, a few minutes ago in Berlin, the Secretary-General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said that the risk of conflict is real. Does the Minister agree? Can the Minister tell the House what discussions are being held by the British Government with NATO right now? In respect of what may happen in the future, I—like many noble Lords—worry about miscalculation. If President Putin makes the grave error of invading Ukraine, could the Minister comment on the possible risks that UK personnel, who have been helping the Ukrainian forces to train, might become embroiled in direct conflict with forces from Russia?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As has been made clear, we have a training presence in Ukraine, Operation Orbital. In respect of the announcement, the subject of this Statement, which my right honourable friend dealt with in the other place, it is very clear that we will have a small training presence for a short period of time in relation to the pieces of equipment that we are proposing to deliver to Ukraine. We are constantly in discussion with allies and with NATO. We recognise that that is the only, and best, way to try to ensure that everyone has the unity of purpose that was referred to earlier. That is extremely important.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I welcome yesterday’s Statement. It is refreshing to see western unity when it comes to defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an ally. There is another country that is in the Kremlin’s sights, Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the Russians are trying to open another front. Unfortunately, there is not the same unity in response. We have been lagging behind the United States in responding by applying sanctions, and our European allies are split down the middle, with some, such as Croatia, Slovenia and Hungary, openly supporting Russian interests in the Balkans. Will the Minister tell the House how we can work better with our allies, and show a unity of purpose regarding this country as well?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that we take the situation in the western Balkans very seriously. We are regularly engaged with the western Balkan countries, not least with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we have ministerial engagement on a regular basis with these countries. We try to ensure that we support resilience; we provide training and advice, and we try to do everything we can to encourage harmony and stability. I reassure my noble friend that there is very close communication with the western Balkan states, and we regard that as important, because the area is of strategic significance.
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 18th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (18 Jan 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, in the next group of amendments, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, will be taking part remotely.
Amendment 47
“(ea) specialist palliative care services,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that specialist palliative care services are a core service available equitably across all sectors.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, to state the obvious, everyone will die. On average, one person dies every minute, and every 22 minutes a child loses a parent. Dying patients are seen in every part of healthcare, and the vast majority will have some level of palliative care need. I declare my interest as a specialist in palliative medicine over decades, and my roles with different relevant hospice and palliative care charities and being employed through the Velindre Cancer Centre.
Amendment 47 would introduce a specific requirement for clinical specialist palliative care services to be commissioned by integrated care boards in every part of England. Amendment 52 is to inform the debate as it draws on the World Health Organization definition of specialist palliative care. These amendments are strongly supported by Marie Curie, Hospice UK, Together for Short Lives, Sue Ryder and the Alzheimer’s Society.
Let me be clear; this is about specialist clinical services. General basic palliative care should be a skill of every clinician. But, until it is recognised as a core specialty, generic services will continue to view it as an extra and learning will not be integrated across all areas. Educating and training are crucial duties in upskilling others. In the pandemic, palliative care has been propelled centre stage as a driver of good practice. Specialist palliative care is a relatively new specialty, which is why it was not included in the early NHS legislation. The other truth, that everybody is born, was recognised by requiring every part of the UK to have maternity services. That has been reiterated in legislation and in Clause 16 of this Bill, along with dental and other services.
The hospice movement grew up outside the NHS, spearheaded by Cicely Saunders, who realised that bringing about change within the NHS was painfully slow. This has meant that a patchwork of services has developed in the wealthier parts of Britain. In some areas great, innovative integration with community social care is happening. But other areas of enormous need are left with almost no service, or no service at all. Now we depend on fundraising events for people to get expert support for pain and other symptoms, and for psychosocial distress. No one would advocate to have a cake sale so that a woman in obstructed labour can have a caesarean section, so why turn a blind eye to ways to improve the quality of life of those with serious and life-threatening illnesses and support their families? Debate in the other place suggested that palliative care is aftercare; it is not. It is not an add-on just before death. It must be an integral part of care so that problems are dealt with in a timely way, not left to escalate into a crisis.
In Section 3 of the NHS Act 2006, clinical commissioning groups had the same general duties as in this Bill, yet significant gaps in specialist palliative care services persist between clinical commissioning groups. Some populations fare particularly badly: people who are homeless or in prison, BAME groups, Gypsies and Travellers, LGBTQ+ people, people with learning disabilities and those living in poverty, alone or with dementia. Yet the way a person dies lives on in the memory of those left behind.
Marie Curie’s freedom of information requests to English CCGs revealed an average spend last year of as little as £19.02 per person aged over 65. Only 35% of CCGs responding offered specialist palliative care services in all care settings overnight and at weekends, yet such services are known to reduce pressure on NHS services and achieve savings by reducing the number of hospital bed days occupied and unplanned admissions.
Research from King’s College London and supported by Marie Curie reveals that of the 23 integrated care systems in England with published strategies, only six identified palliative and end-of-life care as a priority area. Five mentioned broad bereavement support and only three identified relevant measures of success, such as reduced hospital admissions.
In the pandemic, many hospices hit financial instability head on as fundraising dried up. The government bail-out was essential, and I think that everyone was very grateful. In 2008, Wales had tackled this problem head on, aware that if a hospice folded, the clinical core service would still be needed. With just over £2 per head of population investment, we moved to provide core specialist clinical palliative care through an agreed funding formula, moving to seven-day services and 24/7 advice to any health or social care professional with a patient needing help. These services cover hospitals, hospices and community, with increasing integration reaching areas where no services existed. We instigated a paediatric service and an all-Wales unified patient record across the NHS and voluntary sector providers, which I described last week.
The outcomes that we achieved warrant consideration. To quote one nurse:
“The patients have access to specialist palliative care nurses, advice and experience on the weekend, which is great, and if we weren’t there, they wouldn’t have that, and they’d suffer for it. Unfortunately, people deteriorate and die out of hours. They don’t all die Monday to Friday, nine to five.”
At the south-east Wales cancer centre, specialist palliative care is now embedded in the acute oncology service, whose audit revealed that almost three-quarters of the patients presenting to acute oncology had a level of unmet need in palliative care but were unknown to any services at the time. The majority then had same-day, face-to-face palliative care review or were referred to their local team. In the community last year, there were more than 3,700 patient contacts, over 1,000 being face to face. I remind the Committee that that covers a population of about 1.5 million. Many families have “just in case” boxes to make sure that medication is available, and the ambulance service can link in too.
For cancer centre in-patients, the palliative care audit showed that nine out of 10 symptoms improved during the patient’s stay, including pain, breathlessness, constipation and weakness, and nausea scores fell to zero by day seven. Multifactorial drowsiness persisted in some whose disease was progressing rapidly to death.
In England during the pandemic, specialist teams were in place. They have shown that they can facilitate discharge, support staff having difficult ethical and communication dilemmas, and support patients and families, but a Marie Curie survey of carers of people who died at home during the pandemic found that 76% said that their loved one did not get all the care and support they needed, 64% did not get pain management and 65% did not get the out-of-hours care.
This Bill arrives at a critical moment for improving care. In 20 years’ time, 100,000 more people will die each year in the UK. Demand is set to increase rapidly as our population ages and more people live for longer with multiple and complex conditions. The number of people dying with a need for palliative care is projected to increase by up to 42% by 2040. This cannot be left unaddressed, and the solution is at hand. I hope that the Government will finally recognise that they can improve care without increasing overall cost by adopting Amendment 47, to explicitly require the commissioning of specialist palliative care for local populations.
The NHS promised to support people from the cradle to the grave, and it can now realise that promise. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for laying these amendments and pay tribute to her for her tireless work in the palliative care sector and in your Lordships’ House. I also thank Marie Curie, Hospice UK, Sue Ryder, Alzheimer’s Society and Together for Short Lives for their very helpful briefing.
Clause 16 provides integrated care boards with duties to commission hospital and other health services for those for whom they are responsible. While specific services are highlighted in the clause, there is still nothing for specialist palliative care as currently drafted. There should absolutely be a fundamental right to access palliative and end-of-life care and support services for everyone who needs them. It is vital to restate that palliative care and end-of-life care are not always the same thing.
Hospices, homes and special services at home help children and adults for more than just those last few days. However, far too many people already miss out on palliative care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, set out; estimates suggest that while as many as 90% of people who die may have hospice and palliative care needs, only around 50% will actually receive it. Like many others, I am afraid I know family and friends who were desperate to move to a hospice in their last few days but ended up dying in hospital. In my stepfather’s case it was because of the bureaucracy of the hospital—at the point at which they said it was possible to move him, they said it was too late.
If we can reduce unplanned and potentially avoidable hospital admissions, it would be considerably less distressing for the patient and their families and would also reduce pressure on our hospitals.
With people in the last year of their life in England accounting for some 5.5 million bed days, it is estimated that the total cost of these admissions is over £1 billion for our already pressed acute hospital trusts. I have a friend currently receiving end-of-life care who is also stuck in a hospital. The real problem is the lack of understanding of where and how the specialist services can be provided. That is vital, because otherwise people end up in hospital and cannot get out again.
During debate on a similar amendment in Committee in the Commons, the Minister of State for Health, Edward Argar, indicated that the Government’s view is that everything is covered by aftercare. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, this is not aftercare. If you have ever seen the brilliant work of palliative care specialists, you will understand that it is real care at a vital time in people’s lives.
I mentioned Together for Short Lives in opening. I have a particular interest in children’s palliative and end-of-life care. One of the things that worries me most at the moment is that people often do not understand that respite care for families looking after young children with very serious illnesses and disabilities has been a vital way of ensuring that they can have some sort of break. They often work 18, 19, 20 hours a day, sometimes with help at home but often, during the two years of the pandemic, with no help at all.
Take the example of my local children’s respite centre, Nascot Lawn. The parents took the CCG to the High Court twice and won, but it closed down. It was not the first. Part of the problem we have with our hospices and other forms of provision is that they rely utterly on public fundraising. The last two years have been a particular problem. For children’s respite and palliative care, it is an absolute tragedy—far too many units are closing down around the country.
In addition, despite a version of the language used in Clause 16, on aftercare, having been in place since the 2012 Act, many CCGs do not currently commission sufficient specialist palliative care. Worse, in the case of Nascot Lawn, the entire onus was put on the local authority because, it was said, it was about personal care. One of my concerns is a muddle between personal care and aftercare, when all these children required specialist nursing.
It is vital that the funding element is looked at. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is right that the NHS always proudly boasted that it was there for people from the cradle to the grave. Sadly, at the moment this is not true. It is the hidden gem of our public health system and we must find a mechanism to make it not hidden but apparent and something that everyone who wants and needs it can rely on in the future.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for this important debate. I strongly support the amendments which would ensure specialist palliative care, which should be available for all adults and children across the country should they need it.
Marie Curie suggests that while as many as 90% of people who die have palliative care needs, only 50% currently receive palliative care. Research reveals that of the 23 integrated care systems in England which have so far published their strategies, only six have identified palliative and end-of-life care as a priority area, as my noble friend has stated.
After long years when my husband had complicated conditions after a stroke, it would have been very helpful to have had some palliative care at the end. He died on a Sunday. The doctor would not come out. He died with me, in an A&E department. The doctor and nurse did their very best, but it was impossible to see his medical notes and the poor doctor was in desperation. It was a difficult situation as he passed away. This is one reason why a plan with some palliative care would be helpful.
I saw the struggles that the parents had when a young cousin of mine aged seven had neuroblastoma. They did everything they could. He was treated in Germany and England; they took him to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, known for the treatment of neuroblastoma. He had spells in a children’s hospice in Yorkshire and, when in remission, went back to school.
Such parents, of whom there are many throughout the country, need support. I ask my noble friend Lady Finlay, a professor of palliative care, whether this support for parents or nearest and dearest comes under palliative care? I hope that the Government will see that palliative care should be included in this Bill.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, while we all treasure the hospice movement and revere Cicely Saunders and her disciples, the grim fact is that there are all too many parts of the country where hospices are lacking and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, explained, palliative care is limited and inadequate, or perhaps even non-existent. Of course, palliative care, available in every setting, must become a core responsibility of the NHS. We should not displace the hospices and the charitable ethos, but where hospices do not exist—mainly in poorer communities where fund-raising capacity is small—default provision should be made by the NHS. These amendments would secure universal availability of high-quality palliative care.
High-quality palliative care is, of course, not just a matter of technical skills in pain relief and so on. Dr Iona Heath, a past chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, has written:
“The whole discipline of medicine has colluded in the wider … project of seeking technical solutions to the existential problems posed by distress, suffering and the finitude of life and the inevitability of ageing, loss and death. Sickness and death have gradually come to be regarded as failures of medicine, even by doctors themselves, rather than inevitable constituents of what it is to be human.”
At a round table on the arts and palliative care, dying and bereavement convened by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing and chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, Dr Viv Lucas—medical director of the Garden House Hospice, Letchworth—said that the role of doctors in this context is not to cure disease but to heal their patients. She said that this implies
“addressing the subjective experience of human suffering and facilitating a process of inner change—not about the technological doing to of the disease-orientated model but of being with, bearing witness.”
The hospice movement acknowledges creative work to be a vital human activity. Through the arts, we can transcend suffering, come to terms with our own mortality and enable our own healing. Artist Virginia Hearth has said:
“The arts offer us a way of making sense of the world and help us to define who we are and who we have been.”
There is an abundance of evidence cited in the World Health Organization scoping review of the benefits of the arts in end-of-life care, through opportunities for communication and emotional expression, reframing of the illness experience, and enhanced human connection.
Equally, the arts can help families watching their loved ones approach death and afterwards. At another APPG round table, the director of Grampian Hospitals Art Trust, Sally Thomson, read out a letter from a woman whose husband had been diagnosed with terminal cancer:
“To be given a terminal prognosis is devastating for both the patient and family. To take away your future, the opportunity to grow old and grey with your spouse and to watch your children grow and thrive. You lose your independence and your sense of self, your purpose and role in life. Yet in the midst of this suffering lies the Artroom. An oasis of positivity and fulfilment providing a different purpose. One of creativity and self-expression. It is a place where the self is rediscovered and allowed to flourish … It’s medicine for the soul and every bit as vital as drugs and chemotherapy. A life-fulfilling experience that has changed both our lives for the better.”
As Dr Rachel Clarke, a palliative care doctor, writes in her beautiful book, Dear Life:
“What I witness, over and over, in the hospice … is that there is nothing more powerful than another human presence … reaching out with love and tenderness towards one of our own.”
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 47, to which I have attached my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her brilliant introduction to these amendments, and the other three speakers who spoke so passionately. We have debated this issue several times, and the time has now come that we should be angry about it. The time has come that we should have palliative care and hospice care being made a part of the NHS as a commitment on the face of the Bill.
I shall read the words of a government Minister in Our Commitment to You for End of Life Care—The Government Response to the Review of Choice in End of Life Care. The Minister, Ben Gummer, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Health, said this:
“A universal provision of good care will make possible what we should expect from our health and care system - a universal expectation of a good death.”
He went on to say:
“Cicely Saunders was articulating an ancient truth when she described her mission: that ‘we should see the last stages of life not as a defeat but as life’s fulfilment’. A good death - peaceful, dignified, reflective, compassionate, in the loving embrace of those closest to the dying person - is already a happy end for hundreds of thousands of people across our nation.”
The next line is important:
“In making this commitment, we make that promise universal, so that every dying person in England can live in anticipation of a good death.”
I ask the Minister: when that was written in 2016, was it an empty promise or is it likely to become a reality now?
We do not sufficiently value care for those for whom there is no cure. We do not value the short lives of children and young people who die prematurely and who will never be parents, let alone grandparents. Some Members here may have attended the annual reception held downstairs for parliamentarians by Together for Short Lives and other charities. They are attended by children and young people from the ages of three to 16, some using crutches, some using wheelchairs, some with tubes in their noses to supply oxygen, some undergoing IV treatment and some with IV pumps to relieve the pain. It brings tears to your eyes when you see them, but they all come with smiles on their faces, grateful for the care that they get—professional and dedicated care from professionals and volunteers.
So why do we rely for three-quarters of the funding for palliative and hospice care on the charity sector? Why is it that the Government fund only one-third of the care? Why, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, do these charities have to sell cakes at village fêtes and second-hand books, toys and clothes for the money that they so fervently raise? Why can we not find the money?
Sue Ryder commissioned research into the total costs required to fund palliative and hospice care for every patient that needs it. They come to about £987 million a year. I should imagine that the transaction costs of the reforms that we are debating in the Health and Care Bill will probably cost several billion pounds. So it is possible for us to reorganise the health service at a cost of billions of pounds, but we cannot fund end-of-life care for those who are dying—children, young people and older people. We should be ashamed of that.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I am pleased to give my wholehearted support to Amendment 47 and to Amendment 52, to which I have added my name, which compellingly requires the commissioning of specialist palliative care services in every part of England. Throughout my life and work I have often had the privilege of being present with families and communities, supporting people of all ages through the final chapter of their life, so I have seen at first hand the enormous difference that high-quality palliative care can make to their experience of dying, death and bereavement.
However, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Masham, pointed out, 90% of people might need such care, but as things stand at present only about half of them will receive it. What is more, it is all too often those in our most deprived communities who are dying without the help and dignity they deserve.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle. I give my very strong support to Amendment 47, to which I added my name, and Amendment 52. The key arguments have been extremely powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others.
My main concern is to make it abundantly clear that I and everyone I know who supports assisted dying also want to see the highest possible quality of palliative care across the country—not some kind of patchwork, but universally. I, like all noble Lords, have witnessed wonderful palliative care but also what I might describe as substandard care of dying people. The difference to the patient and the relatives is unforgettable for everybody involved. I visited a beautiful hospice with a warm and professional atmosphere recently, but there were empty beds because it had not been able to raise enough money from whatever it was—jumble sales, et cetera. It is entirely unacceptable that hospices are expected to raise funds to provide their services.
As I said, I also support Amendment 52, which details the types of services that must be provided as part of this country’s commitment to providing accessible and excellent care. The inclusion of the definition of palliative care as provided by the World Health Organization would ensure statutory recognition for this most important aspect of healthcare.
Finally, we need to accept that top-quality palliative care must involve patients’ wishes being understood and respected. Patient choice is more and more accepted throughout the NHS, but it is most important at the end of life. Central to top-quality palliative care will be the right of patients ultimately to decide how much suffering they wish to bear and when they have had enough. The lack of control under the current law will inevitably undermine the patient experience of palliative care, however devoted the staff.
The great majority of dying patients will die naturally, even when assisted dying becomes lawful. However, the great majority of dying people will live and die better knowing that they will have some control when it really matters—when their suffering is no longer bearable.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, whatever view we take on assisted dying, I think that there is general agreement that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, deserves a great deal of support in her two amendments. The predicament that we find ourselves in is that the Minister will probably reject them and say that the Government will ensure that the NHS prioritises these services in the future. The trouble is that we have been here many times before, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said. He mentioned 2016, but in 2015 the Economist produced its last quality of death index, as far as I can find out, which basically said that the UK had the best palliative care in the world, but it was very patchy. I am afraid that the situation has simply not moved on.
So the question is: what should we do? Clearly, it is not going to get better if you leave it to the health service. It treats hospices dreadfully, with continuous late contract signing and short-term contract signing by bodies that should be able to agree three-year rolling contracts with those institutions. The lack of priority that is given suggests to me that, unless we take legislative action, we will not see any improvement at all. That is the quandary for us in terms of collectively agreeing a way forward that makes it clear to the NHS that time is up on its neglect of palliative care. We really must take action.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I too have put my name to these amendments, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Because this is the first time that I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I remind your Lordships to refer to my Second Reading speech and entry in the register of interests for my experience and links around the topic of health. The hour is late, so I shall try to be very brief.
Although Clause 16 currently lists a number of services that the ICBs are required to commission, it fails extraordinarily to include palliative care. We have already heard that current estimates suggest that, although as many as 90% of people who die have a palliative care need, only 50% currently receive that care—only half. I find it somewhat horrifying that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, told us, a Marie Curie survey found that 64% of people who died at home did not get adequate care, with pain management.
Like others who have spoken, I know from personal experience of family members how hard it was for them to get the care they needed at the end of their life. I am sure that everyone here can share examples of exceptional local hospices, especially facing the challenges of the pandemic, that currently have to fundraise to be able to do the work to fill these gaps—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, told us, they sell cakes. It is quite extraordinary. I pay tribute to the outstanding work of the hospices and the wonderful palliative care doctors for the amazing support they give to those who are dying and their families.
Although I recognise the Government’s concerns about overprescribing the list of services that integrated care boards should commission, it seems anomalous for the Bill to proceed with priority given to ensuring that ICBs commission maternity and other services but have no explicit requirement to commission palliative care services. I am sure that this was not the Government’s intention, but I am concerned that the current drafting implies that health services for people at the end stage of their life are less important than health services for people at earlier stages. Surely the end of life is one of the times when care is needed most. I find it extraordinary that we are even having this discussion.
The addition of these amendments offers a unique opportunity to ensure that nobody with a terminal illness misses out on the care and support that they need, both now and in the future. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on these amendments, which will help us to ensure that all of us have the end-of-life experience that we would hope and wish for when our time comes.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, if we were having this debate about any other service in the NHS, people would be aghast. Can noble Lords imagine the response if we said that your access to dental treatment would be determined by the number of books sold; that your access to maternity services would be based on the number of jumble sales held; or that, ultimately, your access to ophthalmology would be dependent on the number of cakes and coffees sold at an afternoon party? These examples are no different from that of specialist palliative care, a service that is meant to be from cradle to grave. The unfortunate reason why the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has had to table her amendment, supported by other noble Lords, is that, for too many years, promises have been given but the services have not been delivered because the NHS does not commission parity of service across England.
I know quite a lot of people who work in the health service who are decent, hard-working and genuine, but the fact is that palliative care is seen by too many as an add-on and not central to the services they are providing. I do not blame them for that because, unfortunately, that is the behaviour that sometimes happens when the NHS does not have a mandate to provide specialist palliative care and people think that the local charity shop funds it. The noble Baroness has had to table Amendment 52 because we need to be clear about what this service is. It is not about just those last few days or weeks; it is not about just putting someone in a hospice. It is about giving psychological and medical care and support throughout a whole process to people with a life-threatening illness or who are at the end of life. This service needs to be commissioned against a clear understanding and definition of specialist palliative care.
I agree with many noble Lords: people across this country have waited far too long for access to specialist palliative care funded by the taxpayer. This does not mean that some of the charitable work would not continue, but such care should be a right and a service, funded by the taxpayer, which says that people will be looked after from cradle to grave.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I applaud my noble friend’s continuing persistence and commitment in seeking proper recognition of the role of specialist palliative care within our health and care services. I speak with around 40 years of clinical and clinical academic experience, first in general practice but mostly in psychiatry, and as a past president of the British Medical Association. Cicely Saunders taught me as a medical student, and she inspired my interest in this area.
Other noble Lords have stressed the shortfalls—I will not repeat them—but we know too that certain groups face significant barriers in accessing palliative and end-of-life care. Marie Curie’s A Place for Everyone report found that this included people living in poverty, alone or with dementia, as well as people with learning disabilities. My own research in clinical practice has included a focus on end-of-life issues, including decision-making, for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Most people with learning disabilities still do not get equitable end-of-life care, despite over a decade of inquiries and recommendations.
Personalising end-of-life care for everyone is in the NHS Long Term Plan. It must surely be enshrined within the duties of the ICSs. We have already heard about King’s College’s findings of a shocking lack of planning by the vast majority of ICSs. That is a problem; it cannot be left to chance. The truth also is that depression and anxiety are quite common among both those who are dying and those who are bereaved. From my perspective as a psychiatrist, I would say that we need palliative and end-of-life care to improve the experiences of both children and adults who are becoming bereaved. We know, for example, that adverse bereavement experiences in children, such as watching a family member dying in pain, are a predictor of difficulties in adulthood, in addition to affecting their educational achievements.
To achieve a comfortable death, it is imperative that the psychological distress of both the person who is dying and their nearest and dearest is understood and attended to, as well as any physical symptoms. This amendment should need no further discussion. Cicely Saunders would be horrified. I hope that the Minister will accept it. It would be a false economy not to go ahead with this provision.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I support both these amendments, and I refer to my interests as laid out in the register as a trustee of the Neurological Alliance of Scotland and chair of the Scottish Government’s National Advisory Committee for Neurological Conditions.
There is evidence, as we have heard, that people provided with early palliative care and support in all settings, as is laid out by Amendment 52, achieve better outcomes and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle said, that it prevents unwarranted hospital admission. I would commend the Minister to look at the model in Scotland, where the Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care brings together health and social care professionals from hospitals, social care services, primary care, hospices and other charities to find ways of improving people’s experiences of declining health, death, dying and bereavement.
Perhaps what differentiates palliative care from just good care is the awareness that a person’s mortality has started to influence clinical and more personal decision-making. However, I beg to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. This is not about the fact that we are all going to die; it is about life. It is about the care of someone who is alive—someone who still has hours, days, months or years remaining in their life. It is about optimising well-being in those circumstances.
A major problem for people who need and would benefit from specialist palliative care is that they are often referred very late to such services or not referred at all, because such services are erroneously perceived by many other professionals, and the public, as relevant only at the end of life. Unfortunately, access to specialist palliative care is therefore not available to people dying with neurological conditions. Although there has been some progress, most people dying with terminal or progressive neurological conditions die under the care of generalist health and social care teams, in hospitals, care homes or at home. The recent research by Marie Curie, quoted by many noble Lords this evening, points out the patchy access to palliative care, and people with neurological conditions are overrepresented in not being able to access it.
There is a very high level of unmet need. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned, we should be angry that end-of-life care is not available—and for over half of people with neurological conditions, I am angry. For those who are receiving support from generalist teams, we know that hospital beds and suitable care packages are extremely scarce, especially as the health and care system seeks to cope with the Covid pandemic and its impact. As a result, we have a problem, and people are facing the end of their life without the support they require.
In a caring society, palliative care should be embedded into this Health and Care Bill. It should be a core service, available to all those who need it. I urge the Minister to support these amendments.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Finlay. In so doing, I would like to put a question to the Minister. In the context of contemporary, 21st-century delivery of healthcare, how can it be justified that palliative care is not considered part of the continuum and has to be funded in a different way? How can it be that those specialists delivering palliative care are unable to integrate it into the broader considerations of delivery of healthcare in their institutions and systems? It seems completely counterintuitive that that continues to be the position in our country. If Her Majesty’s Government were minded not to support these amendments, it would be helpful to understand how they justify that position and justify differentiating palliative care from other services that are rightly fully funded by the state.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I feel honoured to be a fellow Member of this House with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, because of her professional and political work in raising this issue before your Lordships.
I want to use a word that has not been used yet in this debate, and that word is “fear”. The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, nearly used it when she said that people are scared. Anybody who has read the reports that say that only 50% of people who need palliative care receive it will feel fear: “Is it going to be painful?”, “Am I going to be able to bear it?” and, on the part of the carer and family members, “Is it going to be terrible for my loved one?”, “Am I going to be able to help them?”, “Am I going to be able to cope?” The physical pain is part of it, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said, the fear and the psychological distress make things a great deal worse. At a time when it is in our power to give people a good death, we are not doing it; that is a disgrace.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is fair to say that the debate today across your Lordships’ House has shown that it is impossible to understand how specialist palliative care can be regarded in any logical, practical or humane sense as something so different. I am sure that the Minister will do his very best to address that in his consideration of these important amendments.
I am grateful to noble Lords for making this debate possible by bringing forward these amendments and making sensitive, informed and often personal contributions to underline the need to ensure that specialist palliative care features in the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for setting out the fact that if we are to say that the NHS is cradle-to-grave, that must absolutely shape how we approach such services. The noble Baroness and others, including the right reverend Prelate, talked about inequality and the fact that, when we speak of specialist palliative care, inequalities are not just in the course of someone’s life but actually to the very moment they leave this world. That really had an impact on me, because that surely is an unfairness too far for us to just stand by.
Taking action could not be more pressing a need. We know that the UK’s population is ageing rapidly. The Office for National Statistics predicts that, in 20 years’ time, there will be twice as many people over the age of 85, while Marie Curie’s analysis for Cardiff University has concluded that the number of people needing palliative care will rise by 42% by 2040. This is a challenge to our society which will not go away. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, we should be able to live our lives in anticipation of a good death. The right reverend Prelate spoke of the difference of witnessing a good death, as opposed to a death that is less than what it should be.
It is important to say that, even before the pandemic, experts at the Royal College of Physicians, the Care Quality Commission, the health service ombudsman and Compassion in Dying were all sounding the alarm on how those approaching the end of their life, and their loved ones, did not, in so many circumstances, feel supported to make the decisions that faced them and that it was impossible to turn away from. They did not know what choices were available, and, sadly, were not given an honest prognosis.
The amendments in this group offer dignity to the greatly increasing numbers who will need this care, and would bring in moral and well-evidenced measures essential to providing the tailored care that is needed in the final stages of one’s life. This includes sharing information about a person’s care across the different professionals and organisations involved in that care, and providing patients and their loved ones with specialist advice, 24 hours a day, every day of the week—which expert practitioners, including those at Cicely Saunders International, have been crying out for.
My noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Howarth, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others underlined the work, role and contribution of the hospice movement, and also spoke about their incredulity at the reliance on charitable funding. Who in this Committee can be surprised at that feeling? I hope the Minister will be able to speak to that absolutely crucial point because, even before the pandemic, many hospices were suffering from poor decisions from clinical commissioning groups, poor practice, and a lack of support and recognition of the vital role that they play. That impacts on the individuals who so sorely need their services.
Marie Curie reported that 76% of carers who lost a loved one during the pandemic felt that they did not get the appropriate care that they needed. This is an opportunity to fix the problem. Every day, pandemic or none, the quality and personalisation of specialist palliative care will dictate how dignified and comfortable —or not—the end of a life will be, and how much of a burden will be borne by the carers and loved ones: whether, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, reminded us, those left behind are adults or children. These amendments seek to get it right, and the feeling of this Committee could not be clearer. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, as we reach the closing minutes of today’s debate and reflect on the wonderful contributions from across the Committee, perhaps it is fitting that we also talk about the final chapter of life, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle said.
I thank all noble Lords who spoke very movingly today, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher, Lady Hollins and Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friends Lady Hodgson and Lady Fraser, who spoke about their own experiences. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for pointing out the 42% figure, which is very important to recognise. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the engagement we had prior to this debate and for her helpful engagement with our officials and the Bill team. I hope that will continue.
What is interesting about this is that when I was younger, we as a society found it very difficult to talk about death. I was once told by my parents that the British find it very difficult to talk about death, except in faith groups. It is interesting that, over time, as we have become an ageing society, we are talking, as a matter of fact, about death. We talk about our wills, financial planning, and planning for care at the end of our life. It is appropriate that we recognise this. The fact is that, nowadays, when we look at the hospice movement, we do not think of it as a quaint little service or a charity; we think that it provides an essential service to help someone at the end of their life, and we recognise the difference between palliative care and end-of-life care.
I hope that I can reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to ensuring that people of all ages have the opportunity to benefit from high-quality, personalised palliative and end-of-life care, if and when they need it. I also pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Scriven, for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, talked about the role that the arts play in helping those at the end of their life, which he has talked about in a number of discussions we have had on this issue. Like the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, he made the point that while you want to see the state do more, you do not want to push or squeeze out the hospice movement, as we need the right balance.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken tonight and who shared their personal experiences and the passion and, indeed, anger that my noble friend Lord Patel referred to. Really, we are at the point where enough is enough. I would love to address every point individually. I greatly appreciate the Minister’s commitment in giving me access to his Bill team and to officials previously and I will take up that invitation with zeal because I will come back to this on Report. I can say now that I will divide the House on Report because enough is enough. We cannot carry on with the lack of action and the continued jumble sales, cake sales and everything else.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked me about the support for children. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, pointed out, the cost of putting this right, if you work it out, is less than £20 per person across the population. It is really low. Yes, of course, it involves children. I would like to finish with a tribute to a little boy called Stevie. Stevie told me that he was going to die when his goldfish died. His goldfish died. He then asked that we promise not to give him any more injections. We said: “Fine, we will not give you any more injections, Stevie, we will keep everything controlled.” His third point was for his parents to come in. He made them sit down and hold hands across the bed and promise to never argue again. He died shortly afterwards.
For all those children, all those adults—all those thousands of people—who are dying every minute, we must make sure that we meet their promises, that we give them good care and that they have good symptom control and good psychosocial support as they are dying and that their families do as well. Enough is enough. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.